Climate Change Skeptics Eat Crow

[Si modo]

LOL. So says the chief politisizer of science. LOL

Of course anyone who wants the science to speak rather than windbag poseurs is politicizing science, to you.

 

[gslack]

LOL. So says the chief politisizer of science. LOL

So you agree with what he claimed? What would your bosses think of that? What? You think they really do vote Democrat? LOL

 

[rdean]

Right wingers will only eat crow if they admit they were wrong about something. Look at the last 20 years. They've been wrong about everything. Everything they've touched has turned to shit. Yet they admit to doing no wrong. Ask then to name a success and they can't.

Even they know Iraq is a terrible disaster. Women in burkas, Iraq friends with Iran. China getting their oil. Thousands of Americans dead. Tens of thousands maimed.

Look how they handled Katrina. Putting people into carcinogenic trailers and blaming the survivors for being poor.

Moving millions of jobs to China.

And instead of taking responsibility for all their many failures, they feel Democrats should have stopped them so it's really the Democrats fault.

And what are they doing now? Abortion? Reaffirming "in God we Trust"? Tax cuts for billionaires? Applauding executions? Let him die? Voter suppression?

They are not going to change.

I bolded all the parts that I am going to address...

"Right wingers will only eat crow if they admit they were wrong about something. Look at the last 20 years. They've been wrong about everything."

Yeah and can you at least point a finger at all the Democrats who were involved too? how about Obama mimicking Bush policies save health care? Anything? no???


"Even they know Iraq is a terrible disaster. Women in burkas, Iraq friends with Iran. China getting their oil."

A terrible disaster that quite a few Democrats voted yes to go into.. Mnay of them in Obama's cabinet now.. but I guess thats okay they were duped huh.. yeah and for that naivety they were rewarded.... Nice..

Btw what you have against burkas? its a religious practice THEIR RELIGIOUS PRACTICE! You want to dictate how the worship their deity now?

Iraq and Iran friends now? They make "friends" like they make enemies; fast and loose..

China paid for it! besides you don't like oil remember? And really you have to get a grasp for this modern global governance the UN is bringing.. After all you agree with it.. If you agree with socialism as its being pushed today, that is exactly what you are going to support...

"Look how they handled Katrina. Putting people into carcinogenic trailers and blaming the survivors for being poor."

So you contend Republicans put people in "carcinogenic" trailers, and blamed people for being poor? Got any proof of any of that? nah all you got is some stories told about glue inside trailers not being dry enough and someones claim that caused cancer in some... So exactly which Republican in office then made, placed, and put those survivors in those trailers? And exactly what evidence do you have the glue gave them cancer? For the record a possible cause is not a statement of fact... BTW, FEMA, Local law enforcement, and various other groups handled Katrina. most likely full of Dems and Reps in those groups...

"Moving millions of jobs to China."

And that didn't start years ago with NAFTA and CAFTA? And that was a democrat as i recall...

"And instead of taking responsibility for all their many failures, they feel Democrats should have stopped them so it's really the Democrats fault."

And exactly what have you done this entire post? Talk about scapegoating, dude you just blamed everything on one political party and completely ignored any democrats involvement... WOW!

"And what are they doing now? Abortion? Reaffirming "in God we Trust"? Tax cuts for billionaires? Applauding executions? Let him die? Voter suppression?"

What the hell are you talking about? Abortion? Seriously What the hell does that vague statement mean?

The rest of it, ALL OF IT, was you being a blubbering idiot... Man up crybaby make a clear point or don't but quite being such a whiny little reactionary..

Look at that. I put down the Republican Presidential talking points from their Presidential debates and it says, "What the hell are you talking about?" Hilarious.

Women in Burkas is a "GOOD" thing. What can you say for such stupidity? China got their oil because they paid for it?

This is the problem with right wingers. Even the most simple thing has to be explained. The war wasn't going to cost us anything because it was going to be paid for with Iraqi oil. Women in Iraq used to dress EXACTLY like us. Now they can't even go out side without a male escort. You are with us or with the terrorists. Just those trailers after Katrina was a scandal. Go look it up. You sit in front of a damn computer. There is no excuse for being so poorly informed.

