Communists, Radicals Spotted Throughout Climate March In Nyc Demanding ‘revolution, Nothing Less’

[Ame®icano]

With those liberals/progressives/socialists/communists... issue is never an issue. The actual issue is revolution.

 

[gtopa1]

If you're looking for OPINIONS from climate scientists, the WORSE place to look would be in their technical papers. Not only that but the shittyscience.com inspired "poll" has been beaten to a pulp over fraudulent representations of "no opinion" as SUPPORTING Global Warming hype and exaggerations. NO reputable poll would EVER attempt such a dishonest statistical assertion...

"The study is the most comprehensive yet and identified 4000 summaries, otherwise known as abstracts, from papers published in the past 21 years that stated a position on the cause of recent global warming – 97 per cent of these endorsed the consensus that we are seeing man-made, or anthropogenic, global warming (AGW)."

For the record, do you believe AGW is a hoax?

Study reveals scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change

What those chronic liars DIDN'T tell ya was those 4000 papers and abstracts --- only about 50 expressed ANY OPINION at all.. Which is what I was telling you about seeking OPINION in a scientific paper. But the criminals at shittyscience.com didn't let that stop them. They just added in all the "no opinion" papers to their phoney ass consensus..

It's a fraud Georgie Boy -- and furthermore it was long ago before the temperature pause and those embarrassing leaks of emails from East Anglia. Just the fact that you don't SEE CURRENT POLLS of climate scientists like you used to --- ought to tip you off. If you're not a dumbass.

Short answer to what I believe.. The basic physics statement of the power of CO2 to warm the Atmos is about 1degC/doubling of CO2. BOTH sides of the AGW argument agree to that as I do..

But AGW is based on hysterics about feedbacks and dynamics of a climate system that we barely understand. And AGW using Magic Multipliers to get from 1degC/doubling to about 6 or 8 degC/doubling.
Mankind has yet to double the pre-industrial level of CO2. And all OBSERVED warming is closer to the basic Atmos Physics fact than the fantasically exaggerated AGW claims..

So I don't believe in the Magic part. And I certainly don't buy the argument that the Earth climate is so unstable that it would destroy itself without further help from man in a runaway thermal condition.. These are things I KNOW from studying the topic for about a decade.

So what do YOU BELIEVE Georgie? What's the Global Temp. anomaly gonna be in 2060? Please reply in kind..

I'm inclined to accept the following conclusion at face value; if you are not, please explain why:
"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.

"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.

"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

Nope.. Junk statistic.. NO REPUTABLE polling agency would take that interpretation. Because the VAST MAJORITY of folks expressed no opinion in their science products and were CORRECT to do that. Because you don't start the abstract of a science paper by stating your "beliefs or biases".

Furthermore -- there are typically 3 to a dozen authors on a science paper and they don't necessarily agree on much.

Not to mention, that there is no comprehensive compelling statement of what the temp. in 2060 is projected to be. Hell -- by the definition of the "questions" (that were never asked, but divined) I WOULD be probably in the 97%.. It's meaningless crap.. If you claim it's science consensus, find a RECENT poll since 2011 with some definitive statement and stop relying on this devious propaganda construct..

"Surveys of climate scientists have found strong agreement (97–98%) regarding AGW amongst publishing climate experts (Doran and Zimmerman 2009, Anderegg et al2010). Repeated surveys of scientists found that scientific agreement about AGW steadily increased from 1996 to 2009 (Bray 2010). This is reflected in the increasingly definitive statements issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the attribution of recent GW (Houghton et al1996, 2001, Solomon et al2007)"

Why are you obsessing over what the temperature will be in 2060? There appears to be a consensus approaching 98% among scientists that AGW is real TODAY.

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

Doran and Zimmerman?? A total of about 70 self identified on line voters??? Ya gotta be joking!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! lmao.

Totally ridiculous!!!

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

With those liberals/progressives/socialists/communists... issue is never an issue. The actual issue is revolution.

Whatever vehicle is available.

Greg

 

[Bush92]

Econ movement is loaded with them, just like civil rights before it. Give a communist the chance to march and bitch about a perceived injustice in the capitalist world and they come out of their stinking holes like scarlet cockroaches.

 

[Bush92]

This is how you deal with Marxist.

 

[gtopa1]

This is how you deal with Marxist.

I prefer the Stalinist method of sending them off to the salt mines for retraining; mind you Mao sent them off to the countryside for retraining. Seems a lot of Russo-Chinese weren't up to the task as they needed a lot of retraining. Mind you; most were just party cadres who fell foul of the latest totalitarian whim.

Greg

 

[georgephillip]

"The study is the most comprehensive yet and identified 4000 summaries, otherwise known as abstracts, from papers published in the past 21 years that stated a position on the cause of recent global warming – 97 per cent of these endorsed the consensus that we are seeing man-made, or anthropogenic, global warming (AGW)."

For the record, do you believe AGW is a hoax?

Study reveals scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change

What those chronic liars DIDN'T tell ya was those 4000 papers and abstracts --- only about 50 expressed ANY OPINION at all.. Which is what I was telling you about seeking OPINION in a scientific paper. But the criminals at shittyscience.com didn't let that stop them. They just added in all the "no opinion" papers to their phoney ass consensus..

It's a fraud Georgie Boy -- and furthermore it was long ago before the temperature pause and those embarrassing leaks of emails from East Anglia. Just the fact that you don't SEE CURRENT POLLS of climate scientists like you used to --- ought to tip you off. If you're not a dumbass.

Short answer to what I believe.. The basic physics statement of the power of CO2 to warm the Atmos is about 1degC/doubling of CO2. BOTH sides of the AGW argument agree to that as I do..

