How many posters here are smarter than all the world's scientists?

[Crick]

Ok....but then, so what? Why even have this forum if it is such a slam dunk?

The fact that we have post glacial warming is a slam dunk. Nobody disagrees with that. That is a scientific fact. The earth has been warming since the end of the last ice age and will probably continue to do so.

However, AGW is not a slam dunk. It has not been proven that man made activities have contributed to any significant degree to the climate of the earth. We have contributed significant pollution but there is no real evidence of AGW.

There are some unscientific correlations and a lot of computer modeling using ridiculous data but no real data.

That is why that the Climate Scientists have been caught red handed on many occasions fudging data. If they use real data that have nothing so they make up data. They also ignore valid historical data and nothing they ever predict comes true. They are batting zero.

Why do they do it? The obvious answer is that they are simply Moon Bats that are confused about everything. However, it more likely tied to funding sources. It could be a Ted Kaczynski type mentality that is rebelling against technology and human progress; "If we all just have wind mills and solar panels we can all just sit around Walden Pond and be groovey". We saw that kind of mentality in the Climategate emails.

The fact is that this silly AGW scam has turned into a religion of the Left. A religion that is not based on anything real and it is both silly and destructive at the same time.

You and others have claimed that NASA, NOAA. Hadley, Berkeley Earth, JAXA and others have been caught fabricating temperature data. Yet there has been no change in their historical data products, the data from all climate agencies around the world match each other very closely and no one outside the fringe right doubts their conclusions. Do you actually believe that everyone outside of your political fringe is in on a conspiracy to push a falsehood? Is EVERYONE outside of the fringe right heavily invested and growing rich with green technology? Does EVERYONE outside of the fringe right have the moral turpitude to maintain such a lie for years and years just for a slightly higher return on their investments? Are ALL the world's governments, with ALL their various political positions willing members of this conspiracy you're claiming? I'm sorry, but your charges just don't pass the most basic of sanity tests. They do not. And if you would look at them with an unbiased view you would conclude the same. AGW is real and is a real threat.

 

[mamooth]

What you are saying

If you can't debate what I actually say, just admit it. Don't make up crazy stories about what I really mean. That doesn't fool anyone.

The only thing that has really been stupid in this debate about global warming is Gore’s and Kerry’s comments and you deflect when it is brought to your attention....

We talk about the science. You whimper about politicians. 'Nuff said.

 

[mamooth]

You’d think after all the doomsday predictions made by climate cultists,

But the predictions were right. If your cult told you otherwise, your cult lied to your face. That's why climate science has such crediblity, because of its long record of getting the predictions right.

In contrast to the climate scientists who have been correctly predicting global warming since the 1970s, your cult has consistently been predicting "NEW ICE AGE TOMORROW" over that same period. Your HolyIceAge never arrives, but your cult faith remains undimmed. Each time icy doomsday fails to arrive, you just push the date back some more, like doomsday cults always do. Your cult has faceplanted nonstop for over 40 years now. You have a reputation as frauds and morons because you've earned that reputation.

You really should ask your masters why they lied to you like that. But you won't. You'll do what you always do. You'll run back to them, drop to your knees, lick their boots with gusto, and beg for more lies. Because cult.

 

[Crepitus]

Koonin points out scientific facts supported by hard data and the peer-reviewed literature that stand against the reigning climate change narrative

No. He builds a false narrative around misinterpreted and or cherry picked data.

 

[Crepitus]

According to the Environmental Wackos global warming is caused by racism. I shit you not.

No, it's not. Stop being stupid.

AOC said it just this last week. She is the self proclaimed leader of the Democrat Party and proponent of the Environmental Wacko White Men Haters's Club.

She said what?

Yes Moon Bats are this silly

AOC now blames ‘racial injustice’ for the climate crisis

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez made the controversial remarks as she pushed for the Green New Deal.

nypost.com

AOC now blames ‘racial injustice’ for the climate crisis

Dude, it's the new your post. What are the chances she actually said anything remotely resembling that?

 

[Crick]

A family member who visits Fire Island often adamantly told me ten years ago, the island would be under water in ten years. When I reminded him of this, it did nothing to change his cult like belief in AGW.

Obviously your family member wasn't a climate scientist, was he. Do you have the opinion of any published climate scientists suggesting the same thing? No. So, no offense, but why should care what your family member thinks?

 

[daveman]

You have provided neither facts nor data.

So we just imagined you screaming "liar!" and running from my points in post #71? Let's go over again what triggered you, so we can all watch you run again. That never gets old.

Ottmar Edenhoffer pointed out -- correctly -- that we've been subsidizing fossil fuel users by allowing them to pollute the world without paying for it.

Do you say I'm misrepresenting what he said? If so, please supply your own interpretation of the translation of what he said.

Or do you say the conclusion is wrong, and that pollution does _not_ represent an economic externality?

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. You lied when you said this lie:

"After all, it doesn't say the plan is to redistribute wealth."

That's exactly what the plan is. The only plan ever offered to "save the earth" is implementation of world socialism.

 

[daveman]

No, putting dissenters in camps is a strictly left-wing thing. There you go lying again.

Check it out! Dave can copy a gish gallop of vague quotes from nobodies.

Poor Dave. He literally spends his life looking for reasons to feel oppressed, and his cult is happy to supply them to him. After all, that keeps him hyserical, and that keeps him obedient. So very, very obedient.

It's a classic fascist tactic, by the way, making up stories of violent Jews/liberals to justify brownshirt violence against Jews/liberals.

