Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....

[otto105]

Okay, I believe the scientists at NASA over a troll on the internet.

Unfortunate to be in a position where you feel that you must believe people who have been caught falsifying data....

What data has been falsified? Well, outside of the denial bubble.

Glad to provide you with some...it isn't as if were hard to find....

Here is a fine example...the temperature was adjusted down from the raw data in order to give the appearance of more warming than has actually happened and it completely eliminates the hot period of the 1930's (the dust bowl years) which were warmer than the present and makes them appear much cooler than the present.

Here is another fine example of the "adjustment" happening at NASA.. Want more? There's plenty out there.

Post the source where you pulled these "graphs" from.

Lets see if you ignore these charts from PISS using THEIR source links. It is all PISS/NASA here.


NASA 1998



NASA 2019

Cooling the past, warming the present is obvious here.

Why don't you links go back to NASA? I could post 1000's of NASA cited graphs which don't show the supposed adjustment that you claim.

Like this one

or this one.

Or this one

 

[Flopper]

Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....

I.E., the global scientific community. But you dont ply your nonsense with them, necause you qould get laughed out of the room. By the way, they are the ones who have the evidence.

First, it is a bit disingenuous to say, "the global scientific community," because I don't really think they all subscribe to the belief that humans are the primary driver,

Earth Science | Climate Change | Global Warming | Renewable Energy | Pollution Treatment | Renewable Energy | USA | Asia | Middle East| Lisbon | Portugal
PLANETOPHYSICAL STATE OF THE EARTH AND LIFE
| PSI Intl

and,

Second, has the scientific community always been completely accurate in all of it's hypothesis's?

I think the question is misstated.
Has Global Warming and Climate Change caused the Polar Shift?
As temperatures increased throughout the 20th century, Greenland's ice mass decreased. In fact, a total of about 7,500 gigatons -- the weight of more than 20 million Empire State Buildings -- of Greenland's ice melted into the ocean during this time period. This makes Greenland one of the top contributors of mass being transferred to the oceans, causing sea level to rise and, consequently, a drift in Earth's spin axis.
Scientists ID three causes of Earth's spin axis drift – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

But to answer your question, when their is evidence of the most catastrophic event that mankind has ever faced is occurring, we don't need 100% of the scientific community concurrence nor do we need to be 100% correct.

First, in spite of your hysterical, handwaving and hyperventilating, this is not the most catastrophic event that mankind has ever faced...the little ice age that we are coming out of was...it is estimated that the shortened growing seasons which reduced food stores, and the cold itself along with the diseases it brought with it (the black death among them, more than 55 million people died due to the change in climate. Cold is a killer, not warmth.

Second as with all the hysterical claims of climate science about everything, the claims about greenland are false as well. Parts of greenland are losing ice because volcanoes have also been discovered under the ice on greenland.. Imagine that...volcanoes melting ice..

From Kelly; 2017

From Nature:

There is plenty more....suffice it to say that you have been misled...unfortunate but that is how life is for useful idiots.

I'm sure there is more since a cottage industry on the Internet has been cranking this shit out for over 20 years. I'll stick with the findings and opinion of vast majority of the scientific community.

 

[Flopper]

Your graph has modeling and adjustments, it's wrong.


Next.

So lets see some peer reviewed evidence to contradict it...mine is peer reviewed..yours was from an alarmist blog...given a choice, I will go with the peer reviewed science till some better peer reviewed science comes along...you stick with your alarmist blog...they will give you just the opinion they think you should have. No effort on your part necessary...of course it does leave you looking like a clueless idiot when you try to talk to someone who can actually provide real science to support their position, but luckily you won't be bright enough to even recognize the fact that you are taking a real drubbing in public...

You have not disproved any of the peer reviewed data that Desmog cited. You have used some cut and paste BS backed by nothing.

Actually, I disproved it all...do I expect that you would be bright enough to recognize that fact? No...not a chance in hell. You keep reading your blogs and stay just as ignorant as you are...it is precisely what you deserve.

You have not disproved this peer reviewed paper from 2018.

Climate-change–driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era


You have NOT disproved anything from NASA.


You have offered bullshit and paraded around in a little skirt.