But AGW is based on hysterics about feedbacks and dynamics of a climate system that we barely understand. And AGW using Magic Multipliers to get from 1degC/doubling to about 6 or 8 degC/doubling.
Mankind has yet to double the pre-industrial level of CO2. And all OBSERVED warming is closer to the basic Atmos Physics fact than the fantasically exaggerated AGW claims..

So I don't believe in the Magic part. And I certainly don't buy the argument that the Earth climate is so unstable that it would destroy itself without further help from man in a runaway thermal condition.. These are things I KNOW from studying the topic for about a decade.

So what do YOU BELIEVE Georgie? What's the Global Temp. anomaly gonna be in 2060? Please reply in kind..

I'm inclined to accept the following conclusion at face value; if you are not, please explain why:
"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.

"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.

"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

Nope.. Junk statistic.. NO REPUTABLE polling agency would take that interpretation. Because the VAST MAJORITY of folks expressed no opinion in their science products and were CORRECT to do that. Because you don't start the abstract of a science paper by stating your "beliefs or biases".

Furthermore -- there are typically 3 to a dozen authors on a science paper and they don't necessarily agree on much.

Not to mention, that there is no comprehensive compelling statement of what the temp. in 2060 is projected to be. Hell -- by the definition of the "questions" (that were never asked, but divined) I WOULD be probably in the 97%.. It's meaningless crap.. If you claim it's science consensus, find a RECENT poll since 2011 with some definitive statement and stop relying on this devious propaganda construct..

"Surveys of climate scientists have found strong agreement (97–98%) regarding AGW amongst publishing climate experts (Doran and Zimmerman 2009, Anderegg et al2010). Repeated surveys of scientists found that scientific agreement about AGW steadily increased from 1996 to 2009 (Bray 2010). This is reflected in the increasingly definitive statements issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the attribution of recent GW (Houghton et al1996, 2001, Solomon et al2007)"

Why are you obsessing over what the temperature will be in 2060? There appears to be a consensus approaching 98% among scientists that AGW is real TODAY.

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

Doran and Zimmerman?? A total of about 70 self identified on line voters??? Ya gotta be joking!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! lmao.

Totally ridiculous!!!

Greg

Now tell me why I should accept the opinion of an anonymous internet troll who doesn't provide any corroboration?

"The public perception of a scientific consensus on AGW is a necessary element in public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011).

"However, there is a significant gap between public perception and reality, with 57% of the US public either disagreeing or unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due to human activity (Pew 2012).

"Contributing to this 'consensus gap' are campaigns designed to confuse the public about the level of agreement among climate scientists.

"In 1991, Western Fuels Association conducted a $510 000 campaign whose primary goal was to 'reposition global warming as theory (not fact)'..."

"The narrative presented by some dissenters is that the scientific consensus is '...on the point of collapse' (Oddie 2012) while '...the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year' (Allègre et al 2012).

"A systematic, comprehensive review of the literature provides quantitative evidence countering this assertion.

"The number of papers rejecting AGW is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time.

"Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.

Do you have any evidence refuting the claim that the scientific consensus supports AGW?

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

 

[georgephillip]

This is how you deal with Marxist.

If you're supportive of fascist dictators:
"The 1973 Chilean coup d'état was a watershed event in both the Cold Warand the history of Chile.

"Following an extended period of social and political unrest between the conservative-dominated Congress of Chile and thesocialistPresidentSalvador Allende, as well as economic warfare ordered by U.S. PresidentRichard Nixon,[2]

"Allende was overthrown by the armed forces and national police.[3][4]

"The military abolished the civilian government and established a juntathat brutally repressed left-wing political activity both domestically and abroad.

"Allende's army chief,Augusto Pinochet, rose to supreme power within a year of the coup, formally assuming power in late 1974.[5]

"The United Statesgovernment, which had worked to create the conditions for the coup,[6]promptly recognized the junta government and supported it in consolidating power."

1973 Chilean coup d tat - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[flacaltenn]

Doran and Zimmerman?? A total of about 70 self identified on line voters??? Ya gotta be joking!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! lmao.

Totally ridiculous!!!

Greg

The 2 pertinent questions from that "poll"....

Q1. When compared with pre-1800's levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
1. Risen
2. Fallen
3. Remained relatively constant
4. No opinion/Don't know
Q2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures? [This question wasn't asked if they answered "remained relatively constant" to Q1]
1. Yes
2. No
3. I'm not sure

You would have to be a MORON to deny the first question.. The 97% means jack shit on that one.

SIGNIFICANT has a very precise meaning in science.. It does not equate to OVERWHELMING or even LARGE. It simply means that it contributes to the process in excess of the errors in the measurements.

Again -- NO REAL MEANING to a 97% consensus on that one. Could mean that 10% or 80% or 100% of the warming is due to man.. Pure garbage for political shenanigans.

Ask the questions --- Do you believe in the accuracy of the majority of climate models? OR What is the most likely temperature projection for 2060 and give them a multiple choice range.. THOSE are the REAL areas of contentions in the UNSETTLED science.. All the warmer faithful like Georgie have are meaningless powder puff questions DESIGNED to produce the APPEARANCE of consensus..

Devious and dangerous.. That's what this GW cult is...

 

[gtopa1]

What those chronic liars DIDN'T tell ya was those 4000 papers and abstracts --- only about 50 expressed ANY OPINION at all.. Which is what I was telling you about seeking OPINION in a scientific paper. But the criminals at shittyscience.com didn't let that stop them. They just added in all the "no opinion" papers to their phoney ass consensus..