I'm glad we're not in the same room; you would absolutely reek of desperation.

I didn't make up anything, and you can't prove I did.

Putting people in camps for dissent is a left-wing thing. Sorry, cultist, that's just the cold hard truth.

 

[mamooth]

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. You lied when you said this lie:

"After all, it doesn't say the plan is to redistribute wealth."

That's exactly what the plan is.

Because you say so?

An impressive argument from you, as usual.

Putting people in camps for dissent is a left-wing thing. Sorry, cultist, that's just the cold hard truth.

And there it is again, your "BECAUSE I SAY SO!" screeching.

Who knows. You may actually believe it. Because cult.

 

[Crick]

I don't see the tools with which we used to post up polls but we can ad lib.

Just tell us in the comments. How many people believe they are more intelligent than all the world's active climate scientists. In case you were unsure, if you have EVER put up a post that accused all those scientists of lying, of being biased by "donations and bribes", of claiming that they put out results to please whoever pays for their grants, you should post "ME!". Got it? Okay. Can't wait to see the results!

Every single poster who identifies as conservative, right wing, republican, or tRump supporter.

I suspect many of these denier posters won‘t have the conjones to come out and join this discussion, though we know who most of these posters are.

Every scientist in the world admits the on going climate crisis. Not one scientist in the world has ever come out against it. That’s enough to tell you that we’re all fucked unless we make drastic changes like banning meat, air travel, the gas industry and so much more.

For some reason Trumptards don’t believe science and are becoming a threat to the existence of life in earth

Koonin points out scientific facts supported by hard data and the peer-reviewed literature that stand against the reigning climate change narrative: humans have had no detectable impact on hurricanes over the past century; Greenland’s ice sheet isn’t shrinking any more rapidly today than it was eighty years ago; tornado frequency and severity are not trending up; the number and severity of droughts are not rising over time either; the extent of global fires has been trending significantly downward; the rate of sea-level rise has not accelerated; global crop yields are rising, not falling; the net economic impact of human-induced climate change will be minimal through at least the end of this century even if global average temperatures rise by 30 C which is double the Paris Agreement goal.

Let’s Work For Science With Integrity: Steve Koonin’s New Book “Unsettled”

It is not the global climate system that’s broken, it’s the alleged “climate consensus” that is. That in a nutshell is a central message of physicist Steve Koonin’s new book, “Unsettled: what clima…

wattsupwiththat.com

Science is good; activists and the media are stuffed!!!

Greg

Koonin claims that the IPCC says impact of global warming through the end of the 21st century will be minimal. Here is what the IPCC actually says. This is from AR5, Impacts, Adaptations and Vulnerability, Summary for Policymakers. This is an overview of CURRENT, observed impacts:

In recent decades, changes in climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems on all continents and across the oceans. Evidence of climate-change impacts is strongest and most comprehensive for natural systems. Some impacts on human systems have also been attributed5 to climate change, with a major or minor contribution of climate change distinguishable from other influences. See Figure SPM.2. Attribution of observed impacts in the WGII AR5 generally links responses of natural and human systems to observed climate change, regardless of its cause. 6 In many regions, changing precipitation or melting snow and ice are altering hydrological systems, affecting water resources in terms of quantity and quality (medium confidence). Glaciers continue to shrink almost worldwide due to climate change (high confidence), affecting runoff and water resources downstream (medium confidence). Climate change is causing permafrost warming and thawing in high latitude regions and in high-elevation regions (high confidence). 7 Many terrestrial, freshwater, and marine species have shifted their geographic ranges, seasonal activities, migration patterns, abundances, and species interactions in response to ongoing climate change (high confidence). See Figure SPM.2B.While only a few recent species extinctions have been attributed as yet to climate change (high confidence), natural global climate change at rates slower than current anthropogenic climate change caused significant ecosystem shifts and species extinctions during the past millions of years (high confidence). 8 Based on many studies covering a wide range of regions and crops, negative impacts of climate change on crop yields have been more common than positive impacts (high confidence). The smaller number of studies showing positive impacts relate mainly to high-latitude regions, though it is not yet clear whether the balance of impacts has been negative or positive in these regions (high confidence). Climate change has negatively affected wheat and maize yields for many regions and in the global aggregate (medium confidence). Effects on rice and soybean yield have been smaller in major production regions and globally, with a median change of zero across all available data, which are fewer for soy compared to the other crops. Observed impacts relate mainly to production aspects of food security rather than access or other components of food security. See Figure SPM.2C. Since AR4, several periods of rapid food and cereal price increases following climate extremes in key producing regions indicate a sensitivity of current markets to climate extremes among other factors (medium confidence). 11 At present the worldwide burden of human ill-health from climate change is relatively small compared with effects of other stressors and is not well quantified. However, there has been increased heat-related mortality and decreased cold-related mortality in some regions as a result of warming (medium confidence). Local changes in temperature and rainfall have altered the distribution of some waterborne illnesses and disease vectors (medium confidence). 12 Differences in vulnerability and exposure arise from non-climatic factors and from multidimensional inequalities often produced by uneven development processes (very high confidence). These differences shape differential risks from climate change. See Figure SPM.1. People who are socially, economically, culturally, politically, institutionally, or otherwise marginalized are especially vulnerable to climate change and also to some adaptation and mitigation responses (medium evidence, high agreement). This heightened vulnerability is rarely due to a single cause. Rather, it is the product of intersecting social processes that result in inequalities in socioeconomic status and income, as well as in exposure. Such social processes include, for example, discrimination on the basis of gender, class, ethnicity, age, and (dis)ability. 13 Impacts from recent climate-related extremes, such as heat waves, droughts, floods, cyclones, and wildfires, reveal significant vulnerability and exposure of some ecosystems and many human systems to current climate variability (very high confidence). Impacts of such climate-related extremes include alteration of ecosystems, disruption of food production and water supply, damage to infrastructure and settlements, morbidity and mortality, and consequences for mental health and human well-being. For countries at all levels of development, these impacts are consistent with a significant lack of preparedness for current climate variability in some sectors. 14 Climate-related hazards exacerbate other stressors, often with negative outcomes for livelihoods, especially for people living in poverty (high confidence). Climate-related hazards affect poor people’s lives directly through impacts on livelihoods, reductions in crop yields, or destruction of homes and indirectly through, for example, increased food prices and food insecurity. Observed positive effects for poor and marginalized people, which are limited and often indirect, include examples such as diversification of social networks and of agricultural practices. 15 Violent conflict increases vulnerability to climate change (medium evidence, high agreement). Large-scale violent conflict harms assets that facilitate adaptation, including infrastructure, institutions, natural resources, social capital, and livelihood opportunities. 16