Of course I did...as I pointed out already:

2.8 mm per year? Not very scary...even to alarmists so again, the data is heavily massaged using inappropriate, and completely fraudulent methods to achieve a 3.3mm per year rate of increase. A global isostatic adjustment was applied which is blatantly fraudulent in the context of sea level increase. Such adjustments are correct in the context of calculating ocean depth as the sea floor sinks and have absolutely no relationship to measuring sea level by satellites. Here is what the adjustments look like...

Here is an overlay of the two graphs at the same time scale.

You are so far out of your depth (and you reside in the very shallow end of the pool) that you don't even know when your questions have been answered...The acceleration happened when they applied a global isostatic adjustment. Isostatic adjustments are used to determine if the sea floor is sinking...it has nothing to do with sea level rise... And the graphs show the effect of the adjustment...there is no acceleration in sea level rise...there is only fraudulent adjustments...which tide gages....do not agree with...

The change in level between 1992 and 2016 appears to be about 80 mm or an avg of 5.7 mm / yr without any adjustment.

 

[otto105]

Still not ONE scientific organization cited by any denier here....

 

[SSDD]

Why don't you links go back to NASA? I could post 1000's of NASA cited graphs which don't show the supposed adjustment that you claim.

Like this one

Not the sharpest knife in the kitchen are you? How do you think you could see adjustments by looking at one version of a graph? You see the adjustments by looking graphs showing the same same data produced in different years.

The graph above, that you provided, shows US data was produced in 2017.

Here is the graph of US data that they produced in 1999

Here is an overlay of the two graphs...by comparing one to the other, you can see the adjustments. As you can see, the temperatures have been adjusted pretty heavily since 1999. You can see that they raised the temperature starting point in 1880...then proceeded to cool the entire period from about 1883 to 1970. and then increased the temperature of every year after 1970. It is blatant.

They significantly cooled the 1930s period, known as the dust bowl years which were warmer than the present in order to claim that the present is the warmest EVAH.....clearly it isn't. The 1930s saw temperatures warmer than the present.

then there is your graph of the global temperature....

I'm not sure where that came from ..it does't say that it was published by NASA.... Here is one that was published in a paper in 1999 by James Hansen, the godfather of global warming while he was working at NASA. He shows 0.6C of warming between 1880 and 1997.

In the most recent graph, they now show more than 1.0C of warming during the same period.

Here are a couple of overlays of the 1999 and 2006 versions. They show how they cooled the years prior to 1980's and warmed the years after the 1980's.

Here is a closer view...

You can apologize for them all you like...I would expect nothing less, but he fact is that they have been tampering with the data for years and now, they are even tampering with the raw data so that it will be impossible to ever know what the actual temperatures were...

Here..from October 2017...

Then in May of 2018, they restored much of the 1940's warmth that they had adjusted out of earlier versions

Then by July 2018, they had cooled the 1940's again.

 

[SSDD]

So lets see some peer reviewed evidence to contradict it...mine is peer reviewed..yours was from an alarmist blog...given a choice, I will go with the peer reviewed science till some better peer reviewed science comes along...you stick with your alarmist blog...they will give you just the opinion they think you should have. No effort on your part necessary...of course it does leave you looking like a clueless idiot when you try to talk to someone who can actually provide real science to support their position, but luckily you won't be bright enough to even recognize the fact that you are taking a real drubbing in public...

You have not disproved any of the peer reviewed data that Desmog cited. You have used some cut and paste BS backed by nothing.

Actually, I disproved it all...do I expect that you would be bright enough to recognize that fact? No...not a chance in hell. You keep reading your blogs and stay just as ignorant as you are...it is precisely what you deserve.

You have not disproved this peer reviewed paper from 2018.

Climate-change–driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era


You have NOT disproved anything from NASA.


You have offered bullshit and paraded around in a little skirt.

Of course I did...as I pointed out already:

2.8 mm per year? Not very scary...even to alarmists so again, the data is heavily massaged using inappropriate, and completely fraudulent methods to achieve a 3.3mm per year rate of increase. A global isostatic adjustment was applied which is blatantly fraudulent in the context of sea level increase. Such adjustments are correct in the context of calculating ocean depth as the sea floor sinks and have absolutely no relationship to measuring sea level by satellites. Here is what the adjustments look like...