It's a fraud Georgie Boy -- and furthermore it was long ago before the temperature pause and those embarrassing leaks of emails from East Anglia. Just the fact that you don't SEE CURRENT POLLS of climate scientists like you used to --- ought to tip you off. If you're not a dumbass.

Short answer to what I believe.. The basic physics statement of the power of CO2 to warm the Atmos is about 1degC/doubling of CO2. BOTH sides of the AGW argument agree to that as I do..

But AGW is based on hysterics about feedbacks and dynamics of a climate system that we barely understand. And AGW using Magic Multipliers to get from 1degC/doubling to about 6 or 8 degC/doubling.
Mankind has yet to double the pre-industrial level of CO2. And all OBSERVED warming is closer to the basic Atmos Physics fact than the fantasically exaggerated AGW claims..

So I don't believe in the Magic part. And I certainly don't buy the argument that the Earth climate is so unstable that it would destroy itself without further help from man in a runaway thermal condition.. These are things I KNOW from studying the topic for about a decade.

So what do YOU BELIEVE Georgie? What's the Global Temp. anomaly gonna be in 2060? Please reply in kind..

I'm inclined to accept the following conclusion at face value; if you are not, please explain why:
"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.

"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.

"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

Nope.. Junk statistic.. NO REPUTABLE polling agency would take that interpretation. Because the VAST MAJORITY of folks expressed no opinion in their science products and were CORRECT to do that. Because you don't start the abstract of a science paper by stating your "beliefs or biases".

Furthermore -- there are typically 3 to a dozen authors on a science paper and they don't necessarily agree on much.

Not to mention, that there is no comprehensive compelling statement of what the temp. in 2060 is projected to be. Hell -- by the definition of the "questions" (that were never asked, but divined) I WOULD be probably in the 97%.. It's meaningless crap.. If you claim it's science consensus, find a RECENT poll since 2011 with some definitive statement and stop relying on this devious propaganda construct..

"Surveys of climate scientists have found strong agreement (97–98%) regarding AGW amongst publishing climate experts (Doran and Zimmerman 2009, Anderegg et al2010). Repeated surveys of scientists found that scientific agreement about AGW steadily increased from 1996 to 2009 (Bray 2010). This is reflected in the increasingly definitive statements issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the attribution of recent GW (Houghton et al1996, 2001, Solomon et al2007)"

Why are you obsessing over what the temperature will be in 2060? There appears to be a consensus approaching 98% among scientists that AGW is real TODAY.

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

Doran and Zimmerman?? A total of about 70 self identified on line voters??? Ya gotta be joking!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! lmao.

Totally ridiculous!!!

Greg

Now tell me why I should accept the opinion of an anonymous internet troll who doesn't provide any corroboration?

"The public perception of a scientific consensus on AGW is a necessary element in public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011).

"However, there is a significant gap between public perception and reality, with 57% of the US public either disagreeing or unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due to human activity (Pew 2012).

"Contributing to this 'consensus gap' are campaigns designed to confuse the public about the level of agreement among climate scientists.

"In 1991, Western Fuels Association conducted a $510 000 campaign whose primary goal was to 'reposition global warming as theory (not fact)'..."

"The narrative presented by some dissenters is that the scientific consensus is '...on the point of collapse' (Oddie 2012) while '...the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year' (Allègre et al 2012).

"A systematic, comprehensive review of the literature provides quantitative evidence countering this assertion.

"The number of papers rejecting AGW is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time.

"Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.

Do you have any evidence refuting the claim that the scientific consensus supports AGW?

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring 97-Percent Consensus Claims - Forbes

Investigative journalists at Popular Technology looked into precisely which papers were classified within Cook’s asserted 97 percent. The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97-percent consensus.

Cook and his colleagues, for example, classified a peer-reviewed paper by scientist Craig Idso as explicitly supporting the ‘consensus’ position on global warming “without minimizing” the asserted severity of global warming. When Popular Technology asked Idso whether this was an accurate characterization of his paper, Idso responded, “That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.”

When Popular Technology asked physicist Nicola Scafetta whether Cook and his colleagues accurately classified one of his peer-reviewed papers as supporting the ‘consensus’ position, Scafetta similarly criticized the Skeptical Science classification.

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a straw man argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission,” Scafetta responded. “What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.”

“What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. … They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face. … And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006,” Scafetta added.

Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv similarly objected to Cook and colleagues claiming he explicitly supported the ‘consensus’ position about human-induced global warming. Asked if Cook and colleagues accurately represented his paper, Shaviv responded, “Nope… it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitivity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century [warming] should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).”

“I couldn’t write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don’t have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper,” Shaviv added.

To manufacture their misleading asserted consensus, Cook and his colleagues also misclassified various papers as taking “no position” on human-caused global warming. When Cook and his colleagues determined a paper took no position on the issue, they simply pretended, for the purpose of their 97-percent claim, that the paper did not exist.

Morner, a sea level scientist, told Popular Technology that Cook classifying one of his papers as “no position” was “Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW [anthropogenic global warming], and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC.”

Soon, an astrophysicist, similarly objected to Cook classifying his paper as “no position.”

“I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct,” said Soon.

“I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works,” Soon emphasized.

Viewing the Cook paper in the best possible light, Cook and colleagues can perhaps claim a small amount of wiggle room in their classifications because the explicit wording of the question they analyzed is simply whether humans have caused some global warming. By restricting the question to such a minimalist, largely irrelevant question in the global warming debate and then demanding an explicit, unsolicited refutation of the assertion in order to classify a paper as a ‘consensus’ contrarian, Cook and colleagues misleadingly induce people to believe 97 percent of publishing scientists believe in a global warming crisis when that is simply not the case.