What is wrong with you guys? How can you know so little about what has gone on in the last 10 years? It's "determined ignorance".

I don't know what to say. Honestly. Republicans and right wingers are so far gone. Is it the inbreeding? Have they been sniffing car exhaust? What is it? They must have been drinking mercury. I don't know.

 

[westwall]

LOL. So says the chief politisizer of science. LOL

Look in the mirror with that statement MENSA boy. The sceptical side has NO political influence. The alarmists have most of the politicians, a former VP, the head of one of the most powerful organisations in the UN, and they've taken over the boards of directors of the major scientific organisations.

Fortunately we have science on our side or the country would be doomed. The people have figured out that you are the political hacks and they are abandoning you in droves.

And for that we thank you!

 

[gslack]

Right wingers will only eat crow if they admit they were wrong about something. Look at the last 20 years. They've been wrong about everything. Everything they've touched has turned to shit. Yet they admit to doing no wrong. Ask then to name a success and they can't.

Even they know Iraq is a terrible disaster. Women in burkas, Iraq friends with Iran. China getting their oil. Thousands of Americans dead. Tens of thousands maimed.

Look how they handled Katrina. Putting people into carcinogenic trailers and blaming the survivors for being poor.

Moving millions of jobs to China.

And instead of taking responsibility for all their many failures, they feel Democrats should have stopped them so it's really the Democrats fault.

And what are they doing now? Abortion? Reaffirming "in God we Trust"? Tax cuts for billionaires? Applauding executions? Let him die? Voter suppression?

They are not going to change.

I bolded all the parts that I am going to address...

"Right wingers will only eat crow if they admit they were wrong about something. Look at the last 20 years. They've been wrong about everything."

Yeah and can you at least point a finger at all the Democrats who were involved too? how about Obama mimicking Bush policies save health care? Anything? no???


"Even they know Iraq is a terrible disaster. Women in burkas, Iraq friends with Iran. China getting their oil."

A terrible disaster that quite a few Democrats voted yes to go into.. Mnay of them in Obama's cabinet now.. but I guess thats okay they were duped huh.. yeah and for that naivety they were rewarded.... Nice..

Btw what you have against burkas? its a religious practice THEIR RELIGIOUS PRACTICE! You want to dictate how the worship their deity now?

Iraq and Iran friends now? They make "friends" like they make enemies; fast and loose..

China paid for it! besides you don't like oil remember? And really you have to get a grasp for this modern global governance the UN is bringing.. After all you agree with it.. If you agree with socialism as its being pushed today, that is exactly what you are going to support...

"Look how they handled Katrina. Putting people into carcinogenic trailers and blaming the survivors for being poor."

So you contend Republicans put people in "carcinogenic" trailers, and blamed people for being poor? Got any proof of any of that? nah all you got is some stories told about glue inside trailers not being dry enough and someones claim that caused cancer in some... So exactly which Republican in office then made, placed, and put those survivors in those trailers? And exactly what evidence do you have the glue gave them cancer? For the record a possible cause is not a statement of fact... BTW, FEMA, Local law enforcement, and various other groups handled Katrina. most likely full of Dems and Reps in those groups...

"Moving millions of jobs to China."

And that didn't start years ago with NAFTA and CAFTA? And that was a democrat as i recall...

"And instead of taking responsibility for all their many failures, they feel Democrats should have stopped them so it's really the Democrats fault."

And exactly what have you done this entire post? Talk about scapegoating, dude you just blamed everything on one political party and completely ignored any democrats involvement... WOW!

"And what are they doing now? Abortion? Reaffirming "in God we Trust"? Tax cuts for billionaires? Applauding executions? Let him die? Voter suppression?"

What the hell are you talking about? Abortion? Seriously What the hell does that vague statement mean?

The rest of it, ALL OF IT, was you being a blubbering idiot... Man up crybaby make a clear point or don't but quite being such a whiny little reactionary..

Look at that. I put down the Republican Presidential talking points from their Presidential debates and it says, "What the hell are you talking about?" Hilarious.