Here is an overlay of the two graphs at the same time scale.

You are so far out of your depth (and you reside in the very shallow end of the pool) that you don't even know when your questions have been answered...The acceleration happened when they applied a global isostatic adjustment. Isostatic adjustments are used to determine if the sea floor is sinking...it has nothing to do with sea level rise... And the graphs show the effect of the adjustment...there is no acceleration in sea level rise...there is only fraudulent adjustments...which tide gages....do not agree with...

The change in level between 1992 and 2016 appears to be about 80 mm or an avg of 5.7 mm / yr without any adjustment.

Based on the fake numbers....sure that's what it appears to be...the tide gages don't agree....but accurate measurement isn't what it is all about...it is about supporting an alarmist narrative...The graph indicating 5.7mm per year has had a global isostatic adjustment applied which is an invalid adjustment when looking at sea level...isostatic adjustments are applied when looking at the sea floor..and the rate at which it might or might not be sinking...the increase in the rate of sea level rise is due to a fraudulent adjustment that has nothing to do with measuring sea level..

 

[SSDD]

Still not ONE scientific organization cited by any denier here....

Like I said..the one time an organization attempted to involve its membership in their statement on global warming, they found out that their membership had an entirely different view of global warming and what its causes may be than the political heads...

And can you name any other branch of science that holds up "consensus" as evidence that the mainstream hypothesis is correct? When you question the mainstream hypothesis in any other branch of physical science, you get bombarded with more observed, measured evidence in support of the hypothesis than you might care to wade through...you question the AGW hypothesis and you get called some names, and told all about the "consensus" as if that were evidence of anything more than group think on the part of climate science.. It never fails to give me a chuckle when you wackos hold up consensus as if it were scientific evidence...

 

[SSDD]

You deniers have no facts to offer.

Name one scientific organization which supports YOUR position that Global Climate change is happening and is not cause by human activity.


Just one.


I'll wait.

Funny thing...most heads of scientific organizations never ask their membership about what their "official" position on man made climate change should be. The heads of organizations are political after all.
The American Physical Society the most influential organization of all decided to ask its membership for advice on what their official policy should be...they found out in short order that the working scientists that made up the organization had an entirely different idea about what the society should say about man made climate change than what the political head thought...so they quietly closed the whole thing down and went against the working scientists that made up the membership and toned down their rhetoric, but maintained a consensus view...

So the statements that scientific organizations make are from the political heads of the organizations...not the working scientists that make up the membership of the society...and they reflect the political heads need to raise funds...and collect political capital...you can't get any money or political capital if you go against the consensus so they sell out to money and power over scientific truth.

So you realize that you can't find one scientific organization that supports your denial position instead offer an organization for physics... as something. Or rather as the "MOST INFLUENTIAL ORGANIZATION OF ALL" to convince of of anything.

Well your source supports my position on Climate Change... www.aps.org/policy/issues/upload/CVD-Climate-Change-2019.pdf

Why is that?

You seem to be under the impression that consensus is evidence of something besides group think...Believing that it is evidence of anything else is a logical fallacy...but then you guys live by logical fallacy....

 

[otto105]

Still not ONE scientific organization cited by any denier here....

Like I said..the one time an organization attempted to involve its membership in their statement on global warming, they found out that their membership had an entirely different view of global warming and what its causes may be than the political heads...

And can you name any other branch of science that holds up "consensus" as evidence that the mainstream hypothesis is correct? When you question the mainstream hypothesis in any other branch of physical science, you get bombarded with more observed, measured evidence in support of the hypothesis than you might care to wade through...you question the AGW hypothesis and you get called some names, and told all about the "consensus" as if that were evidence of anything more than group think on the part of climate science.. It never fails to give me a chuckle when you wackos hold up consensus as if it were scientific evidence...

You cited the American Physics Society and when I checked their policy statements they don't agree with your dubious climate assertions.

So why is it you can't cite ONE scientific organization to support your view?