Greg

 

[SmedlyButler]

Econ movement is loaded with them, just like civil rights before it. Give a communist the chance to march and bitch about a perceived injustice in the capitalist world and they come out of their stinking holes like scarlet cockroaches.

Huh? Civil Rights marchers came "out of their stinking holes like scarlet cockroaches."? If I read that right that's about the most reactionary statement I've heard for a long time, outside of Stormfront.org,

 

[Vigilante]

What was started as a magnificent cultural enhancement, ended up a terrible failure.... all because of liberal thinking!.....These people are like ISIS and Islam, many are good, and decent, it's just that 10-15% that are scum, rapists, and killers!

 

[gtopa1]

Econ movement is loaded with them, just like civil rights before it. Give a communist the chance to march and bitch about a perceived injustice in the capitalist world and they come out of their stinking holes like scarlet cockroaches.

Huh? Civil Rights marchers came "out of their stinking holes like scarlet cockroaches."? If I read that right that's about the most reactionary statement I've heard for a long time, outside of Stormfront.org,

You DO understand that there was a section of the crowd who were communists and like minded, don't you?? As well as the many Republicans in the crowd. I don't see any DemoKKKrats? Why is that??

lmao

Greg

 

[paulitician]

I'm inclined to accept the following conclusion at face value; if you are not, please explain why:
"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.

"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.

"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

Nope.. Junk statistic.. NO REPUTABLE polling agency would take that interpretation. Because the VAST MAJORITY of folks expressed no opinion in their science products and were CORRECT to do that. Because you don't start the abstract of a science paper by stating your "beliefs or biases".

Furthermore -- there are typically 3 to a dozen authors on a science paper and they don't necessarily agree on much.

Not to mention, that there is no comprehensive compelling statement of what the temp. in 2060 is projected to be. Hell -- by the definition of the "questions" (that were never asked, but divined) I WOULD be probably in the 97%.. It's meaningless crap.. If you claim it's science consensus, find a RECENT poll since 2011 with some definitive statement and stop relying on this devious propaganda construct..

"Surveys of climate scientists have found strong agreement (97–98%) regarding AGW amongst publishing climate experts (Doran and Zimmerman 2009, Anderegg et al2010). Repeated surveys of scientists found that scientific agreement about AGW steadily increased from 1996 to 2009 (Bray 2010). This is reflected in the increasingly definitive statements issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the attribution of recent GW (Houghton et al1996, 2001, Solomon et al2007)"

Why are you obsessing over what the temperature will be in 2060? There appears to be a consensus approaching 98% among scientists that AGW is real TODAY.

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

Doran and Zimmerman?? A total of about 70 self identified on line voters??? Ya gotta be joking!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! lmao.

Totally ridiculous!!!

Greg

Now tell me why I should accept the opinion of an anonymous internet troll who doesn't provide any corroboration?

"The public perception of a scientific consensus on AGW is a necessary element in public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011).

"However, there is a significant gap between public perception and reality, with 57% of the US public either disagreeing or unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due to human activity (Pew 2012).

"Contributing to this 'consensus gap' are campaigns designed to confuse the public about the level of agreement among climate scientists.

"In 1991, Western Fuels Association conducted a $510 000 campaign whose primary goal was to 'reposition global warming as theory (not fact)'..."

"The narrative presented by some dissenters is that the scientific consensus is '...on the point of collapse' (Oddie 2012) while '...the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year' (Allègre et al 2012).

"A systematic, comprehensive review of the literature provides quantitative evidence countering this assertion.

"The number of papers rejecting AGW is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time.

"Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.

Do you have any evidence refuting the claim that the scientific consensus supports AGW?

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring 97-Percent Consensus Claims - Forbes

Investigative journalists at Popular Technology looked into precisely which papers were classified within Cook’s asserted 97 percent. The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97-percent consensus.

Cook and his colleagues, for example, classified a peer-reviewed paper by scientist Craig Idso as explicitly supporting the ‘consensus’ position on global warming “without minimizing” the asserted severity of global warming. When Popular Technology asked Idso whether this was an accurate characterization of his paper, Idso responded, “That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.”

When Popular Technology asked physicist Nicola Scafetta whether Cook and his colleagues accurately classified one of his peer-reviewed papers as supporting the ‘consensus’ position, Scafetta similarly criticized the Skeptical Science classification.

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a straw man argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission,” Scafetta responded. “What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.”

“What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. … They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face. … And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006,” Scafetta added.

Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv similarly objected to Cook and colleagues claiming he explicitly supported the ‘consensus’ position about human-induced global warming. Asked if Cook and colleagues accurately represented his paper, Shaviv responded, “Nope… it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitivity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century [warming] should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).”

“I couldn’t write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don’t have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper,” Shaviv added.

To manufacture their misleading asserted consensus, Cook and his colleagues also misclassified various papers as taking “no position” on human-caused global warming. When Cook and his colleagues determined a paper took no position on the issue, they simply pretended, for the purpose of their 97-percent claim, that the paper did not exist.

Morner, a sea level scientist, told Popular Technology that Cook classifying one of his papers as “no position” was “Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW [anthropogenic global warming], and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC.”

Soon, an astrophysicist, similarly objected to Cook classifying his paper as “no position.”

“I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct,” said Soon.

“I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works,” Soon emphasized.

Viewing the Cook paper in the best possible light, Cook and colleagues can perhaps claim a small amount of wiggle room in their classifications because the explicit wording of the question they analyzed is simply whether humans have caused some global warming. By restricting the question to such a minimalist, largely irrelevant question in the global warming debate and then demanding an explicit, unsolicited refutation of the assertion in order to classify a paper as a ‘consensus’ contrarian, Cook and colleagues misleadingly induce people to believe 97 percent of publishing scientists believe in a global warming crisis when that is simply not the case.