 

[daveman]

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore..." -- IPCC

And the actual source of this supposed quote is ... ?

If you're not committing open fraud for the glory of your fascist cult, it shouldn't be a problem for you to show your source.

IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World's Wealth” - The Global Warming Policy Forum

I thought you knew this by now

He's been shown the quote numerous times.

But it goes against his programming, so he denies it's real.

He's a Useful idiot

Short on useful, long on Idiot.

 

[Crick]

I don't see the tools with which we used to post up polls but we can ad lib.

Just tell us in the comments. How many people believe they are more intelligent than all the world's active climate scientists. In case you were unsure, if you have EVER put up a post that accused all those scientists of lying, of being biased by "donations and bribes", of claiming that they put out results to please whoever pays for their grants, you should post "ME!". Got it? Okay. Can't wait to see the results!

Every single poster who identifies as conservative, right wing, republican, or tRump supporter.

I suspect many of these denier posters won‘t have the conjones to come out and join this discussion, though we know who most of these posters are.

Every scientist in the world admits the on going climate crisis. Not one scientist in the world has ever come out against it. That’s enough to tell you that we’re all fucked unless we make drastic changes like banning meat, air travel, the gas industry and so much more.

For some reason Trumptards don’t believe science and are becoming a threat to the existence of life in earth

Koonin points out scientific facts supported by hard data and the peer-reviewed literature that stand against the reigning climate change narrative: humans have had no detectable impact on hurricanes over the past century; Greenland’s ice sheet isn’t shrinking any more rapidly today than it was eighty years ago; tornado frequency and severity are not trending up; the number and severity of droughts are not rising over time either; the extent of global fires has been trending significantly downward; the rate of sea-level rise has not accelerated; global crop yields are rising, not falling; the net economic impact of human-induced climate change will be minimal through at least the end of this century even if global average temperatures rise by 30 C which is double the Paris Agreement goal.

Let’s Work For Science With Integrity: Steve Koonin’s New Book “Unsettled”

It is not the global climate system that’s broken, it’s the alleged “climate consensus” that is. That in a nutshell is a central message of physicist Steve Koonin’s new book, “Unsettled: what clima…

wattsupwiththat.com

Science is good; activists and the media are stuffed!!!

Greg

Koonin claims that the IPCC says impact of global warming through the end of the 21st century will be minimal. Here is what the IPCC actually says. This is from AR5, Impacts, Adaptations and Vulnerability, Summary for Policymakers. This is a list of risks created by human interference with the Earth's climate system:

Five integrative reasons for concern (RFCs) provide a framework for summarizing key risks across sectors and regions. First identified in the IPCC Third Assessment Report, the RFCs illustrate the implications of warming and of adaptation limits for people, economies, and ecosystems. They provide one starting point for evaluating dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Risks for each RFC, updated based on assessment of the literature and expert judgments, are presented below. All temperatures below are given as global average temperature change relative to 1986–2005 (“recent”). 34

1) Unique and threatened systems: Some unique and threatened systems, including ecosystems and cultures, are already at risk from climate change (high confidence). The number of such systems at risk of severe consequences is higher with additional warming of around 1°C. Many species and systems with limited adaptive capacity are subject to very high risks with additional warming of 2°C, particularly Arctic-sea-ice and coral-reef systems.

2) Extreme weather events: Climate-change-related risks from extreme events, such as heat waves, extreme precipitation, and coastal flooding, are already moderate (high confidence) and high with 1°C additional warming (medium confidence). Risks associated with some types of extreme events (e.g., extreme heat) increase further at higher temperatures (high confidence).

3) Distribution of impacts: Risks are unevenly distributed and are generally greater for disadvantaged people and communities in countries at all levels of development. Risks are already moderate because of regionally differentiated climate-change impacts on crop production in particular (medium to high confidence). Based on projected decreases in regional crop yields and water availability, risks of unevenly distributed impacts are high for additional warming above 2°C (medium confidence).

4) Global aggregate impacts: Risks of global aggregate impacts are moderate for additional warming between 1–2°C, reflecting impacts to both Earth’s biodiversity and the overall global economy (medium confidence). Extensive biodiversity loss with associated loss of ecosystem goods and services results in high risks around 3°C additional warming (high confidence).Aggregate economic damages accelerate with increasing temperature (limited evidence, high agreement), but few quantitative estimates have been completed for additional warming around 3°C or above.