Women in Burkas is a "GOOD" thing. What can you say for such stupidity? China got their oil because they paid for it?

This is the problem with right wingers. Even the most simple thing has to be explained. The war wasn't going to cost us anything because it was going to be paid for with Iraqi oil. Women in Iraq used to dress EXACTLY like us. Now they can't even go out side without a male escort. You are with us or with the terrorists. Just those trailers after Katrina was a scandal. Go look it up. You sit in front of a damn computer. There is no excuse for being so poorly informed.

What is wrong with you guys? How can you know so little about what has gone on in the last 10 years? It's "determined ignorance".

I don't know what to say. Honestly. Republicans and right wingers are so far gone. Is it the inbreeding? Have they been sniffing car exhaust? What is it? They must have been drinking mercury. I don't know.

Okay douchebag, you got lucky enough to catch me in a mood... First, you call me "it".... FUCK YOU ASSHOLE!

Second you lied about what I said even while you quoted my post? Are you really that retarded or are you just hoping to get humiliated?

You complete imbecile... Do you have any idea that you quoted what i said above and then lied about what I said in the same post?

"Women in Burkas is a "GOOD" thing. What can you say for such stupidity? China got their oil because they paid for it?"

Please point to where I said any such thing? Come on idiot point it out to me..

" The war wasn't going to cost us anything because it was going to be paid for with Iraqi oil."

Really? And why didn't any of the number of Democrats in the senate say or do anything about it? Whats more you really think a people who were invaded should use their own resources to rebuild? We visited the war onto them dumbass.. I shouldn't be surprised by your stupidity on this because you just quoted me and then lied about the quotes, in effect paying for me to kick your ass with your own statements...

"Women in Iraq used to dress EXACTLY like us. Now they can't even go out side without a male escort."

And? Seriously the country chose their government and the one they chose has a strong traditional muslim base. Don't like it? Fine but YOU don't get to dictate how other people live their lives asshole.. its not up to you shithead, its up those people.. You want to dictate how people live.. Pathetic..

"Just those trailers after Katrina was a scandal. Go look it up. You sit in front of a damn computer. There is no excuse for being so poorly informed."

WTH are you crying about now? Freaking whiny little punk, are you drunk? Sober up before to post to me idiot.. Did you even read my post at all? Either you didn't read it or you are to drunk or high to grasp what I said... Drink another 5th before you post moron it really helps...

"What is wrong with you guys? How can you know so little about what has gone on in the last 10 years? It's "determined ignorance"."

You dumb drunk moron.. You don't even remember who was in congress and when do you?

"I don't know what to say. Honestly. Republicans and right wingers are so far gone. Is it the inbreeding? Have they been sniffing car exhaust? What is it? They must have been drinking mercury. I don't know."

I dont know what to say either.. You just quoted my post and responded by lying about what you quoted from me... Seriously, that is retarded...

Want to know what I think? Well you're gonna hear it.. I think you are a drunk who blames everyone else for it.. You think your lot in life was due to someone else and not you. Well I got news for ya crybaby, you are posting drunk in a web forum and making a complete ass of yourself in the process. Nothing more pathetic a lone drunk.. This why they tell you not to drink alone...

Now go sober up and try again later sometime...

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, Walleyes, science has spoken loud and clear.

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

Human Impacts on Climate
Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

 

[Si modo]

Yes, Walleyes, science has spoken loud and clear.

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

Human Impacts on Climate
Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

Science is not done by consensus.

But, you keep thinking it is.

 

[wirebender]

Yes, Walleyes, science has spoken loud and clear.

While it is true that climate pseudoscience has spoken quite loudly, there is little evidence that they have been clear

Human Impacts on Climate
Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming.

So tell me rocks, when has the earth's climate ever been in balance and when has it ever not been either warming or cooling? What we are seeing in the climate is business as usual.

Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.

A deliberate lie. What is happening today with the temperatures of the atmosphere, land, and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the seal level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons that is outside of, or even close to the boundries of natural variability? Give me one example in the list above that is even approaching the limits of natural variability? Your inability to answer that question puts the lie to the rest of the statement as well.