Greg

The Warming Zealots are desperate now. They realize the People don't want more Government in their lives. They actually want less. And that's very disturbing to the zealots. So they're resorting to desperate fear mongering tactics. Some of the loons are even calling for the arrests of 'Deniers.' They're out of control at this point. A deranged cult. But the People are standing strong. They're over the whole Global Warming Boogeyman thing. They're moving on.

 

[georgephillip]

Nope.. Junk statistic.. NO REPUTABLE polling agency would take that interpretation. Because the VAST MAJORITY of folks expressed no opinion in their science products and were CORRECT to do that. Because you don't start the abstract of a science paper by stating your "beliefs or biases".

Furthermore -- there are typically 3 to a dozen authors on a science paper and they don't necessarily agree on much.

Not to mention, that there is no comprehensive compelling statement of what the temp. in 2060 is projected to be. Hell -- by the definition of the "questions" (that were never asked, but divined) I WOULD be probably in the 97%.. It's meaningless crap.. If you claim it's science consensus, find a RECENT poll since 2011 with some definitive statement and stop relying on this devious propaganda construct..

"Surveys of climate scientists have found strong agreement (97–98%) regarding AGW amongst publishing climate experts (Doran and Zimmerman 2009, Anderegg et al2010). Repeated surveys of scientists found that scientific agreement about AGW steadily increased from 1996 to 2009 (Bray 2010). This is reflected in the increasingly definitive statements issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the attribution of recent GW (Houghton et al1996, 2001, Solomon et al2007)"

Why are you obsessing over what the temperature will be in 2060? There appears to be a consensus approaching 98% among scientists that AGW is real TODAY.

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

Doran and Zimmerman?? A total of about 70 self identified on line voters??? Ya gotta be joking!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! lmao.

Totally ridiculous!!!

Greg

Now tell me why I should accept the opinion of an anonymous internet troll who doesn't provide any corroboration?

"The public perception of a scientific consensus on AGW is a necessary element in public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011).

"However, there is a significant gap between public perception and reality, with 57% of the US public either disagreeing or unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due to human activity (Pew 2012).

"Contributing to this 'consensus gap' are campaigns designed to confuse the public about the level of agreement among climate scientists.

"In 1991, Western Fuels Association conducted a $510 000 campaign whose primary goal was to 'reposition global warming as theory (not fact)'..."

"The narrative presented by some dissenters is that the scientific consensus is '...on the point of collapse' (Oddie 2012) while '...the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year' (Allègre et al 2012).

"A systematic, comprehensive review of the literature provides quantitative evidence countering this assertion.

"The number of papers rejecting AGW is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time.

"Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.

Do you have any evidence refuting the claim that the scientific consensus supports AGW?

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring 97-Percent Consensus Claims - Forbes

Investigative journalists at Popular Technology looked into precisely which papers were classified within Cook’s asserted 97 percent. The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97-percent consensus.

Cook and his colleagues, for example, classified a peer-reviewed paper by scientist Craig Idso as explicitly supporting the ‘consensus’ position on global warming “without minimizing” the asserted severity of global warming. When Popular Technology asked Idso whether this was an accurate characterization of his paper, Idso responded, “That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.”

When Popular Technology asked physicist Nicola Scafetta whether Cook and his colleagues accurately classified one of his peer-reviewed papers as supporting the ‘consensus’ position, Scafetta similarly criticized the Skeptical Science classification.

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a straw man argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission,” Scafetta responded. “What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.”

“What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. … They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face. … And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006,” Scafetta added.

Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv similarly objected to Cook and colleagues claiming he explicitly supported the ‘consensus’ position about human-induced global warming. Asked if Cook and colleagues accurately represented his paper, Shaviv responded, “Nope… it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitivity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century [warming] should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).”

“I couldn’t write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don’t have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper,” Shaviv added.

To manufacture their misleading asserted consensus, Cook and his colleagues also misclassified various papers as taking “no position” on human-caused global warming. When Cook and his colleagues determined a paper took no position on the issue, they simply pretended, for the purpose of their 97-percent claim, that the paper did not exist.

Morner, a sea level scientist, told Popular Technology that Cook classifying one of his papers as “no position” was “Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW [anthropogenic global warming], and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC.”

Soon, an astrophysicist, similarly objected to Cook classifying his paper as “no position.”

“I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct,” said Soon.

“I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works,” Soon emphasized.

Viewing the Cook paper in the best possible light, Cook and colleagues can perhaps claim a small amount of wiggle room in their classifications because the explicit wording of the question they analyzed is simply whether humans have caused some global warming. By restricting the question to such a minimalist, largely irrelevant question in the global warming debate and then demanding an explicit, unsolicited refutation of the assertion in order to classify a paper as a ‘consensus’ contrarian, Cook and colleagues misleadingly induce people to believe 97 percent of publishing scientists believe in a global warming crisis when that is simply not the case.

Greg

The Warming Zealots are desperate now. They realize the People don't want more Government in their lives. They actually want less. And that's very disturbing to the zealots. So they're resorting to desperate fear mongering tactics. Some of the loons are even calling for the arrests of 'Deniers.' They're out of control at this point. A deranged cult. But the People are standing strong. They're over the whole Global Warming Boogeyman thing. They're moving on.

They jury's still out, IMHO; it is too early to say the "science is settled" or AGW is a hoax.

"Other effects could happen later this century, if warming continues.