5) Large-scale singular events: With increasing warming, some physical systems or ecosystems may be at risk of abrupt and irreversible changes. Risks associated with such tipping points become moderate between 0–1°C additional warming, due to early warning signs that both warm-water coral reef and Arctic ecosystems are already experiencing irreversible regime shifts (medium confidence). Risks increase disproportionately as temperature increases between 1–2°C additional warming and become high above 3°C, due to the potential for a large and irreversible sea level rise from ice sheet loss. For sustained warming greater than some threshold, 35 near-complete loss of the Greenland ice sheet would occur over a millennium or more, contributing up to 7 m of global mean sea level rise.

 

[daveman]

I don't see the tools with which we used to post up polls but we can ad lib.

Just tell us in the comments. How many people believe they are more intelligent than all the world's active climate scientists. In case you were unsure, if you have EVER put up a post that accused all those scientists of lying, of being biased by "donations and bribes", of claiming that they put out results to please whoever pays for their grants, you should post "ME!". Got it? Okay. Can't wait to see the results!

Every single poster who identifies as conservative, right wing, republican, or tRump supporter.

I suspect many of these denier posters won‘t have the conjones to come out and join this discussion, though we know who most of these posters are.

Every scientist in the world admits the on going climate crisis. Not one scientist in the world has ever come out against it. That’s enough to tell you that we’re all fucked unless we make drastic changes like banning meat, air travel, the gas industry and so much more.

For some reason Trumptards don’t believe science and are becoming a threat to the existence of life in earth

Maybe you should put us all in camps.

I'm good with that.

Line up.

Why, because it'll hurt your feelings if I don't?

How do you think that's going to work out?

 

[Flash]

Add 80 to each number in this list

1. ^ AIP science policy document. (PDF), 2005 "Policy: The AIP supports a reduction of the green house gas emissions that are leading to increased global temperatures, and encourages research that works towards this goal. Reason: Research in Australia and overseas shows that an increase in global temperature will adversely affect the Earth's climate patterns. The melting of the polar ice caps, combined with thermal expansion, will lead to rises in sea levels that may impact adversely on our coastal cities. The impact of these changes on biodiversity will fundamentally change the ecology of Earth."
2. ^ EPS Position Paper Energy for the future: The Nuclear Option (PDF), 2007 "The emission of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, among which carbon dioxide is the main contributor, has amplified the natural greenhouse effect and led to global warming. The main contribution stems from burning fossil fuels. A further increase will have decisive effects on life on earth. An energy cycle with the lowest possible CO
   2 emission is called for wherever possible to combat climate change."
3. ^ Ledley, Tamara S.; Sundquist, Eric T.; Schwartz, Stephen E.; Hall, Dorothy K.; Fellows, Jack D.; Killeen, Timothy L. (28 September 1999). "Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases"(PDF). EOS. 80 (39): 453–454, 457–458. Bibcode:1999EOSTr..80Q.453L. doi:10.1029/99EO00325. Archived from the original (PDF) on 9 October 2016. Retrieved 16 August 2016. There is no known geologic precedent for large increases of atmospheric C02 without simultaneous changes in other components of the carbon cycle and climate system.[...] Changes in the climate system that are confidently predicted in response to increases in greenhouse gases include increases in mean surface air temperature, increases in global mean rates of precipitation and evaporation, rising sea level, and changes in the biosphere.
4. ^ "AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate". Agu.org. Retrieved 30 July 2012.
5. ^ "Human-induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action". Position Statement. American Geophysical Union. Retrieved 14 August 2013.
6. ^ Climate Change Position Statement Working Group (11 May 2011). "ASA, CSSA, and SSSA Position Statement on Climate Change" (PDF). Working Group Rep. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA. Madison, WI. Retrieved 21 January 2019.
7. ^ "EFG Website | Home". Eurogeologists.de. 10 August 2011. Retrieved 30 July 2012.
8. ^ EFG Carbon Capture and geological Storage
9. ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 5 October 2011. Retrieved 28 April 2011.
10. ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 18 January 2009. Retrieved 6 January 2009.
11. ^ "EGU's reaction to IPCC report on Global Warming of 1.5°C". European Geosciences Union (EGU). 9 October 2018. Retrieved 21 March 2019.
12. ^ "The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Global Climate Change". Geosociety.org. Retrieved 30 July2012.
13. ^ "Geological Society - Climate change: evidence from the geological record". Geolsoc.org.uk. Archived from the originalon 10 November 2010. Retrieved 30 July 2012.
14. ^ "IUGG Resolution 6" (PDF).
15. ^ "NAGT". NAGT.
16. ^ "Position Statement - Teaching Climate Change". NAGT. Retrieved 28 November 2019.
17. ^ "AMS Information Statement on Climate Change". Ametsoc.org. 20 August 2012. Retrieved 27 August 2012.
18. ^ Maibach, Edward (March 2016). A 2016 National Survey of American Meteorological Society Member Views on Climate Change: Initial Findings. George Mason University. p. 25.
19. ^ "Statement". AMOS. Retrieved 30 July 2012.
20. ^ "CFCAS Letter to PM, November 25, 2005" (PDF).
21. ^ Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Letter to Stephen Harper (Updated, 2007)
22. ^ "News - Royal Meteorological Society". www.rmets.org.
23. ^ "WMO's Statement at the Twelfth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change" (PDF).
24. ^ Council of the American Quaternary Association (2006). "Petroleum Geologists' Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate". Eos. 87 (36): 364. Bibcode:2006EOSTr..87..364B. doi:10.1029/2006EO360008.
25. ^ Jump up to:a b "INQUA Statement On Climate Change" (PDF).
26. ^ AAWV Position Statement on Climate Change, Wildlife Diseases, and Wildlife Health "There is widespread scientific agreement that the world's climate is changing and that the weight of evidence demonstrates that anthropogenic factors have and will continue to contribute significantly to global warming and climate change. It is anticipated that continuing changes to the climate will have serious negative impacts on public, animal and ecosystem health due to extreme weather events, changing disease transmission dynamics, emerging and re-emerging diseases, and alterations to habitat and ecological systems that are essential to wildlife conservation. Furthermore, there is increasing recognition of the inter-relationships of human, domestic animal, wildlife, and ecosystem health as illustrated by the fact the majority of recent emerging diseases have a wildlife origin."
27. ^ AIBS Position Statements "Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver."
28. ^ Scientific societies warn Senate: climate change is real, Ars Technica, 22 October 2009
29. ^ Letter to US Senators (PDF), October 2009
30. ^ Global Environmental Change — Microbial Contributions, Microbial Solutions (PDF), American Society For Microbiology, May 2006 They recommended "reducing net anthropogenic CO
    2emissions to the atmosphere" and "minimizing anthropogenic disturbances of" atmospheric gases. Carbon dioxide concentrations were relatively stable for the past 10,000 years but then began to increase rapidly about 150 years ago…as a result of fossil fuel consumption and land use change. Of course, changes in atmospheric composition are but one component of global change, which also includes disturbances in the physical and chemical conditions of the oceans and land surface. Although global change has been a natural process throughout Earth's history, humans are responsible for substantially accelerating present-day changes. These changes may adversely affect human health and the biosphere on which we depend. Outbreaks of a number of diseases, including Lyme disease, hantavirus infections, dengue fever, bubonic plague, and cholera, have been linked to climate change."
31. ^ Australian Coral Reef Society official letter (PDF), 2006, archived from the original (PDF) on 22 March 2006 Official communique regarding the Great Barrier Reef and the "world-wide decline in coral reefs through processes such as overfishing, runoff of nutrients from the land, coral bleaching, global climate change, ocean acidification, pollution", etc.: There is almost total consensus among experts that the earth's climate is changing as a result of the build-up of greenhouse gases. The IPCC (involving over 3,000 of the world's experts) has come out with clear conclusions as to the reality of this phenomenon. One does not have to look further than the collective academy of scientistsworldwide to see the string (of) statements on this worrying change to the earth's atmosphere. There is broad scientific consensus that coral reefs are heavily affected by the activities of man and there are significant global influences that can make reefs more vulnerable such as global warming....It is highly likely that coral bleaching has been exacerbated by global warming."
32. ^ Institute of Biology policy page 'Climate Change' "there is scientific agreement that the rapid global warming that has occurred in recent years is mostly anthropogenic, ie due to human activity." As a consequence of global warming, they warn that a "rise in sea levels due to melting of ice caps is expected to occur. Rises in temperature will have complex and frequently localised effects on weather, but an overall increase in extreme weather conditions and changes in precipitation patterns are probable, resulting in flooding and drought. The spread of tropical diseasesis also expected." Subsequently, the Institute of Biology advocates policies to reduce "greenhouse gas emissions, as we feel that the consequences of climate change are likely to be severe."