What you have proven is that the political heads of scientific bodies will prostitute themselves, and the bodies they are supposed to be representing if enough money is to be had for the service.

 

[westwall]

Yes, Walleyes, science has spoken loud and clear.

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

Human Impacts on Climate
Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

Science is not done by consensus.

But, you keep thinking it is.

"Consensus" is all the fraudsters have. Politics in science? I give you consensus!

 

[Si modo]

Yes, Walleyes, science has spoken loud and clear.

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

Human Impacts on Climate
Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

Science is not done by consensus.

But, you keep thinking it is.

"Consensus" is all the fraudsters have. Politics in science? I give you consensus!

Exactly - prima facie.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, Walleyes, science has spoken loud and clear.

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

Human Impacts on Climate
Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural

What is the "natural rate" and what causes it?
What is the unnatural rate caused by man?
Precise numbers would be helpful.
Thanks!

 

[IanC]

I hope you've been reading the full article that goes with the abstract I posted. You did assure me you had access.

Then, could you share your thoughts on this?

Quantifying the human contribution to global warming

Quantifying the human contribution to global warming
Posted on 3 September 2010 by dana1981

The amount of warming caused by the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2 may be one of the most misunderstood subjects in climate science. Many people think the anthropogenic warming can't be quantified, many others think it must be an insignificant amount. However, climate scientists have indeed quantified the anthropogenic contribution to global warming using empirical observations and fundamental physical equations.

It's another golden opportunity for you.

SAT- I have no problem with you referencing blogs. there is a lot of interesting and timely information that is accessible only through blogs. we wouldnt know what papers were available if blog owners and their commenters didnt bring them to our attention.

that said, which blogs do you trust more? do you consider SkepticalScience more accurate and believable than Climate Audit or Watts Up With That? if you do, what are your judging criteria? SkS changes thier articles, modifies both moderator's and commentor's posts without acknowledgement or notice while CA and WUWT dont. and many commentors cant even post with the censorship present at SkS although CA and WUWT do snip inappropriate comments occasionally they mark them as such. you decide which method has more integrity.

I actually partially agree with dana1981's article on attribution. doubling CO2 concentration should theoretically raise temp by 1.0-1.2C, everything else being held the same. because the effect is logarthmic so we should be seeing about 0.5-06C warming by now. another 0.5-0.6C when we have the full double at 560 ppm CO2. another 0.5-06C at 800ppm and another 05-0.6C when the ppmCO2 has reached 1120 for two complete doublings. 2.0-2.4C for two full doublings. I'm not convinced that another 1.5-1.8C warming for the next 730ppm CO2 means we must cripple our economies to reduce our CO2 emissions by a miniscule amount. I think we should keep measuring and exploring the factors that effect climate but I dont think we should make rash decisions on obviously incomplete understanding.

 

[RollingThunder]

Yes, Walleyes, science has spoken loud and clear.

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

Human Impacts on Climate
Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

Science is not done by consensus.

But, you keep thinking it is.

Nobody thinks "science is done by consensus", nitwit. Modern climate science is based on many decades of observation and data, studies of the Earth's past climate changes and literally mountains of physical evidence. There is a consensus among the world's scientists that mankind is producing global warming and the associated climate changes but that consensus is based on the actual science and evidence, not the other way around as your idiotic denier cult strawman argument would have it.

Since you are obviously so extremely ignorant about science, perhaps this would help you get a grasp on the issue.

Scientific consensus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.[1]

Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others) and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the 'normal' debates through which science progresses may seem to outsiders as contestation.[2]

Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which may not be controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution[3][4] or the claimed linkage of MMR vaccinations and autism.[2]

Uncertainty and scientific consensus in policy making

In public policy debates, the assertion that there exists a consensus of scientists in a particular field is often used as an argument for the validity of a theory and as support for a course of action by those who stand to gain from a policy based on that consensus. Similarly arguments for a lack of scientific consensus are often encouraged by sides who stand to gain from a more ambiguous policy.