• Sea levels are expected to rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 and 59 centimeters) by the end of the century, and continued melting at the poles could add between 4 and 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters).
• Hurricanes and other storms are likely to become stronger.
• Species that depend on one another may become out of sync. For example, plants could bloom earlier than their pollinating insects become active.
• Floods and droughts will become more common. Rainfall in Ethiopia, where droughts are already common, could decline by 10 percent over the next 50 years.
• Less fresh water will be available. If the Quelccaya ice cap in Peru continues to melt at its current rate, it will be gone by 2100, leaving thousands of people who rely on it for drinking water and electricity without a source of either.
• Some diseases will spread, such as malaria carried by mosquitoes."

I wouldn't trust global capitalists intent on commodifying all the life on the planet for their personal profit to tell the truth about AGW either.

Global Warming Effects Information Global Warming Effects Facts Climate Change Effects - National Geographic

 

[gtopa1]

"Surveys of climate scientists have found strong agreement (97–98%) regarding AGW amongst publishing climate experts (Doran and Zimmerman 2009, Anderegg et al2010). Repeated surveys of scientists found that scientific agreement about AGW steadily increased from 1996 to 2009 (Bray 2010). This is reflected in the increasingly definitive statements issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the attribution of recent GW (Houghton et al1996, 2001, Solomon et al2007)"

Why are you obsessing over what the temperature will be in 2060? There appears to be a consensus approaching 98% among scientists that AGW is real TODAY.

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

Doran and Zimmerman?? A total of about 70 self identified on line voters??? Ya gotta be joking!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! lmao.

Totally ridiculous!!!

Greg

Now tell me why I should accept the opinion of an anonymous internet troll who doesn't provide any corroboration?

"The public perception of a scientific consensus on AGW is a necessary element in public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011).

"However, there is a significant gap between public perception and reality, with 57% of the US public either disagreeing or unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due to human activity (Pew 2012).

"Contributing to this 'consensus gap' are campaigns designed to confuse the public about the level of agreement among climate scientists.

"In 1991, Western Fuels Association conducted a $510 000 campaign whose primary goal was to 'reposition global warming as theory (not fact)'..."

"The narrative presented by some dissenters is that the scientific consensus is '...on the point of collapse' (Oddie 2012) while '...the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year' (Allègre et al 2012).

"A systematic, comprehensive review of the literature provides quantitative evidence countering this assertion.

"The number of papers rejecting AGW is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time.

"Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.

Do you have any evidence refuting the claim that the scientific consensus supports AGW?

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring 97-Percent Consensus Claims - Forbes

Investigative journalists at Popular Technology looked into precisely which papers were classified within Cook’s asserted 97 percent. The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97-percent consensus.

Cook and his colleagues, for example, classified a peer-reviewed paper by scientist Craig Idso as explicitly supporting the ‘consensus’ position on global warming “without minimizing” the asserted severity of global warming. When Popular Technology asked Idso whether this was an accurate characterization of his paper, Idso responded, “That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.”

When Popular Technology asked physicist Nicola Scafetta whether Cook and his colleagues accurately classified one of his peer-reviewed papers as supporting the ‘consensus’ position, Scafetta similarly criticized the Skeptical Science classification.

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a straw man argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission,” Scafetta responded. “What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.”

“What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. … They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face. … And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006,” Scafetta added.

Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv similarly objected to Cook and colleagues claiming he explicitly supported the ‘consensus’ position about human-induced global warming. Asked if Cook and colleagues accurately represented his paper, Shaviv responded, “Nope… it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitivity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century [warming] should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).”

“I couldn’t write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don’t have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper,” Shaviv added.

To manufacture their misleading asserted consensus, Cook and his colleagues also misclassified various papers as taking “no position” on human-caused global warming. When Cook and his colleagues determined a paper took no position on the issue, they simply pretended, for the purpose of their 97-percent claim, that the paper did not exist.

Morner, a sea level scientist, told Popular Technology that Cook classifying one of his papers as “no position” was “Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW [anthropogenic global warming], and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC.”

Soon, an astrophysicist, similarly objected to Cook classifying his paper as “no position.”

“I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct,” said Soon.

“I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works,” Soon emphasized.

Viewing the Cook paper in the best possible light, Cook and colleagues can perhaps claim a small amount of wiggle room in their classifications because the explicit wording of the question they analyzed is simply whether humans have caused some global warming. By restricting the question to such a minimalist, largely irrelevant question in the global warming debate and then demanding an explicit, unsolicited refutation of the assertion in order to classify a paper as a ‘consensus’ contrarian, Cook and colleagues misleadingly induce people to believe 97 percent of publishing scientists believe in a global warming crisis when that is simply not the case.

Greg

The Warming Zealots are desperate now. They realize the People don't want more Government in their lives. They actually want less. And that's very disturbing to the zealots. So they're resorting to desperate fear mongering tactics. Some of the loons are even calling for the arrests of 'Deniers.' They're out of control at this point. A deranged cult. But the People are standing strong. They're over the whole Global Warming Boogeyman thing. They're moving on.

They jury's still out, IMHO; it is too early to say the "science is settled" or AGW is a hoax.

"Other effects could happen later this century, if warming continues.

• Sea levels are expected to rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 and 59 centimeters) by the end of the century, and continued melting at the poles could add between 4 and 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters).
• Hurricanes and other storms are likely to become stronger.
• Species that depend on one another may become out of sync. For example, plants could bloom earlier than their pollinating insects become active.
• Floods and droughts will become more common. Rainfall in Ethiopia, where droughts are already common, could decline by 10 percent over the next 50 years.
• Less fresh water will be available. If the Quelccaya ice cap in Peru continues to melt at its current rate, it will be gone by 2100, leaving thousands of people who rely on it for drinking water and electricity without a source of either.
• Some diseases will spread, such as malaria carried by mosquitoes."

I wouldn't trust global capitalists intent on commodifying all the life on the planet for their personal profit to tell the truth about AGW either.

Global Warming Effects Information Global Warming Effects Facts Climate Change Effects - National Geographic

Still, George; the tryth will out. It has been my understanding since the 70s that "catastrophism and it's America's fault" has been an environutter maxim. Cooling/freezing//warming/change.....it's always America's fault.
You may find this interesting:
Atmospheric controls on northeast Pacific temperature variability and change 1900 2012

Significance
Northeast Pacific coastal warming since 1900 is often ascribed to anthropogenic greenhouse forcing, whereas multidecadal temperature changes are widely interpreted in the framework of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), which responds to regional atmospheric dynamics. This study uses several independent data sources to demonstrate that century-long warming around the northeast Pacific margins, like multidecadal variability, can be primarily attributed to changes in atmospheric circulation. It presents a significant reinterpretation of the region’s recent climate change origins, showing that atmospheric conditions have changed substantially over the last century, that these changes are not likely related to historical anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing, and that dynamical mechanisms of interannual and multidecadal temperature variability can also apply to observed century-long trends.

Abstract
Over the last century, northeast Pacific coastal sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and land-based surface air temperatures (SATs) display multidecadal variations associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, in addition to a warming trend of ∼0.5–1 °C. Using independent records of sea-level pressure (SLP), SST, and SAT, this study investigates northeast (NE) Pacific coupled atmosphere–ocean variability from 1900 to 2012, with emphasis on the coastal areas around North America. We use a linear stochastic time series model to show that the SST evolution around the NE Pacific coast can be explained by a combination of regional atmospheric forcing and ocean persistence, accounting for 63% of nonseasonal monthly SST variance (r = 0.79) and 73% of variance in annual means (r = 0.86). We show that SLP reductions and related atmospheric forcing led to century-long warming around the NE Pacific margins, with the strongest trends observed from 1910–1920 to 1940. NE Pacific circulation changes are estimated to account for more than 80% of the 1900–2012 linear warming in coastal NE Pacific SST and US Pacific northwest (Washington, Oregon, and northern California) SAT. An ensemble of climate model simulations run under the same historical radiative forcings fails to reproduce the observed regional circulation trends. These results suggest that natural internally generated changes in atmospheric circulation were the primary cause of coastal NE Pacific warming from 1900 to 2012 and demonstrate more generally that regional mechanisms of interannual and multidecadal temperature variability can also extend to century time scales.

I do understand that the climate debate is polarising but if we are to really clean up our act then it must be done on the basis of the truth. People only follow a lie until it is debunked unless they have a vested interest in the process. I am waiting for the day of safe clean fusion...but it is still a long way off.

Greg

 

[flacaltenn]

They jury's still out, IMHO; it is too early to say the "science is settled" or AGW is a hoax.

"Other effects could happen later this century, if warming continues.

• Sea levels are expected to rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 and 59 centimeters) by the end of the century, and continued melting at the poles could add between 4 and 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters).
• Hurricanes and other storms are likely to become stronger.
• Species that depend on one another may become out of sync. For example, plants could bloom earlier than their pollinating insects become active.
• Floods and droughts will become more common. Rainfall in Ethiopia, where droughts are already common, could decline by 10 percent over the next 50 years.
• Less fresh water will be available. If the Quelccaya ice cap in Peru continues to melt at its current rate, it will be gone by 2100, leaving thousands of people who rely on it for drinking water and electricity without a source of either.
• Some diseases will spread, such as malaria carried by mosquitoes."

I wouldn't trust global capitalists intent on commodifying all the life on the planet for their personal profit to tell the truth about AGW either.

Global Warming Effects Information Global Warming Effects Facts Climate Change Effects - National Geographic

Everything in that list of MIGHTs and COULDs is speculation and not science. A thunderstorm needs about 8 or 10 conditions to intensify. SURFACE heat of a degree or two isn't a biggy. Especially if Global warming affects the temps aloft like it does at the surface..

And everytime I look up one of those silly "people can't drink if the glaciers go away" stories --- what I find is more more folks dying from the spring floods pouring down those mountains into their villages from winter snow. The GLACIER has an emotional value. But BUILDING a DAMN DAM there would solve their water problems forever.

They get FEET of snow at altitudes where glaciers live.. And that will continue.. THis is all theater for idiots produced by the GW interests..

 

[georgephillip]

They jury's still out, IMHO; it is too early to say the "science is settled" or AGW is a hoax.

"Other effects could happen later this century, if warming continues.

• Sea levels are expected to rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 and 59 centimeters) by the end of the century, and continued melting at the poles could add between 4 and 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters).
• Hurricanes and other storms are likely to become stronger.
• Species that depend on one another may become out of sync. For example, plants could bloom earlier than their pollinating insects become active.
• Floods and droughts will become more common. Rainfall in Ethiopia, where droughts are already common, could decline by 10 percent over the next 50 years.
• Less fresh water will be available. If the Quelccaya ice cap in Peru continues to melt at its current rate, it will be gone by 2100, leaving thousands of people who rely on it for drinking water and electricity without a source of either.
• Some diseases will spread, such as malaria carried by mosquitoes."

I wouldn't trust global capitalists intent on commodifying all the life on the planet for their personal profit to tell the truth about AGW either.

Global Warming Effects Information Global Warming Effects Facts Climate Change Effects - National Geographic

Everything in that list of MIGHTs and COULDs is speculation and not science. A thunderstorm needs about 8 or 10 conditions to intensify. SURFACE heat of a degree or two isn't a biggy. Especially if Global warming affects the temps aloft like it does at the surface..

And everytime I look up one of those silly "people can't drink if the glaciers go away" stories --- what I find is more more folks dying from the spring floods pouring down those mountains into their villages from winter snow. The GLACIER has an emotional value. But BUILDING a DAMN DAM there would solve their water problems forever.

They get FEET of snow at altitudes where glaciers live.. And that will continue.. THis is all theater for idiots produced by the GW interests..

"'The science is settled' is a slogan attributed by opponents of the Kyoto Protocol andglobal warming theory to supporters notably in the Clinton administration.

"There are no known examples of its use outside the skeptic press, though some of the statements that were made have similar implications.

"The slogan itself has therefore become a detail in the political debate."
User William M. Connolley The science is settled - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Political debate or political theater?

 

[flacaltenn]

They jury's still out, IMHO; it is too early to say the "science is settled" or AGW is a hoax.

"Other effects could happen later this century, if warming continues.

• Sea levels are expected to rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 and 59 centimeters) by the end of the century, and continued melting at the poles could add between 4 and 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters).
• Hurricanes and other storms are likely to become stronger.
• Species that depend on one another may become out of sync. For example, plants could bloom earlier than their pollinating insects become active.
• Floods and droughts will become more common. Rainfall in Ethiopia, where droughts are already common, could decline by 10 percent over the next 50 years.
• Less fresh water will be available. If the Quelccaya ice cap in Peru continues to melt at its current rate, it will be gone by 2100, leaving thousands of people who rely on it for drinking water and electricity without a source of either.
• Some diseases will spread, such as malaria carried by mosquitoes."

I wouldn't trust global capitalists intent on commodifying all the life on the planet for their personal profit to tell the truth about AGW either.

Global Warming Effects Information Global Warming Effects Facts Climate Change Effects - National Geographic

Everything in that list of MIGHTs and COULDs is speculation and not science. A thunderstorm needs about 8 or 10 conditions to intensify. SURFACE heat of a degree or two isn't a biggy. Especially if Global warming affects the temps aloft like it does at the surface..

And everytime I look up one of those silly "people can't drink if the glaciers go away" stories --- what I find is more more folks dying from the spring floods pouring down those mountains into their villages from winter snow. The GLACIER has an emotional value. But BUILDING a DAMN DAM there would solve their water problems forever.

They get FEET of snow at altitudes where glaciers live.. And that will continue.. THis is all theater for idiots produced by the GW interests..

"'The science is settled' is a slogan attributed by opponents of the Kyoto Protocol andglobal warming theory to supporters notably in the Clinton administration.

"There are no known examples of its use outside the skeptic press, though some of the statements that were made have similar implications.

"The slogan itself has therefore become a detail in the political debate."
User William M. Connolley The science is settled - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Political debate or political theater?

That is the largest sack of shit you've ever tossed.. That term appears in Prez debates, Senate hearings, and news and pop media. Nancy Pelosi has it tattooed on her hiney.. That turd doesn't fly. John Fraud Kerry has pulls that card every time he opens his trap on the issue..

 

[georgephillip]

They jury's still out, IMHO; it is too early to say the "science is settled" or AGW is a hoax.

"Other effects could happen later this century, if warming continues.

• Sea levels are expected to rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 and 59 centimeters) by the end of the century, and continued melting at the poles could add between 4 and 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters).
• Hurricanes and other storms are likely to become stronger.
• Species that depend on one another may become out of sync. For example, plants could bloom earlier than their pollinating insects become active.
• Floods and droughts will become more common. Rainfall in Ethiopia, where droughts are already common, could decline by 10 percent over the next 50 years.
• Less fresh water will be available. If the Quelccaya ice cap in Peru continues to melt at its current rate, it will be gone by 2100, leaving thousands of people who rely on it for drinking water and electricity without a source of either.
• Some diseases will spread, such as malaria carried by mosquitoes."

I wouldn't trust global capitalists intent on commodifying all the life on the planet for their personal profit to tell the truth about AGW either.

Global Warming Effects Information Global Warming Effects Facts Climate Change Effects - National Geographic

Everything in that list of MIGHTs and COULDs is speculation and not science. A thunderstorm needs about 8 or 10 conditions to intensify. SURFACE heat of a degree or two isn't a biggy. Especially if Global warming affects the temps aloft like it does at the surface..

And everytime I look up one of those silly "people can't drink if the glaciers go away" stories --- what I find is more more folks dying from the spring floods pouring down those mountains into their villages from winter snow. The GLACIER has an emotional value. But BUILDING a DAMN DAM there would solve their water problems forever.

They get FEET of snow at altitudes where glaciers live.. And that will continue.. THis is all theater for idiots produced by the GW interests..

"'The science is settled' is a slogan attributed by opponents of the Kyoto Protocol andglobal warming theory to supporters notably in the Clinton administration.

"There are no known examples of its use outside the skeptic press, though some of the statements that were made have similar implications.

"The slogan itself has therefore become a detail in the political debate."
User William M. Connolley The science is settled - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Political debate or political theater?

That is the largest sack of shit you've ever tossed.. That term appears in Prez debates, Senate hearings, and news and pop media. Nancy Pelosi has it tattooed on her hiney.. That turd doesn't fly. John Fraud Kerry has pulls that card every time he opens his trap on the issue..

"John Quiggin, economist[edit]

• "There’s no longer any serious debate among climate scientists about either the reality of global warming or about the fact that its substantially caused by human activity…" [2]

"David Milliband, UK Environment Minister[edit]

• "I think that the scientific debate has now closed on global warming, and the popular debate is closing as well"[3]

"Camilla Cavendish[edit]

• "The science debate is effectively over. The Stern review means that the economic debate is all but over. Only the political debate is left..."[4]

How would you distinguish between the economic and political debate over AGW?

User William M. Connolley The science is settled - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia