Climate change: 2015 will be the hottest year on record 'by a mile', experts say

[threegoofs]

The amplitude of the temperature variability on
multi-decadal to centennial time-scales reconstructed
here should presumably be considered to be the
minimum of the true variability on those time-scales.

If this response is nonlinear
in nature, which is often likely the case, our interpretations
necessarily become flawed. This is
something that may result in an underestimation of
the amplitude of the variability that falls outside the
range of temperatures in the calibration period. The
true amplitude of the pre-industrial temperature variability
could also have been underestimated because
of a bias towards summer temperatures among
the proxies.


Question for CrickHam and the other believers in the Cook/Nutti 97% bullshit..

Given that phony poll only probed the ABSTRACTS to discern opinion on consensus..
How do you think this paper would have been scored?

Above is a TRUELY HONEST appraisal of the LIMITATIONS in the study.. And what climate scientists can't say for truth and certainty.. You assholes are so fixated on having consensus spoon fed to you --- that you probably never saw the REAL SCIENCE being practiced in the papers. Because you can't or won't take the time to actually live, love and appreciate science..
You're just looking for the quick score in the Fantasy Science League..

Again. The consensus is so obvious that any idiot can see it.

And if you can't see it, you're delusional or a liar.

 

[threegoofs]

Here. This should piss you guys off for a while.

Seeing the environmental forest: Enough hockey sticks for a team

 

[Billy_Bob]

The amplitude of the temperature variability on
multi-decadal to centennial time-scales reconstructed
here should presumably be considered to be the
minimum of the true variability on those time-scales.

If this response is nonlinear
in nature, which is often likely the case, our interpretations
necessarily become flawed. This is
something that may result in an underestimation of
the amplitude of the variability that falls outside the
range of temperatures in the calibration period. The
true amplitude of the pre-industrial temperature variability
could also have been underestimated because
of a bias towards summer temperatures among
the proxies.


Question for CrickHam and the other believers in the Cook/Nutti 97% bullshit..

Given that phony poll only probed the ABSTRACTS to discern opinion on consensus..
How do you think this paper would have been scored?

Above is a TRUELY HONEST appraisal of the LIMITATIONS in the study.. And what climate scientists can't say for truth and certainty.. You assholes are so fixated on having consensus spoon fed to you --- that you probably never saw the REAL SCIENCE being practiced in the papers. Because you can't or won't take the time to actually live, love and appreciate science..
You're just looking for the quick score in the Fantasy Science League..

Again. The consensus is so obvious that any idiot can see it.

And if you can't see it, you're delusional or a liar.

Your the delusional LIAR.. YOU REALLY SHOULD STOP PROJECTING YOUR OWN SHORT COMINGS.

Trying to teach you basic statistical science techniques is pointless as you would rather spout the lies than embrace the science. It's like trying to educate a brick or a rock... and they both have the same lack of any intelligence.

Tell me, If i average the last 300 years to match the proxy data you so love to quote what happens to the 'hottest ev'a' rise you all are screaming about?

 

[westwall]

The amplitude of the temperature variability on
multi-decadal to centennial time-scales reconstructed
here should presumably be considered to be the
minimum of the true variability on those time-scales.

If this response is nonlinear
in nature, which is often likely the case, our interpretations
necessarily become flawed. This is
something that may result in an underestimation of
the amplitude of the variability that falls outside the
range of temperatures in the calibration period. The
true amplitude of the pre-industrial temperature variability
could also have been underestimated because
of a bias towards summer temperatures among
the proxies.


Question for CrickHam and the other believers in the Cook/Nutti 97% bullshit..

Given that phony poll only probed the ABSTRACTS to discern opinion on consensus..
How do you think this paper would have been scored?

Above is a TRUELY HONEST appraisal of the LIMITATIONS in the study.. And what climate scientists can't say for truth and certainty.. You assholes are so fixated on having consensus spoon fed to you --- that you probably never saw the REAL SCIENCE being practiced in the papers. Because you can't or won't take the time to actually live, love and appreciate science..
You're just looking for the quick score in the Fantasy Science League..

Again. The consensus is so obvious that any idiot can see it.

And if you can't see it, you're delusional or a liar.