33. ^ SAF Forest Management and Climate Change (PDF), 2008, archived from the original (PDF) on 22 February 2012, retrieved 29 January 2009 "Forests are shaped by climate....Changes in temperature and precipitation regimes therefore have the potential to dramatically affect forests nationwide. There is growing evidence that our climate is changing. The changes in temperature have been associated with increasing concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO
    2) and other GHGs in the atmosphere."
34. ^ SAF Forest Offset Projects in a Carbon Trading System(PDF), 2008, archived from the original (PDF) on 22 February 2012, retrieved 29 January 2009 "Forests play a significant role in offsetting CO
    2 emissions, the primary anthropogenic GHG."
35. ^ Wildlife Society Global Climate Change and Wildlife(PDF), archived from the original (PDF) on 27 November 2008"Scientists throughout the world have concluded that climate research conducted in the past two decades definitively shows that rapid worldwide climate change occurred in the 20th century, and will likely continue to occur for decades to come. Although climates have varied dramatically since the Earth was formed, few scientists question the role of humans in exacerbating recent climate change through the emission of greenhouse gases. The critical issue is no longer "if" climate change is occurring, but rather how to address its effects on wildlife and wildlife habitats." The statement goes on to assert that "evidence is accumulating that wildlife and wildlife habitats have been and will continue to be significantly affected by ongoing large-scale rapid climate change." The statement concludes with a call for "reduction in anthropogenic (human-caused) sources of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions contributing to global climate change and the conservation of CO
    2- consuming photosynthesizers (i.e., plants)."
36. ^ AAP Global Climate Change and Children's Health, 2007, archived from the original on 22 July 2009, retrieved 13 February 2009 "There is broad scientific consensus that Earth's climate is warming rapidly and at an accelerating rate. Human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, are very likely (>90% probability) to be the main cause of this warming. Climate-sensitive changes in ecosystems are already being observed, and fundamental, potentially irreversible, ecological changes may occur in the coming decades. Conservative environmental estimates of the impact of climate changes that are already in process indicate that they will result in numerous health effects to children. Anticipated direct health consequences of climate change include injury and death from extreme weather events and natural disasters, increases in climate-sensitive infectious diseases, increases in air pollution–related illness, and more heat-related, potentially fatal, illness. Within all of these categories, children have increased vulnerability compared with other groups."
37. ^ ACPM Policy Statement Abrupt Climate Change and Public Health Implications, 2006, archived from the original on 7 November 2007, retrieved 21 November 2008 "The American College of Preventive Medicine (ACPM) accept the position that global warming and climate change is occurring, that there is potential for abrupt climate change, and that human practices that increase greenhouse gases exacerbate the problem, and that the public health consequences may be severe."
38. ^ American Medical Association Policy Statement, 2008"Support the findings of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, which states that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that these changes will negatively affect public health. Support educating the medical community on the potential adverse public health effects of global climate change, including topics such as population displacement, flooding, infectious and vector-borne diseases, and healthy water supplies."
39. ^ American Public Health Association Policy StatementAddressing the Urgent Threat of Global Climate Change to Public Health and the Environment, 2007, archived from the original on 31 December 2009 "The long-term threat of global climate change to global health is extremely serious and the fourth IPCC report and other scientific literature demonstrate convincingly that anthropogenic GHG emissions are primarily responsible for this threat….US policy makers should immediately take necessary steps to reduce US emissions of GHGs, including carbon dioxide, to avert dangerous climate change."
40. ^ AMA Climate Change and Human Health — 2004, 2004[permanent dead link] They recommend policies "to mitigate the possible consequential health effects of climate change through improved energy efficiency, clean energy production and other emission reduction steps."
41. ^ AMA Climate Change and Human Health — 2004. Revised 2008., 2008, archived from the original on 16 February 2009"The world's climate – our life-support system – is being altered in ways that are likely to pose significant direct and indirect challenges to health. While ‘climate change’ can be due to natural forces or human activity, there is now substantial evidence to indicate that human activity – and specifically increased greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions – is a key factor in the pace and extent of global temperature increases. Health impacts of climate change include the direct impacts of extreme events such as storms, floods, heatwaves and fires and the indirect effects of longer-term changes, such as drought, changes to the food and water supply, resource conflicts and population shifts. Increases in average temperatures mean that alterations in the geographic range and seasonality of certain infections and diseases (including vector-borne diseases such as malaria, dengue fever, Ross River virus and food-borne infections such as Salmonellosis) may be among the first detectable impacts of climate change on human health. Human health is ultimately dependent on the health of the planet and its ecosystem. The AMA believes that measures which mitigate climate change will also benefit public health. Reducing GHGs should therefore be seen as a public health priority."
42. ^ World Federation of Public Health Associations resolution "Global Climate Change" (PDF), 2001, archived from the original (PDF) on 17 December 2008 "Noting the conclusions of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other climatologists that anthropogenic greenhouse gases, which contribute to global climate change, have substantially increased in atmospheric concentration beyond natural processes and have increased by 28 percent since the industrial revolution….Realizing that subsequent health effects from such perturbations in the climate system would likely include an increase in: heat-related mortality and morbidity; vector-borne infectious diseases,… water-borne diseases…(and) malnutrition from threatened agriculture….the World Federation of Public Health Associations…recommends precautionary primary preventive measures to avert climate change, including reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and preservation of greenhouse gas sinks through appropriate energy and land use policies, in view of the scale of potential health impacts...."
43. ^ WHO Protecting health from climate change (PDF), 2008, p. 2, retrieved 18 April 2009
44. ^ "Closer than ever: It is 100 seconds to midnight". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Retrieved 29 January 2020.
45. ^ Statement supporting AGU statement on human-induced climate change, American Astronomical Society, 2004, archived from the original on 7 May 2007 "In endorsing the "Human Impacts on Climate" statement [issued by the American Geophysical Union], the AAS recognizes the collective expertise of the AGU in scientific subfields central to assessing and understanding global change, and acknowledges the strength of agreement among our AGU colleagues that the global climate is changing and human activities are contributing to that change."