 

[SSDD]

You really are a piece of work...First you claim that because nature has shown us larger temperature increases in shorter periods of time than anything we have seen that that is evidence that the small change we have seen over the past 150 years is larger than natural variability could produce....then you claim I have changed my position? How stupid are you?

My position stands where it has always been...since nature has shown us that it can change the temperature to a greater degree and faster

SSDD;

You are dealing with religious zealots who will not respond to facts. They believe because they are told to believe. Nothing will make them doubt the Gia religion. No amount of Empirical Evidence will change their minds and they will kill themselves and billions more to keep the lie alive.

Yeah...but some people who don't necessarily ever post anything read these posts and are swayed...I occasionally get a PM regarding a discussion with one of these types and they appreciate seeing alarmists arguments torn down with actual science rather than talking points and hysterics...so although the useful idiots like otto and cosmos will never be convinced, tearing down their arguments does serve a purpose.

Still working on that one scientific organization that supports your opinion.

Last time I checked, the list of scientist who do not agree with the AGW hype has grown to over 56,000. While not an official organization it dwarfs all of your organizations put together.. But then you folks like to throw out science that doesn't fit your narrative...

View attachment 269591

You folks like to throw away papers who do not toe the line....

The graph you cited from Legates et al is a joke.

What is your specific objection to it? Can you state anything that is particularly wrong with it and provide some actual data to support your claim? The answer to that would be a resounding NO would't it?

 

[SSDD]

Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....

I.E., the global scientific community. But you dont ply your nonsense with them, necause you qould get laughed out of the room. By the way, they are the ones who have the evidence.

First, it is a bit disingenuous to say, "the global scientific community," because I don't really think they all subscribe to the belief that humans are the primary driver,

Earth Science | Climate Change | Global Warming | Renewable Energy | Pollution Treatment | Renewable Energy | USA | Asia | Middle East| Lisbon | Portugal
PLANETOPHYSICAL STATE OF THE EARTH AND LIFE
| PSI Intl

and,

Second, has the scientific community always been completely accurate in all of it's hypothesis's?

I think the question is misstated.
Has Global Warming and Climate Change caused the Polar Shift?
As temperatures increased throughout the 20th century, Greenland's ice mass decreased. In fact, a total of about 7,500 gigatons -- the weight of more than 20 million Empire State Buildings -- of Greenland's ice melted into the ocean during this time period. This makes Greenland one of the top contributors of mass being transferred to the oceans, causing sea level to rise and, consequently, a drift in Earth's spin axis.
Scientists ID three causes of Earth's spin axis drift – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

But to answer your question, when their is evidence of the most catastrophic event that mankind has ever faced is occurring, we don't need 100% of the scientific community concurrence nor do we need to be 100% correct.

First, in spite of your hysterical, handwaving and hyperventilating, this is not the most catastrophic event that mankind has ever faced...the little ice age that we are coming out of was...it is estimated that the shortened growing seasons which reduced food stores, and the cold itself along with the diseases it brought with it (the black death among them, more than 55 million people died due to the change in climate. Cold is a killer, not warmth.

Second as with all the hysterical claims of climate science about everything, the claims about greenland are false as well. Parts of greenland are losing ice because volcanoes have also been discovered under the ice on greenland.. Imagine that...volcanoes melting ice..

From Kelly; 2017

From Nature:

There is plenty more....suffice it to say that you have been misled...unfortunate but that is how life is for useful idiots.

I'm sure there is more since a cottage industry on the Internet has been cranking this shit out for over 20 years. I'll stick with the findings and opinion of vast majority of the scientific community.

Consensus is only evidence of groupthink...a terrible situation for any organization.....especially in science when you are supposed to be taking about a group of individuals who can't seem to agree on anything...hell, there is a raging debate over what actually causes gravity...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Or what causes matter at equilibrium to stop radiating. DURR...………...

 

[otto105]

You deniers have no facts to offer.

Name one scientific organization which supports YOUR position that Global Climate change is happening and is not cause by human activity.


Just one.


I'll wait.