People of various backgrounds (political, scientific, media, action groups, and so on) have argued that there is a scientific consensus on the causes of global warming. The historian of science Naomi Oreskes published an article in Science reporting that a survey of the abstracts of 928 science articles published between 1993 and 2003 showed none which disagreed explicitly with the notion of anthropogenic global warming.[10] In an editorial published in the Washington Post, Oreskes stated that those who opposed these scientific findings are amplifying the normal range of scientific uncertainty about any facts into an appearance that there is a great scientific disagreement, or a lack of scientific consensus.[11] Oreskes's findings were replicated by other methods that require no interpretation.[2]

The theory of evolution through natural selection is an accepted part of the science of biology, to the extent that few observations in biology can be understood without reference to natural selection and common descent. Opponents of evolution claim that there is significant dissent on evolution within the scientific community.[12] The wedge strategy, an ambitious plan to supplant scientific materialism seen as inimical to religion, with a religion-friendly theistic science, depended greatly on seeding and building on public perceptions of absence of consensus on evolution.[13] Stephen Jay Gould has argued that creationists misunderstand the nature of the debate within the scientific community, which is not about "if" evolution occurred, but "how" it occurred.[12]

The inherent uncertainty in science, where theories are never proven but can only be disproven (see falsifiability), poses a problem for politicians, policymakers, lawyers, and business professionals. Where scientific or philosophical questions can often languish in uncertainty for decades within their disciplinary settings, policymakers are faced with the problems of making sound decisions based on the currently available data, even if it is likely not a final form of the "truth". The tricky part is discerning what is close enough to "final truth". For example, social action against smoking probably came too long after science was 'pretty consensual'.[2]

Certain domains, such as the approval of certain technologies for public consumption, can have vast and far-reaching political, economic, and human effects should things run awry of the predictions of scientists. However, insofar as there is an expectation that policy in a given field reflect knowable and pertinent data and well-accepted models of the relationships between observable phenomena, there is little good alternative for policy makers than to rely on so much of what may fairly be called 'the scientific consensus' in guiding policy design and implementation, at least in circumstances where the need for policy intervention is compelling. While science cannot supply 'absolute truth' (or even its complement 'absolute error') its utility is bound up with the capacity to guide policy in the direction of increased public good and away from public harm. Seen in this way, the demand that policy rely only on what is proven to be "scientific truth" would be a prescription for policy paralysis and amount in practice to advocacy of acceptance of all of the quantified and unquantified costs and risks associated with policy inaction.[2] Such considerations informed the development of 'the precautionary principle'.

No part of policy formation on the basis of the ostensible scientific consensus precludes persistent review either of the relevant scientific consensus or the tangible results of policy. Indeed, the same reasons that drove reliance upon the consensus drives the continued evaluation of this reliance over time—and adjusting policy as needed.

 

[SAT]

The science of AGW has not been "done by consensus". A statement on AGW laid out the current consensus on climate science.

This topic, like just about every topic, has been politicized by the right, with funding from rich donors who have a financial interest in confusing the public.

 

[westwall]

Yes, Walleyes, science has spoken loud and clear.

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

Human Impacts on Climate
Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

Science is not done by consensus.

But, you keep thinking it is.

Nobody thinks "science is done by consensus", nitwit. Modern climate science is based on many decades of observation and data, studies of the Earth's past climate changes and literally mountains of physical evidence. There is a consensus among the world's scientists that mankind is producing global warming and the associated climate changes but that consensus is based on the actual science and evidence, not the other way around as your idiotic denier cult strawman argument would have it.

Since you are obviously so extremely ignorant about science, perhaps this would help you get a grasp on the issue.

Scientific consensus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.[1]

Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others) and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the 'normal' debates through which science progresses may seem to outsiders as contestation.[2]

Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which may not be controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution[3][4] or the claimed linkage of MMR vaccinations and autism.[2]

Uncertainty and scientific consensus in policy making

In public policy debates, the assertion that there exists a consensus of scientists in a particular field is often used as an argument for the validity of a theory and as support for a course of action by those who stand to gain from a policy based on that consensus. Similarly arguments for a lack of scientific consensus are often encouraged by sides who stand to gain from a more ambiguous policy.