Please let us know when "consensus" is a term used in the scientific method. I can't seem to find it anywhere. I find the term used extensively in politics however. Maybe you should be talking about political science instead.

 

[threegoofs]

The amplitude of the temperature variability on
multi-decadal to centennial time-scales reconstructed
here should presumably be considered to be the
minimum of the true variability on those time-scales.

If this response is nonlinear
in nature, which is often likely the case, our interpretations
necessarily become flawed. This is
something that may result in an underestimation of
the amplitude of the variability that falls outside the
range of temperatures in the calibration period. The
true amplitude of the pre-industrial temperature variability
could also have been underestimated because
of a bias towards summer temperatures among
the proxies.


Question for CrickHam and the other believers in the Cook/Nutti 97% bullshit..

Given that phony poll only probed the ABSTRACTS to discern opinion on consensus..
How do you think this paper would have been scored?

Above is a TRUELY HONEST appraisal of the LIMITATIONS in the study.. And what climate scientists can't say for truth and certainty.. You assholes are so fixated on having consensus spoon fed to you --- that you probably never saw the REAL SCIENCE being practiced in the papers. Because you can't or won't take the time to actually live, love and appreciate science..
You're just looking for the quick score in the Fantasy Science League..

Again. The consensus is so obvious that any idiot can see it.

And if you can't see it, you're delusional or a liar.

Please let us know when "consensus" is a term used in the scientific method. I can't seem to find it anywhere. I find the term used extensively in politics however. Maybe you should be talking about political science instead.

It's not.

Although it's used in science for such things as the germ theory of disease, evolutionary theory, etc.

But you guys are trying to do science on a message board, with seemingly no realization that science is done in journals and at conferences.

 

[westwall]

The amplitude of the temperature variability on
multi-decadal to centennial time-scales reconstructed
here should presumably be considered to be the
minimum of the true variability on those time-scales.

If this response is nonlinear
in nature, which is often likely the case, our interpretations
necessarily become flawed. This is
something that may result in an underestimation of
the amplitude of the variability that falls outside the
range of temperatures in the calibration period. The
true amplitude of the pre-industrial temperature variability
could also have been underestimated because
of a bias towards summer temperatures among
the proxies.


Question for CrickHam and the other believers in the Cook/Nutti 97% bullshit..

Given that phony poll only probed the ABSTRACTS to discern opinion on consensus..
How do you think this paper would have been scored?

Above is a TRUELY HONEST appraisal of the LIMITATIONS in the study.. And what climate scientists can't say for truth and certainty.. You assholes are so fixated on having consensus spoon fed to you --- that you probably never saw the REAL SCIENCE being practiced in the papers. Because you can't or won't take the time to actually live, love and appreciate science..
You're just looking for the quick score in the Fantasy Science League..

Again. The consensus is so obvious that any idiot can see it.

And if you can't see it, you're delusional or a liar.

Please let us know when "consensus" is a term used in the scientific method. I can't seem to find it anywhere. I find the term used extensively in politics however. Maybe you should be talking about political science instead.

It's not.

Although it's used in science for such things as the germ theory of disease, evolutionary theory, etc.

But you guys are trying to do science on a message board, with seemingly no realization that science is done in journals and at conferences.

It is? Please show me.

 

[threegoofs]

The amplitude of the temperature variability on
multi-decadal to centennial time-scales reconstructed
here should presumably be considered to be the
minimum of the true variability on those time-scales.

If this response is nonlinear
in nature, which is often likely the case, our interpretations
necessarily become flawed. This is
something that may result in an underestimation of
the amplitude of the variability that falls outside the
range of temperatures in the calibration period. The
true amplitude of the pre-industrial temperature variability
could also have been underestimated because
of a bias towards summer temperatures among
the proxies.


Question for CrickHam and the other believers in the Cook/Nutti 97% bullshit..

Given that phony poll only probed the ABSTRACTS to discern opinion on consensus..
How do you think this paper would have been scored?

Above is a TRUELY HONEST appraisal of the LIMITATIONS in the study.. And what climate scientists can't say for truth and certainty.. You assholes are so fixated on having consensus spoon fed to you --- that you probably never saw the REAL SCIENCE being practiced in the papers. Because you can't or won't take the time to actually live, love and appreciate science..
You're just looking for the quick score in the Fantasy Science League..