Funny thing...most heads of scientific organizations never ask their membership about what their "official" position on man made climate change should be. The heads of organizations are political after all.
The American Physical Society the most influential organization of all decided to ask its membership for advice on what their official policy should be...they found out in short order that the working scientists that made up the organization had an entirely different idea about what the society should say about man made climate change than what the political head thought...so they quietly closed the whole thing down and went against the working scientists that made up the membership and toned down their rhetoric, but maintained a consensus view...

So the statements that scientific organizations make are from the political heads of the organizations...not the working scientists that make up the membership of the society...and they reflect the political heads need to raise funds...and collect political capital...you can't get any money or political capital if you go against the consensus so they sell out to money and power over scientific truth.

So you realize that you can't find one scientific organization that supports your denial position instead offer an organization for physics... as something. Or rather as the "MOST INFLUENTIAL ORGANIZATION OF ALL" to convince of of anything.

Well your source supports my position on Climate Change... www.aps.org/policy/issues/upload/CVD-Climate-Change-2019.pdf

Why is that?

You seem to be under the impression that consensus is evidence of something besides group think...Believing that it is evidence of anything else is a logical fallacy...but then you guys live by logical fallacy....

Consensus on the Climate Change issue has been reached by scientists because they zeroed out any other explanation for the warming.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You deniers have no facts to offer.

Name one scientific organization which supports YOUR position that Global Climate change is happening and is not cause by human activity.


Just one.


I'll wait.

Funny thing...most heads of scientific organizations never ask their membership about what their "official" position on man made climate change should be. The heads of organizations are political after all.
The American Physical Society the most influential organization of all decided to ask its membership for advice on what their official policy should be...they found out in short order that the working scientists that made up the organization had an entirely different idea about what the society should say about man made climate change than what the political head thought...so they quietly closed the whole thing down and went against the working scientists that made up the membership and toned down their rhetoric, but maintained a consensus view...

So the statements that scientific organizations make are from the political heads of the organizations...not the working scientists that make up the membership of the society...and they reflect the political heads need to raise funds...and collect political capital...you can't get any money or political capital if you go against the consensus so they sell out to money and power over scientific truth.

So you realize that you can't find one scientific organization that supports your denial position instead offer an organization for physics... as something. Or rather as the "MOST INFLUENTIAL ORGANIZATION OF ALL" to convince of of anything.

Well your source supports my position on Climate Change... www.aps.org/policy/issues/upload/CVD-Climate-Change-2019.pdf

Why is that?

You seem to be under the impression that consensus is evidence of something besides group think...Believing that it is evidence of anything else is a logical fallacy...but then you guys live by logical fallacy....

Consensus on the Climate Change issue has been reached by scientists because they zeroed out any other explanation for the warming.

Consensus on the Climate Change issue has been reached by scientists

Which question did they reach consensus on?
Because when it comes to "climate change" there are thousands.

because they zeroed out any other explanation for the warming.

They decided man was totally responsible? Partially responsible? How much?

At least post the question they voted on.

 

[otto105]

You deniers have no facts to offer.

Name one scientific organization which supports YOUR position that Global Climate change is happening and is not cause by human activity.


Just one.


I'll wait.

Funny thing...most heads of scientific organizations never ask their membership about what their "official" position on man made climate change should be. The heads of organizations are political after all.
The American Physical Society the most influential organization of all decided to ask its membership for advice on what their official policy should be...they found out in short order that the working scientists that made up the organization had an entirely different idea about what the society should say about man made climate change than what the political head thought...so they quietly closed the whole thing down and went against the working scientists that made up the membership and toned down their rhetoric, but maintained a consensus view...

So the statements that scientific organizations make are from the political heads of the organizations...not the working scientists that make up the membership of the society...and they reflect the political heads need to raise funds...and collect political capital...you can't get any money or political capital if you go against the consensus so they sell out to money and power over scientific truth.

So you realize that you can't find one scientific organization that supports your denial position instead offer an organization for physics... as something. Or rather as the "MOST INFLUENTIAL ORGANIZATION OF ALL" to convince of of anything.

Well your source supports my position on Climate Change... www.aps.org/policy/issues/upload/CVD-Climate-Change-2019.pdf

Why is that?