People of various backgrounds (political, scientific, media, action groups, and so on) have argued that there is a scientific consensus on the causes of global warming. The historian of science Naomi Oreskes published an article in Science reporting that a survey of the abstracts of 928 science articles published between 1993 and 2003 showed none which disagreed explicitly with the notion of anthropogenic global warming.[10] In an editorial published in the Washington Post, Oreskes stated that those who opposed these scientific findings are amplifying the normal range of scientific uncertainty about any facts into an appearance that there is a great scientific disagreement, or a lack of scientific consensus.[11] Oreskes's findings were replicated by other methods that require no interpretation.[2]

The theory of evolution through natural selection is an accepted part of the science of biology, to the extent that few observations in biology can be understood without reference to natural selection and common descent. Opponents of evolution claim that there is significant dissent on evolution within the scientific community.[12] The wedge strategy, an ambitious plan to supplant scientific materialism seen as inimical to religion, with a religion-friendly theistic science, depended greatly on seeding and building on public perceptions of absence of consensus on evolution.[13] Stephen Jay Gould has argued that creationists misunderstand the nature of the debate within the scientific community, which is not about "if" evolution occurred, but "how" it occurred.[12]

The inherent uncertainty in science, where theories are never proven but can only be disproven (see falsifiability), poses a problem for politicians, policymakers, lawyers, and business professionals. Where scientific or philosophical questions can often languish in uncertainty for decades within their disciplinary settings, policymakers are faced with the problems of making sound decisions based on the currently available data, even if it is likely not a final form of the "truth". The tricky part is discerning what is close enough to "final truth". For example, social action against smoking probably came too long after science was 'pretty consensual'.[2]

Certain domains, such as the approval of certain technologies for public consumption, can have vast and far-reaching political, economic, and human effects should things run awry of the predictions of scientists. However, insofar as there is an expectation that policy in a given field reflect knowable and pertinent data and well-accepted models of the relationships between observable phenomena, there is little good alternative for policy makers than to rely on so much of what may fairly be called 'the scientific consensus' in guiding policy design and implementation, at least in circumstances where the need for policy intervention is compelling. While science cannot supply 'absolute truth' (or even its complement 'absolute error') its utility is bound up with the capacity to guide policy in the direction of increased public good and away from public harm. Seen in this way, the demand that policy rely only on what is proven to be "scientific truth" would be a prescription for policy paralysis and amount in practice to advocacy of acceptance of all of the quantified and unquantified costs and risks associated with policy inaction.[2] Such considerations informed the development of 'the precautionary principle'.

No part of policy formation on the basis of the ostensible scientific consensus precludes persistent review either of the relevant scientific consensus or the tangible results of policy. Indeed, the same reasons that drove reliance upon the consensus drives the continued evaluation of this reliance over time—and adjusting policy as needed.

Uncertainty and scientific consensus in policy making


Politics anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

 

[SAT]

The politics are from the right. From the deniers. From those who have the most to gain in denying AGW. From you.

 

[westwall]

The politics are from the right. From the deniers. From those who have the most to gain in denying AGW. From you.

Waht was that Rwatt? We have no politicians in our pockets unlike you religious fanatics.
When you claim politics you'd best be lookin in the mirror.

 

[SAT]

That shoe is firmly on your foot. You have politicians who fight climate science, and those same politicians fight the science of evolution.

 

[daveman]

The science of AGW has not been "done by consensus". A statement on AGW laid out the current consensus on climate science.

This topic, like just about every topic, has been politicized by the right, with funding from rich donors who have a financial interest in confusing the public.

When every so-called "solution" to AGW is political in nature, it's not the skeptics who are politicizing the issue.

 

[SAT]

I believe what he's (correctly) pointing out is that 1. Regardless of whether or not the current consensus to AGW satisfies your standard of "Proof," there is a great deal of it nonetheless, and that 2. There is not a scientific body on the planet that maintains a dissenting opinion.

It's kinda the same conversation we had a few weeks ago, though he goes at it differently than I do.

Just bumping over this good post.