Again. The consensus is so obvious that any idiot can see it.

And if you can't see it, you're delusional or a liar.

Please let us know when "consensus" is a term used in the scientific method. I can't seem to find it anywhere. I find the term used extensively in politics however. Maybe you should be talking about political science instead.

It's not.

Although it's used in science for such things as the germ theory of disease, evolutionary theory, etc.

But you guys are trying to do science on a message board, with seemingly no realization that science is done in journals and at conferences.

It is? Please show me.

Im not sure I should bother.

I mean, if I show you a parade of the most respected scientists in the world telling you something that is against your religion, you'll dismiss it outright.

But I guess I can try. Again.

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Consensus

 

[flacaltenn]

The amplitude of the temperature variability on
multi-decadal to centennial time-scales reconstructed
here should presumably be considered to be the
minimum of the true variability on those time-scales.

If this response is nonlinear
in nature, which is often likely the case, our interpretations
necessarily become flawed. This is
something that may result in an underestimation of
the amplitude of the variability that falls outside the
range of temperatures in the calibration period. The
true amplitude of the pre-industrial temperature variability
could also have been underestimated because
of a bias towards summer temperatures among
the proxies.


Question for CrickHam and the other believers in the Cook/Nutti 97% bullshit..

Given that phony poll only probed the ABSTRACTS to discern opinion on consensus..
How do you think this paper would have been scored?

Above is a TRUELY HONEST appraisal of the LIMITATIONS in the study.. And what climate scientists can't say for truth and certainty.. You assholes are so fixated on having consensus spoon fed to you --- that you probably never saw the REAL SCIENCE being practiced in the papers. Because you can't or won't take the time to actually live, love and appreciate science..
You're just looking for the quick score in the Fantasy Science League..

Again. The consensus is so obvious that any idiot can see it.

And if you can't see it, you're delusional or a liar.

Didn't address the question. Or comment on the statements of uncertainties in this work. When CONFRONTED with actual climate science -- are you pretending to be incapable of discussing it? Or ACTUALLY incapable of discussing it --- without all the juvenile ad homs and deference to your "beliefs"?

 

[flacaltenn]

The amplitude of the temperature variability on
multi-decadal to centennial time-scales reconstructed
here should presumably be considered to be the
minimum of the true variability on those time-scales.

If this response is nonlinear
in nature, which is often likely the case, our interpretations
necessarily become flawed. This is
something that may result in an underestimation of
the amplitude of the variability that falls outside the
range of temperatures in the calibration period. The
true amplitude of the pre-industrial temperature variability
could also have been underestimated because
of a bias towards summer temperatures among
the proxies.


Question for CrickHam and the other believers in the Cook/Nutti 97% bullshit..

Given that phony poll only probed the ABSTRACTS to discern opinion on consensus..
How do you think this paper would have been scored?

Above is a TRUELY HONEST appraisal of the LIMITATIONS in the study.. And what climate scientists can't say for truth and certainty.. You assholes are so fixated on having consensus spoon fed to you --- that you probably never saw the REAL SCIENCE being practiced in the papers. Because you can't or won't take the time to actually live, love and appreciate science..
You're just looking for the quick score in the Fantasy Science League..

Again. The consensus is so obvious that any idiot can see it.

And if you can't see it, you're delusional or a liar.

Please let us know when "consensus" is a term used in the scientific method. I can't seem to find it anywhere. I find the term used extensively in politics however. Maybe you should be talking about political science instead.

It's not.

Although it's used in science for such things as the germ theory of disease, evolutionary theory, etc.

But you guys are trying to do science on a message board, with seemingly no realization that science is done in journals and at conferences.

It is? Please show me.

Im not sure I should bother.

I mean, if I show you a parade of the most respected scientists in the world telling you something that is against your religion, you'll dismiss it outright.

But I guess I can try. Again.

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Consensus

I notice you don't really pick up on things too easily. That list of "consensus" organizations INCLUDES the AMS..Given what you were recently shown about the actual LACK of consensus on anything truly important to the planet within the AMS -- how much do you think I or reasonable folks should value that govt propaganda as "consensus"??

 

[flacaltenn]

Here. This should piss you guys off for a while.

Seeing the environmental forest: Enough hockey sticks for a team

How do you feel about folks quoting "blogs"?? Should I retrieve your insults and recycle them?
You are a piece of work. Actually -- I love blogs. Especially in science. In the old days, we used to have academic and corporate librarians who would work on your questions and tell you WHERE to find relevant material. I couldn't have survived without them.. I think blogs are just the 21st century librarians. You don't expect them to be right or experts on the topics -- but they ALWAYS seek out and find material that is relevant to your interest..

Go ahead -- be a blog head --- but follow thru with the disciplined learning that should result.. .

 

[flacaltenn]

Here. This should piss you guys off for a while.

Seeing the environmental forest: Enough hockey sticks for a team

Took a look at couple of those at random.. Let me show you how stupid you are to cut and paste WITHOUT reading any of the paper details.. Let's take THIS ONE....

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/Croninetal-GlobPlanChng03.pdf

Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and 20th century temperature variability from Chesapeake Bay T.M. Cronin a,*, G.S. Dwyer b , T. Kamiya c , S. Schwede a , D.A. Willard a a National Center, MS 926A, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA 20192, USA b Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA c Department of Geology, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, Japan

Abstract
We present paleoclimate evidence for rapid ( < 100 years) shifts of f 2–4 jC in Chesapeake Bay (CB) temperature from 2100, 1600, 950, 650, 400 and 150 years before present (years BP) reconstructed from magnesium/calcium (Mg/Ca) paleothermometry. These include large temperature excursions during the Little Ice Age (f1400 – 1900 AD) and the Medieval Warm Period (f800 – 1300 AD) possibly related to changes in the strength of North Atlantic thermohaline circulation (THC). Evidence is presented for a long period of sustained regional and North Atlantic-wide warmth with low-amplitude temperature variability between f450 and 1000 AD. In addition to centennial-scale temperature shifts, the existence of numerous temperature maxima between 2200 and 250 years BP (average f70 years) suggests that multi-decadal processes typical of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) are an inherent feature of late Holocene climate. However, late 19th and 20th century temperature extremes in Chesapeake Bay associated with NAO climate variability exceeded those of the prior 2000 years,
including the interval 450 – 1000 AD, by 2 – 3 jC, suggesting anomalous recent behavior of the climate system.

Which AGAIN bolsters every assertion I've made about LOCAL versus GLOBAL proxy studies..
They found NATURAL VARIABILITY in shallow WATER temperature of 2 to 4 degC.. In less than 100 YEARS !!!!

Now that's NOT the same as ATMOS temperature. In fact, it's harder to affect those those insulated little mudbugs they study several tens of METERS below the surface of Cheasapeake Bay..

AND those 2 to 3 degC water temperature shifts?? Not fully resolved. Could have been higher. Doubtfully lower. And you're still convinced that the 0.6degC shift in GLOBAL air temperature in your lifetime is COMPLETELY man made and unnatural??

Several probs with this paper. One is fairly obvious and I'll leave it to you to explore and find it.. But THANKS for calling it to my attention and I will certainly add this to my files to contradict the TRUE hockey sticks of Mann and the others that give the impression that there is VIRTUALLY NO natural variability in the climate history before the 20th century..

Again -- LOCAL individual proxies show MORE resolution and MORE natural variation than found in the juvenile attempts to extend 70 or 80 proxies to a GLOBAL reconstruction..

 

[IanC]

IPCC 1990 graph estimating the historical temps of the last thousand years.

by 2001 the IPCC had changed its mind and gone with -

no more MWP, no more LIA. Skeptics think there is a lot of historical information that supports both the MWP and LIA, that simply removing them just doesnt make sense with out extraordinary evidence. so what was Mann's evidence? proxies.

Fig. 4.2 Top panel: The simple average of the 415 proxy series in Mann’s dataset looks nothing like a hockey stick, and doesn’t even slope upward in the 20th century. Bottom panel: The hockey-stick shape emerged solely as a result of the way the data were averaged. Mann overweighted a small set of tree-ring data from bristlecone pines in the western USA, which had long been viewed as unreliable indicators of historical temperature. (McKitrick, 2007b)

I consider his evidence unconvincing.

let's consider another avenue. the borehole proxies. in 1998 Huang produced a borehole graph using many thousands of borehole data -

after MBH98,99 were criticized, the climate science field mobilized to support Mann. Huang came up with a new graph using only a few hundred boreholes which was part of many new spaghetti graphs that 'confirmed' the hockeystick.

by 2008 Huang decided he better get back to doing science so he drafted a new graph, not using as much data as the first but more than the second.

it is amazing how different the results are depending on which proxy data is included, and what the goal is.

 

[Crick]

You seem to think it impossible for data to be improved. Older is better. Got it.

And what NON-PROXY method do you have for temperature data prior to the widespread use of thermometers Ian.

 

[IanC]

You seem to think it impossible for data to be improved. Older is better. Got it.

And what NON-PROXY method do you have for temperature data prior to the widespread use of thermometers Ian.

as usual, you dont seem to get my point. Huang in particular wasnt using 'new and improved' data. he was using a subset of the available data to produce a desired outcome. Mann used novel and untested methods to coax residuals out that he could claim supported his new paradigm of no MWP or LIA.

proxy reconstructions work best when the person doing the experiment doesnt know what is in the proxies. that is an unreasonable assumption in the narrow field of climate science. the authors know which proxies are available, what they show, and which versions are convenient. quite often proxies are updated with more samples but it has certainly happened that the new version has less valued attributes than the older, less complete versions. eg Briffa sat on new samples in 2007 because he knew they would ruin his dataset for proxy reconstructions. he finally updated them in 2012, and sure enough, they are no longer a prized addition used in hockeystick graphs. Hughes (or maybe it was Bradley) of MBH98, 99 had a grad student that updated one of the bristlecone series, showing little of the previous hockeystick shape. it has never been released, the old vwersion is used.

there are few scientists that lack integrity to the extent that Mann was willing to knowingly use upsidedown proxies, but there are more than a few that will tweak their inclusion criteria so that known hockeystick proxies will be preferentially included. As d'Arrago said," you have to pick cherries if you want cherry pie".

 

[threegoofs]

Again. The consensus is so obvious that any idiot can see it.

And if you can't see it, you're delusional or a liar.

Please let us know when "consensus" is a term used in the scientific method. I can't seem to find it anywhere. I find the term used extensively in politics however. Maybe you should be talking about political science instead.

It's not.

Although it's used in science for such things as the germ theory of disease, evolutionary theory, etc.

But you guys are trying to do science on a message board, with seemingly no realization that science is done in journals and at conferences.

It is? Please show me.

Im not sure I should bother.

I mean, if I show you a parade of the most respected scientists in the world telling you something that is against your religion, you'll dismiss it outright.

But I guess I can try. Again.

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Consensus

I notice you don't really pick up on things too easily. That list of "consensus" organizations INCLUDES the AMS..Given what you were recently shown about the actual LACK of consensus on anything truly important to the planet within the AMS -- how much do you think I or reasonable folks should value that govt propaganda as "consensus"??

This is what the AMS says:


"There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate. To inform decisions on adaptation and mitigation, it is critical that we improve our understanding of the global climate system and our ability to project future climate through continued and improved monitoring and research. This is especially true for smaller (seasonal and regional) scales and weather and climate extremes, and for important hydroclimatic variables such as precipitation and water availability."

2012 AMS Information Statement on Climate Change

So... Delusional? Or liar?

 

[threegoofs]

Here. This should piss you guys off for a while.

Seeing the environmental forest: Enough hockey sticks for a team

Took a look at couple of those at random.. Let me show you how stupid you are to cut and paste WITHOUT reading any of the paper details.. Let's take THIS ONE....

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/Croninetal-GlobPlanChng03.pdf

Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and 20th century temperature variability from Chesapeake Bay T.M. Cronin a,*, G.S. Dwyer b , T. Kamiya c , S. Schwede a , D.A. Willard a a National Center, MS 926A, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA 20192, USA b Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA c Department of Geology, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, Japan

Abstract
We present paleoclimate evidence for rapid ( < 100 years) shifts of f 2–4 jC in Chesapeake Bay (CB) temperature from 2100, 1600, 950, 650, 400 and 150 years before present (years BP) reconstructed from magnesium/calcium (Mg/Ca) paleothermometry. These include large temperature excursions during the Little Ice Age (f1400 – 1900 AD) and the Medieval Warm Period (f800 – 1300 AD) possibly related to changes in the strength of North Atlantic thermohaline circulation (THC). Evidence is presented for a long period of sustained regional and North Atlantic-wide warmth with low-amplitude temperature variability between f450 and 1000 AD. In addition to centennial-scale temperature shifts, the existence of numerous temperature maxima between 2200 and 250 years BP (average f70 years) suggests that multi-decadal processes typical of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) are an inherent feature of late Holocene climate. However, late 19th and 20th century temperature extremes in Chesapeake Bay associated with NAO climate variability exceeded those of the prior 2000 years,
including the interval 450 – 1000 AD, by 2 – 3 jC, suggesting anomalous recent behavior of the climate system.

Which AGAIN bolsters every assertion I've made about LOCAL versus GLOBAL proxy studies..
They found NATURAL VARIABILITY in shallow WATER temperature of 2 to 4 degC.. In less than 100 YEARS !!!!

Now that's NOT the same as ATMOS temperature. In fact, it's harder to affect those those insulated little mudbugs they study several tens of METERS below the surface of Cheasapeake Bay..

AND those 2 to 3 degC water temperature shifts?? Not fully resolved. Could have been higher. Doubtfully lower. And you're still convinced that the 0.6degC shift in GLOBAL air temperature in your lifetime is COMPLETELY man made and unnatural??

Several probs with this paper. One is fairly obvious and I'll leave it to you to explore and find it.. But THANKS for calling it to my attention and I will certainly add this to my files to contradict the TRUE hockey sticks of Mann and the others that give the impression that there is VIRTUALLY NO natural variability in the climate history before the 20th century..

Again -- LOCAL individual proxies show MORE resolution and MORE natural variation than found in the juvenile attempts to extend 70 or 80 proxies to a GLOBAL reconstruction..

Didja stop reading before the last sentence?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Tell me, If i average the last 300 years to match the proxy data you so love to quote what happens to the 'hottest ev'a' rise you all are screaming about?

And still no answer to this very basic question... Threefools where did you go?

 

[threegoofs]

Tell me, If i average the last 300 years to match the proxy data you so love to quote what happens to the 'hottest ev'a' rise you all are screaming about?

And still no answer to this very basic question... Threefools where did you go?

Answered. Read.

 

[mamooth]

Preliminary August 2015 temperature anomaly from NASA-GISS is +0.86C. That's the hottest August in the record, beating the old record of +0.81C from 2014. The official release doesn't come until Thursday 9/17/2015.

 

[flacaltenn]

Please let us know when "consensus" is a term used in the scientific method. I can't seem to find it anywhere. I find the term used extensively in politics however. Maybe you should be talking about political science instead.

It's not.

Although it's used in science for such things as the germ theory of disease, evolutionary theory, etc.

But you guys are trying to do science on a message board, with seemingly no realization that science is done in journals and at conferences.

It is? Please show me.

Im not sure I should bother.

I mean, if I show you a parade of the most respected scientists in the world telling you something that is against your religion, you'll dismiss it outright.

But I guess I can try. Again.

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Consensus

I notice you don't really pick up on things too easily. That list of "consensus" organizations INCLUDES the AMS..Given what you were recently shown about the actual LACK of consensus on anything truly important to the planet within the AMS -- how much do you think I or reasonable folks should value that govt propaganda as "consensus"??

This is what the AMS says:


"There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate. To inform decisions on adaptation and mitigation, it is critical that we improve our understanding of the global climate system and our ability to project future climate through continued and improved monitoring and research. This is especially true for smaller (seasonal and regional) scales and weather and climate extremes, and for important hydroclimatic variables such as precipitation and water availability."

2012 AMS Information Statement on Climate Change

So... Delusional? Or liar?

You've already forgotten what the POLL of AMS said --- as opposed to this political front office statement says.
Poll show MUCH uncertainty among AMS members and no general consensus on the DETAILS of the GW theory.