You seem to be under the impression that consensus is evidence of something besides group think...Believing that it is evidence of anything else is a logical fallacy...but then you guys live by logical fallacy....

Consensus on the Climate Change issue has been reached by scientists because they zeroed out any other explanation for the warming.

Consensus on the Climate Change issue has been reached by scientists

Which question did they reach consensus on?
Because when it comes to "climate change" there are thousands.

because they zeroed out any other explanation for the warming.

They decided man was totally responsible? Partially responsible? How much?

At least post the question they voted on.

Apparently on the question that you're a parrot because no other explanation withstood review.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Funny thing...most heads of scientific organizations never ask their membership about what their "official" position on man made climate change should be. The heads of organizations are political after all.
The American Physical Society the most influential organization of all decided to ask its membership for advice on what their official policy should be...they found out in short order that the working scientists that made up the organization had an entirely different idea about what the society should say about man made climate change than what the political head thought...so they quietly closed the whole thing down and went against the working scientists that made up the membership and toned down their rhetoric, but maintained a consensus view...

So the statements that scientific organizations make are from the political heads of the organizations...not the working scientists that make up the membership of the society...and they reflect the political heads need to raise funds...and collect political capital...you can't get any money or political capital if you go against the consensus so they sell out to money and power over scientific truth.

So you realize that you can't find one scientific organization that supports your denial position instead offer an organization for physics... as something. Or rather as the "MOST INFLUENTIAL ORGANIZATION OF ALL" to convince of of anything.

Well your source supports my position on Climate Change... www.aps.org/policy/issues/upload/CVD-Climate-Change-2019.pdf

Why is that?

You seem to be under the impression that consensus is evidence of something besides group think...Believing that it is evidence of anything else is a logical fallacy...but then you guys live by logical fallacy....

Consensus on the Climate Change issue has been reached by scientists because they zeroed out any other explanation for the warming.

Consensus on the Climate Change issue has been reached by scientists

Which question did they reach consensus on?
Because when it comes to "climate change" there are thousands.

because they zeroed out any other explanation for the warming.

They decided man was totally responsible? Partially responsible? How much?

At least post the question they voted on.

Apparently on the question that you're a parrot because no other explanation withstood review.

So you'll be posting the question?
I bet it's a good one.
Very precise.

Not wishy-washy at all, eh?

Come on......make SSDD look like an idiot.

 

[SSDD]

Still not ONE scientific organization cited by any denier here....

Like I said..the one time an organization attempted to involve its membership in their statement on global warming, they found out that their membership had an entirely different view of global warming and what its causes may be than the political heads...

And can you name any other branch of science that holds up "consensus" as evidence that the mainstream hypothesis is correct? When you question the mainstream hypothesis in any other branch of physical science, you get bombarded with more observed, measured evidence in support of the hypothesis than you might care to wade through...you question the AGW hypothesis and you get called some names, and told all about the "consensus" as if that were evidence of anything more than group think on the part of climate science.. It never fails to give me a chuckle when you wackos hold up consensus as if it were scientific evidence...

You cited the American Physics Society and when I checked their policy statements they don't agree with your dubious climate assertions.

So why is it you can't cite ONE scientific organization to support your view?

As I pointed out...when they polled their membership, it became very obvious very quickly that the membership had very different ideas about what the organizational statement should say...they closed the poll down, toned down their rhetoric and vowed to never ask the actual working scientists what they thought again.

In typical fashion, you go and look at something and seem to think that you know all you need to know.

Here is the 2007 statement from the American Physical Society on climate...

The 2007 statement:

"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

"Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth's climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases."


After they involved their membership, the rhetoric was toned down considerably. Here is the 2015 statement on climate:

The 2015 statement:

"Earth's changing climate is a critical issue that poses the risk of significant disruption around the globe. While natural sources of climate variability are significant, multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on the climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century. Although the magnitudes of future effects are uncertain, human influences on the climate are growing. The potential consequences of climate change are great and the policies of the next few decades will determine human influences on the climate for centuries."

They no longer claim that the evidence is incontrovertible....and they now include the fact of uncertainty without actually raising the specter of uncertainty.