46. ^ ASA Statement on Climate Change, 30 November 2007 "The ASA endorses the IPCC conclusions.... Over the course of four assessment reports, a small number of statisticians have served as authors or reviewers. Although this involvement is encouraging, it does not represent the full range of statistical expertise available. ASA recommends that more statisticians should become part of the IPCC process. Such participation would be mutually beneficial to the assessment of climate change and its impacts and also to the statistical community."
47. ^ Lapp, David. "What Is Climate Change". Canadian Council of Professional Engineers. Retrieved 18 August 2015.
48. ^ Policy Statement, Climate Change and Energy, February 2007 "Engineers Australia believes that Australia must act swiftly and proactively in line with global expectations to address climate change as an economic, social and environmental risk... We believe that addressing the costs of atmospheric emissions will lead to increasing our competitive advantage by minimising risks and creating new economic opportunities. Engineers Australia believes the Australian Government should ratify the Kyoto Protocol."
49. ^ IAGLR Fact Sheet The Great Lakes at a Crossroads: Preparing for a Changing Climate (PDF), February 2009 "While the Earth's climate has changed many times during the planet's history because of natural factors, including volcanic eruptions and changes in the Earth's orbit, never before have we observed the present rapid rise in temperature and carbon dioxide (CO
    2). Human activities resulting from the industrial revolution have changed the chemical composition of the atmosphere....Deforestation is now the second largest contributor to global warming, after the burning of fossil fuels. These human activities have significantly increased the concentration of "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere. As the Earth's climate warms, we are seeing many changes: stronger, more destructive hurricanes; heavier rainfall; more disastrous flooding; more areas of the world experiencing severe drought; and more heat waves."
50. ^ IPENZ Informatory Note, Climate Change and the greenhouse effect (PDF), October 2001 "Human activities have increased the concentration of these atmospheric greenhouse gases, and although the changes are relatively small, the equilibrium maintained by the atmosphere is delicate, and so the effect of these changes is significant. The world's most important greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide, a by-product of the burning of fossil fuels. Since the time of the Industrial Revolution about 200 years ago, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from about 280 parts per million to 370 parts per million, an increase of around 30%. On the basis of available data, climate scientists are now projecting an average global temperature rise over this century of 2.0 to 4.5°C. This compared with 0.6°C over the previous century – about a 500% increase... This could lead to changing, and for all emissions scenarios more unpredictable, weather patterns around the world, less frost days, more extreme events (droughts and storm or flood disasters), and warmer sea temperatures and melting glaciers causing sea levels to rise. ... Professional engineers commonly deal with risk, and frequently have to make judgments based on incomplete data. The available evidence suggests very strongly that human activities have already begun to make significant changes to the earth's climate, and that the long-term risk of delaying action is greater than the cost of avoiding/minimising the risk."
51. ^ AAPG Position Statement: Climate Change from dpa.aapg.org
52. ^ "Climate :03:2007 EXPLORER". Aapg.org. Retrieved 30 July2012.
53. ^ Sunsetting the Global Climate Change Committee, The Professional Geologist, March/April 2010, p. 28
54. ^ "AIPG Position Statements". Retrieved 1 February 2018.
55. ^ "The Professional Geologist publications". Archived from the original on 5 March 2012. Retrieved 30 July 2012.
56. ^ Naomi Oreskes (3 December 2004). "Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" (PDF). Science. 306 (5702): 1686. doi:10.1126/science.1103618. PMID 15576594. S2CID 153792099. (see also for an exchange of letters to Science)
57. ^ Lavelle, Marianne (23 April 2008). "Survey Tracks Scientists' Growing Climate Concern". U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved 20 January 2010.
58. ^ Lichter, S. Robert (24 April 2008). "Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don't Trust the Media's Coverage of Climate Change". Statistical Assessment Service, George Mason University. Archived from the original on 11 January 2010. Retrieved 20 January 2010.
59. ^ ""Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change" at Journalist's Resource.org".
60. ^ Stephen J. Farnsworth; S. Robert Lichter (27 October 2011). "The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change". International Journal of Public Opinion Research. Retrieved 2 December 2011.
61. ^ Bray, Dennis; von Storch, Hans (2009). "A Survey of the Perspectives of Climate Scientists Concerning Climate Science and Climate Change" (PDF).
62. ^ Bray, D.; von Storch H. (2009). "Prediction' or 'Projection; The nomenclature of climate science" (PDF). Science Communication. 30 (4): 534–543. doi:10.1177/1075547009333698. S2CID 145338218.
63. ^ Doran, Peter T.; Zimmerman, Maggie Kendall (20 January 2009). "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". Eos. 90 (3): 22–23. Bibcode:2009EOSTr..90...22D. doi:10.1029/2009EO030002. ISSN 2324-9250. S2CID 128398335.
64. ^ Anderegg, William R L; Prall, James W.; Harold, Jacob; Schneider, Stephen H. (2010). "Expert credibility in climate change". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 107 (27): 12107–12109. Bibcode:2010PNAS..10712107A. doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107. PMC 2901439. PMID 20566872.
65. ^ Cook, John; Nuccitelli, Dana; Green, Sarah A.; Richardson, Mark; Winkler, Bärbel; Painting, Rob; Way, Robert; Skuce, Andrew (1 January 2013). "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature". Environmental Research Letters. 8 (2): 024024. Bibcode:2013ERL.....8b4024C. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024. ISSN 1748-9326.
66. ^ Tol, Richard S J (1 April 2016). "Comment on 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature'". Environmental Research Letters. IOP Publishing. 11(4): 048001. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048001. ISSN 1748-9326.
67. ^ Cook, John; Oreskes, Naomi; Doran, Peter T.; Anderegg, William R. L.; Verheggen, Bart; Maibach, Ed W.; Carlton, J. Stuart; Lewandowsky, Stephan; Skuce, Andrew G.; Green, Sarah A.; Nuccitelli, Dana (April 2016). "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming". Environmental Research Letters. 11 (4): 048002. Bibcode:2016ERL....11d8002C. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002. ISSN 1748-9326.
68. ^ Plait, P. (11 December 2012). "Why Climate Change Denial Is Just Hot Air". Slate. Retrieved 14 February 2014.
69. ^ Plait, P. (14 January 2014). "The Very, Very Thin Wedge of Denial". Slate. Retrieved 14 February 2014.
70. ^ Powell, James Lawrence (1 October 2015). "Climate Scientists Virtually Unanimous Anthropogenic Global Warming Is True". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 35 (5–6): 121–124. doi:10.1177/0270467616634958. ISSN 0270-4676.
71. ^ Powell, James Lawrence (24 May 2017). "The Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming Matters". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 36 (3): 157–163. doi:10.1177/0270467617707079. S2CID 148618842.
72. ^ Powell, J. (2019). Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals
73. ^ US NRC (2008). Understanding and Responding to Climate Change. A brochure prepared by the US National Research Council (US NRC) (PDF). Washington DC, USA: US National Academy of Sciences.
74. ^ "Joint Science Academies' Statement" (PDF).
75. ^ "Climate Change Research: Issues for the Atmospheric and Related Sciences Adopted by the AMS Council 9 February 2003". Ametsoc.org. 9 February 2003. Retrieved 30 July 2012.
76. ^ "Australian Coral Reef Society". Australian Coral Reef Society. Retrieved 30 July 2012.
77. ^ Australian Coral Reef Society official letter Archived 22 March 2006 at the Wayback Machine, 16 June 2006

• IPCC TAR SYR (2001), Watson, R. T.; the Core Writing Team (eds.), Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report, Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-80770-0 (pb: 0-521-01507-3).
• IPCC AR4 WG2 (2007), Parry, M. L.; Canziani, O. F.; Palutikof, J. P.; van der Linden, P. J.; Hanson, C. E. (eds.), Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-88010-7 (pb: 978-0-521-70597-4).
• IPCC AR4 WG3 (2007), Metz, B.; Davidson, O. R.; Bosch, P. R.; Dave, R.; Meyer, L. A. (eds.), Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change, Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-88011-4 (pb: 978-0-521-70598-1).
• IPCC AR4 SYR (2007), Core Writing Team; Pachauri, R. K.; Reisinger, A. (eds.), Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report (SYR), Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC, ISBN 978-92-9169-122-7.
• US NRC (2001), Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions. A report by the Committee on the Science of Climate Change, US National Research Council (NRC), Washington, D.C., USA: National Academy Press, ISBN 0-309-07574-2, archived from the original on 5 June 2011

When you really look into it you will discover that most (if not all) of the base data to those stupid articles are distorted, cherry picked, blatantly dishonest or fraudulently produced to satisfy the funding source for the research.

When you look into it you also find that those turkeys have a bad habit of building upon each other's fraudulent research. They will reference each other when there was never any credible data.

AGW has no scientific basis. It is horseshit science.

Go read the Climategate emails where the Principle Climate Scientists brag to each other about falsifying the data and then look at the blatantly dishonest reports put out by government agencies like NASA and NOAA and you will see how this AGW horseshit is nothing more than a scam.

Then maybe you will pull your head out of your Environmental Wacko ass.

 

[daveman]

Ok....but then, so what? Why even have this forum if it is such a slam dunk?

The fact that we have post glacial warming is a slam dunk. Nobody disagrees with that. That is a scientific fact. The earth has been warming since the end of the last ice age and will probably continue to do so.

However, AGW is not a slam dunk. It has not been proven that man made activities have contributed to any significant degree to the climate of the earth. We have contributed significant pollution but there is no real evidence of AGW.

There are some unscientific correlations and a lot of computer modeling using ridiculous data but no real data.

That is why that the Climate Scientists have been caught red handed on many occasions fudging data. If they use real data that have nothing so they make up data. They also ignore valid historical data and nothing they ever predict comes true. They are batting zero.

Why do they do it? The obvious answer is that they are simply Moon Bats that are confused about everything. However, it more likely tied to funding sources. It could be a Ted Kaczynski type mentality that is rebelling against technology and human progress; "If we all just have wind mills and solar panels we can all just sit around Walden Pond and be groovey". We saw that kind of mentality in the Climategate emails.

The fact is that this silly AGW scam has turned into a religion of the Left. A religion that is not based on anything real and it is both silly and destructive at the same time.

Flash, you have already been noted as someone who believes they are smarter than the thousands of PhD climate researchers around the world. That indicates that you are done here. Please take your other comments to a more pertinent thread.

"HERETIC! OUTCAST! UNCLEAN!!"

 

[Indeependent]

I don't see the tools with which we used to post up polls but we can ad lib.

Just tell us in the comments. How many people believe they are more intelligent than all the world's active climate scientists. In case you were unsure, if you have EVER put up a post that accused all those scientists of lying, of being biased by "donations and bribes", of claiming that they put out results to please whoever pays for their grants, you should post "ME!". Got it? Okay. Can't wait to see the results!

You know those scientists believe in climate change before they start working on it, Scientists have agendas too. And the financial rewards from people who are only trying to redistribute wealth for those scientists are huge.

This is another big lie. There are so many it is hard to keep track of them.

Then you MUST have some evidence of those scientists receiving those financial rewards. Right? Could you share it with us?

Remaining employed with excellent benefits.

 

[daveman]

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. You lied when you said this lie:

"After all, it doesn't say the plan is to redistribute wealth."

That's exactly what the plan is.

Because you say so?

An impressive argument from you, as usual.

Putting people in camps for dissent is a left-wing thing. Sorry, cultist, that's just the cold hard truth.

And there it is again, your "BECAUSE I SAY SO!" screeching.

Who knows. You may actually believe it. Because cult.

Thanks for proving yet again my signature is correct.

 

[Indeependent]

I don't think that's true but should I put you down as knowing this subject better than the world's climate scientists? Or are YOU actually a published climate scientist? Perhaps THAT'S what's going on here. If any of you ARE actually publishing PhDs actively doing research in climate matters, please let us know. Hoo-wee, I hope I haven't fudged this one.

I hope you realize that the scientists have predicted the end of the world since the mid 70s.

 

[Flash]

Bottom line on the AGW horseshit scam.

If the data was real there would be no need to lie.

The assholes have been caught lying too many times to ever be credible.

 

[mamooth]

I hope you realize that the scientists have predicted the end of the world since the mid 70s.

No, the scientists predicted the warming. Only your crazy MSM allies predicted the end of the world.