And still it really doesn't mean anything other than science is unfortunately experiencing an episode of groupthink that is going to damage their credibility for decades to come.

 

[SSDD]

Funny thing...most heads of scientific organizations never ask their membership about what their "official" position on man made climate change should be. The heads of organizations are political after all.
The American Physical Society the most influential organization of all decided to ask its membership for advice on what their official policy should be...they found out in short order that the working scientists that made up the organization had an entirely different idea about what the society should say about man made climate change than what the political head thought...so they quietly closed the whole thing down and went against the working scientists that made up the membership and toned down their rhetoric, but maintained a consensus view...

So the statements that scientific organizations make are from the political heads of the organizations...not the working scientists that make up the membership of the society...and they reflect the political heads need to raise funds...and collect political capital...you can't get any money or political capital if you go against the consensus so they sell out to money and power over scientific truth.

So you realize that you can't find one scientific organization that supports your denial position instead offer an organization for physics... as something. Or rather as the "MOST INFLUENTIAL ORGANIZATION OF ALL" to convince of of anything.

Well your source supports my position on Climate Change... www.aps.org/policy/issues/upload/CVD-Climate-Change-2019.pdf

Why is that?

You seem to be under the impression that consensus is evidence of something besides group think...Believing that it is evidence of anything else is a logical fallacy...but then you guys live by logical fallacy....

Consensus on the Climate Change issue has been reached by scientists because they zeroed out any other explanation for the warming.

Consensus on the Climate Change issue has been reached by scientists

Which question did they reach consensus on?
Because when it comes to "climate change" there are thousands.

because they zeroed out any other explanation for the warming.

They decided man was totally responsible? Partially responsible? How much?

At least post the question they voted on.

Apparently on the question that you're a parrot because no other explanation withstood review.

Says the parrot who gets his opinion from alarmist blogs...what a goob...

 

[otto105]

So you realize that you can't find one scientific organization that supports your denial position instead offer an organization for physics... as something. Or rather as the "MOST INFLUENTIAL ORGANIZATION OF ALL" to convince of of anything.

Well your source supports my position on Climate Change... www.aps.org/policy/issues/upload/CVD-Climate-Change-2019.pdf

Why is that?

You seem to be under the impression that consensus is evidence of something besides group think...Believing that it is evidence of anything else is a logical fallacy...but then you guys live by logical fallacy....

Consensus on the Climate Change issue has been reached by scientists because they zeroed out any other explanation for the warming.

Consensus on the Climate Change issue has been reached by scientists

Which question did they reach consensus on?
Because when it comes to "climate change" there are thousands.

because they zeroed out any other explanation for the warming.

They decided man was totally responsible? Partially responsible? How much?

At least post the question they voted on.

Apparently on the question that you're a parrot because no other explanation withstood review.

So you'll be posting the question?
I bet it's a good one.
Very precise.

Not wishy-washy at all, eh?

Come on......make SSDD look like an idiot.

SSDD makes himself look like an idiot. I just keep him posting the proof.

Now maybe YOU can post why it is impossible for you deniers to cite one scientific organization that supports your climate change assertions.

 

[otto105]

So you realize that you can't find one scientific organization that supports your denial position instead offer an organization for physics... as something. Or rather as the "MOST INFLUENTIAL ORGANIZATION OF ALL" to convince of of anything.

Well your source supports my position on Climate Change... www.aps.org/policy/issues/upload/CVD-Climate-Change-2019.pdf

Why is that?

You seem to be under the impression that consensus is evidence of something besides group think...Believing that it is evidence of anything else is a logical fallacy...but then you guys live by logical fallacy....

Consensus on the Climate Change issue has been reached by scientists because they zeroed out any other explanation for the warming.

Consensus on the Climate Change issue has been reached by scientists

Which question did they reach consensus on?
Because when it comes to "climate change" there are thousands.

because they zeroed out any other explanation for the warming.

They decided man was totally responsible? Partially responsible? How much?

At least post the question they voted on.

Apparently on the question that you're a parrot because no other explanation withstood review.

Says the parrot who gets his opinion from alarmist blogs...what a goob...

I have cited the leading scientific organizations from every authority on the issue.

And you can find them all here... Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet