The pseudo science of man-made global warming...

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus

So, every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements that say that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. So, are we to believe an anonymous poster on a message board who has only demonstrated profound ignorance in all spheres over the scientists? LOL
Actually no. I don't believe a word you say, sir.
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES
Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations
"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." (2009)2

  • 476_AAAS_320x240.jpg

    American Association for the Advancement of Science
    "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3
  • 478_americanchemicalsociety_320x240.jpg

    American Chemical Society
    "Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4
  • 479_americangeophysicalunion_320x240.jpg

    American Geophysical Union
    "Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5
  • 480_americanmedicalassociation_320x240.jpg

    American Medical Association
    "Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6
  • 481_americanmeteorologicalsociety_320x240.jpg

    American Meteorological Society
    "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7
  • 482_americanphysicalsociety_320x240.jpg

    American Physical Society
    "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." (2007)8
  • 484_geologicalsocietyamerica_320x240.jpg

    The Geological Society of America
    "The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9
SCIENCE ACADEMIES
International academies: Joint statement
"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10

  • 485_nationalacademyscience_320x240.jpg

    U.S. National Academy of Sciences
    "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11
U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
  • 486_usgcrp_320x240.jpg

    U.S. Global Change Research Program
    "The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12
INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES
  • 487_ipcc_320x240.jpg

    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
    “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”13

    “Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.”14
OTHER RESOURCES
List of worldwide scientific organizations
The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

U.S. agencies
The following page contains information on what federal agencies are doing to adapt to climate change.
http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/federal-agencies-adaptation.pdf

And your links?






How about linking to the amounts of money each of those groups get for pushing the fraud. I'll wait.
 
The data NASA posted show similar slopes, so I do not know what data they are basing that statement upon because the data they posted does not show slopes that are any different than previous interglacial cycles.

Unlike you, NASA doesn't base their conclusions entirely on a single graph from a single location that leaves out all the data from near the present time.

Furthermore, the same saw tooth behavior is seen in past interglacial cycles and they have similar temperature ranges.

So?

That's a logical fallacy on our part. You're claiming climate must always act exactly like the past, even if conditions in the present are wildly different. Rest assured that actual scientists instantly recognize your fallacy, and the complete failure of the conclusions that you derive from it.


Remind us how old NASA is again?

Oh yea born in 1958


2. So in your world the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and it appears to us know you think the day you were born the earths climate became stable?

So you are telling us we cant assume the earths climate is going to do the same thing?


Youre jumping the shark now


.
 
Pure fantasy.....you aren't supposed to actually believe the place holding stories....but then, since you buy AGW, you clearly will believe anything.
Exactly what is pure fantasy?
I have never said I believe AGW the jury is still out for me. In ten or so years I might change my mind depending on the data. If people don't want to believe GW or AGW, I really don't care. But I will challenge them if they use science improperly. Disbelieve it for the right reasons, not from crap that comes from bloggers that make things up.
 
Better regulate yourself jillian. You exhale half a ton of CO2 every year.

Nice death wish.

It will be interesting to see how you weasel now. Did you want her to stop breathing permanently in a nice way?

Deniers are getting worse with their violent impulses. Most of them were always authoritarian thugs deep down inside, but they at least they knew they needed to hide that aspect of their personality. Now, with fascism on the rise in the USA and being so trendy, they've gotten bold, so they're putting their death-lust on open display. That's why it's so important for decent people to call them out every time they do that.
 
Better regulate yourself jillian. You exhale half a ton of CO2 every year.

Nice death wish.

It will be interesting to see how you weasel now. Did you want her to stop breathing permanently in a nice way?

Deniers are getting worse with their violent impulses. Most of them were always authoritarian thugs deep down inside, but they at least they knew they needed to hide that aspect of their personality. Now, with fascism on the rise in the USA and being so trendy, they've gotten bold, so they're putting their death-lust on open display. That's why it's so important for decent people to call them out every time they do that.






Nope. I happen to like jillian a lot. I was pointing out the absolute absurdity of designating a gas that people and animals exhale a "pollutant". It takes a particular breed of stupid to believe that.

Hello stupid:bye1:
 
Nope. I happen to like jillian a lot. I was pointing out the absolute absurdity of designating a gas that people and animals exhale a "pollutant". It takes a particular breed of stupid to believe that.

Hello stupid:bye1:

Yep, I called it dead on. You say you were telling someone to stop breathing in a nice way.

According to you, Crick was being genocidal when he said a similar thing is a satirical way, but when you do it, it's just a happy joke. How do you justify such obvious stinking hypocrisy on your part, other than by invoking your usual "The ends always justify the means for my own side" life philosophy?
 
Better regulate yourself jillian. You exhale half a ton of CO2 every year.

Nice death wish.

It will be interesting to see how you weasel now. Did you want her to stop breathing permanently in a nice way?

Deniers are getting worse with their violent impulses. Most of them were always authoritarian thugs deep down inside, but they at least they knew they needed to hide that aspect of their personality. Now, with fascism on the rise in the USA and being so trendy, they've gotten bold, so they're putting their death-lust on open display. That's why it's so important for decent people to call them out every time they do that.
How have "Deniers" been thuggish or authoritarian? YOU are the people forcing rules, taxes and fines. We just refuse to buy your bullshit. You are the ones protesting and sabotaging energy infrastructure projects. Seems that y'all are a wee tad thuggish and authoritarian. Have you seen the GOP making any "executive orders" in the last 8 years?
 
Nope. I happen to like jillian a lot. I was pointing out the absolute absurdity of designating a gas that people and animals exhale a "pollutant". It takes a particular breed of stupid to believe that.

Hello stupid:bye1:

Yep, I called it dead on. You say you were telling someone to stop breathing in a nice way.

According to you, Crick was being genocidal when he said a similar thing is a satirical way, but when you do it, it's just a happy joke. How do you justify such obvious stinking hypocrisy on your part, other than by invoking your usual "The ends always justify the means for my own side" life philosophy?






Oh no. crikey wasn't being sarcastic. He said "off the sceptics". That is a clear call for murder. I said "regulate" as in a legal manner. jillian is an attorney and has a brain so she understands exactly what I meant. Unlike a lying POS like you.
 
Pure fantasy.....you aren't supposed to actually believe the place holding stories....but then, since you buy AGW, you clearly will believe anything.
Exactly what is pure fantasy?
.

wuwei said:
The current story of electromagnetic and atomic theory is accurate to at least one part per billion, the limit of observation.

Upon what is the claim of accuracy of at least 1 part per billion based?....let me guess...an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable, mathematical model....which you believe because that is your nature. You guys crack me up...the discussion is about the actual limited knowledge of science...and the fact that most of what we "know" about what happens at the level of single atom interactions and smaller is little more than stories that we have invented in an attempt to explain the results of mathematical models and some of what we observe....and what do you do in attempt to argue that we, in fact, know what is happening at that level.....you provide me with the results of a mathematical model...think in circles much?
 
Nope. I happen to like jillian a lot. I was pointing out the absolute absurdity of designating a gas that people and animals exhale a "pollutant". It takes a particular breed of stupid to believe that.

Hello stupid:bye1:

Yep, I called it dead on. You say you were telling someone to stop breathing in a nice way.

According to you, Crick was being genocidal when he said a similar thing is a satirical way, but when you do it, it's just a happy joke. How do you justify such obvious stinking hypocrisy on your part, other than by invoking your usual "The ends always justify the means for my own side" life philosophy?

Oh no. crikey wasn't being sarcastic. He said "off the sceptics". That is a clear call for murder. I said "regulate" as in a legal manner. jillian is an attorney and has a brain so she understands exactly what I meant. Unlike a lying POS like you.

I used the term "off the deniers" (none of you have ever qualified as skeptics) in a direct and immediate quotation of poster Stephanie who told me I should "off myself" but to whom none of you have ever said a single fucking word.
 
Upon what is the claim of accuracy of at least 1 part per billion based?....let me guess...an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable, mathematical model....which you believe because that is your nature. You guys crack me up...the discussion is about the actual limited knowledge of science...and the fact that most of what we "know" about what happens at the level of single atom interactions and smaller is little more than stories that we have invented in an attempt to explain the results of mathematical models and some of what we observe....and what do you do in attempt to argue that we, in fact, know what is happening at that level.....you provide me with the results of a mathematical model...think in circles much?

There is no circular thinking. There have been many "observable, measurable, testable" measurements in labs of the fundamental nature of particles. The experiments are very sophisticated and evolved over time with many researchers using many different approaches while improving the accuracy over the years. The following are the most recent laboratory measurments:
Anomalous magnetic dipole moment: 1.001 159 652 180 85
Rydberg constant: 137.035 999 070
Fine-structure constant: 0.007 297 351 +/- 0.000 000 006​

These measurements range in accuracy from 7 to 15 significant figures and were compared against the equations (story?) of the theory of quantum electrodynamics.
The theory totally agrees with those experiments to an incredible accuracy.

There is no fantasy or thinking in circles here.
 
Nope. I happen to like jillian a lot. I was pointing out the absolute absurdity of designating a gas that people and animals exhale a "pollutant". It takes a particular breed of stupid to believe that.

Hello stupid:bye1:

Yep, I called it dead on. You say you were telling someone to stop breathing in a nice way.

According to you, Crick was being genocidal when he said a similar thing is a satirical way, but when you do it, it's just a happy joke. How do you justify such obvious stinking hypocrisy on your part, other than by invoking your usual "The ends always justify the means for my own side" life philosophy?

Oh no. crikey wasn't being sarcastic. He said "off the sceptics". That is a clear call for murder. I said "regulate" as in a legal manner. jillian is an attorney and has a brain so she understands exactly what I meant. Unlike a lying POS like you.

I used the term "off the deniers" (none of you have ever qualified as skeptics) in a direct and immediate quotation of poster Stephanie who told me I should "off myself" but to whom none of you have ever said a single fucking word.





What exactly are we "denying"? And what is your definition of a skeptic?
 
Upon what is the claim of accuracy of at least 1 part per billion based?....let me guess...an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable, mathematical model....which you believe because that is your nature. You guys crack me up...the discussion is about the actual limited knowledge of science...and the fact that most of what we "know" about what happens at the level of single atom interactions and smaller is little more than stories that we have invented in an attempt to explain the results of mathematical models and some of what we observe....and what do you do in attempt to argue that we, in fact, know what is happening at that level.....you provide me with the results of a mathematical model...think in circles much?

There is no circular thinking. There have been many "observable, measurable, testable" measurements in labs of the fundamental nature of particles. The experiments are very sophisticated and evolved over time with many researchers using many different approaches while improving the accuracy over the years. The following are the most recent laboratory measurments:
Anomalous magnetic dipole moment: 1.001 159 652 180 85
Rydberg constant: 137.035 999 070
Fine-structure constant: 0.007 297 351 +/- 0.000 000 006​

These measurements range in accuracy from 7 to 15 significant figures and were compared against the equations (story?) of the theory of quantum electrodynamics.
The theory totally agrees with those experiments to an incredible accuracy.

There is no fantasy or thinking in circles here.

The Anomalous magnetic dipole moment is the result of a mathematical model, used to verify another mathematical model...ie...place holding story...

The Rydberg constant is no more than a fine measurement (boosted by a mathematical model) of the ionization energy of a hydrogen atom.

And the Fine-structure constant is a measurement of the magnetic strength between elementary charged particles...

Fine achievements one and all...but in the larger picture about as impressive as a toddlers first step compared to the performance of a world champion try-athelete. The child should be proud but for all the accomplishment, it is just a first step.

From that, you leap to the claim that we know what is happening, and what forces are at work at the level of single atom interactions?....You are as nutty as ian....you have accepted science as some all knowing, infallible cultish religion that already knows all the answers....newsflash...it doesn't.

Have you read the news lately?...Medical science, which labors under a far higher....a far far far higher standard than climatology will ever be held to, has recently admitted that as much as 75% of the published findings from the field are false...I would be very surprised if 50% of the work coming out of post modern physics stands the test of time and would be very surprised if more than 2% of the tripe that comes from climate science is still mainstream science in 10 years.
 
Nope. I happen to like jillian a lot. I was pointing out the absolute absurdity of designating a gas that people and animals exhale a "pollutant". It takes a particular breed of stupid to believe that.

Hello stupid:bye1:

Yep, I called it dead on. You say you were telling someone to stop breathing in a nice way.

According to you, Crick was being genocidal when he said a similar thing is a satirical way, but when you do it, it's just a happy joke. How do you justify such obvious stinking hypocrisy on your part, other than by invoking your usual "The ends always justify the means for my own side" life philosophy?

Oh no. crikey wasn't being sarcastic. He said "off the sceptics". That is a clear call for murder. I said "regulate" as in a legal manner. jillian is an attorney and has a brain so she understands exactly what I meant. Unlike a lying POS like you.

I used the term "off the deniers" (none of you have ever qualified as skeptics) in a direct and immediate quotation of poster Stephanie who told me I should "off myself" but to whom none of you have ever said a single fucking word.





What exactly are we "denying"? And what is your definition of a skeptic?

I am stating the fact that I never suggested anyone be killed or commit suicide. And a skeptic is someone who exhibits skepticism.

You and everyone else here knows what you deny.
 
Nope. I happen to like jillian a lot. I was pointing out the absolute absurdity of designating a gas that people and animals exhale a "pollutant". It takes a particular breed of stupid to believe that.

Hello stupid:bye1:

Yep, I called it dead on. You say you were telling someone to stop breathing in a nice way.

According to you, Crick was being genocidal when he said a similar thing is a satirical way, but when you do it, it's just a happy joke. How do you justify such obvious stinking hypocrisy on your part, other than by invoking your usual "The ends always justify the means for my own side" life philosophy?

Oh no. crikey wasn't being sarcastic. He said "off the sceptics". That is a clear call for murder. I said "regulate" as in a legal manner. jillian is an attorney and has a brain so she understands exactly what I meant. Unlike a lying POS like you.

I used the term "off the deniers" (none of you have ever qualified as skeptics) in a direct and immediate quotation of poster Stephanie who told me I should "off myself" but to whom none of you have ever said a single fucking word.





What exactly are we "denying"? And what is your definition of a skeptic?

I am stating the fact that I never suggested anyone be killed or commit suicide. And a skeptic is someone who exhibits skepticism.

You and everyone else here knows what you deny.





Spell it out for us.
 
The Anomalous magnetic dipole moment is the result of a mathematical model, used to verify another mathematical model...ie...place holding story...

The Rydberg constant is no more than a fine measurement (boosted by a mathematical model) of the ionization energy of a hydrogen atom.

And the Fine-structure constant is a measurement of the magnetic strength between elementary charged particles...

Fine achievements one and all...but in the larger picture about as impressive as a toddlers first step compared to the performance of a world champion try-athelete. The child should be proud but for all the accomplishment, it is just a first step.

From that, you leap to the claim that we know what is happening, and what forces are at work at the level of single atom interactions?....You are as nutty as ian....you have accepted science as some all knowing, infallible cultish religion that already knows all the answers....newsflash...it doesn't.

Have you read the news lately?...Medical science, which labors under a far higher....a far far far higher standard than climatology will ever be held to, has recently admitted that as much as 75% of the published findings from the field are false...I would be very surprised if 50% of the work coming out of post modern physics stands the test of time and would be very surprised if more than 2% of the tripe that comes from climate science is still mainstream science in 10 years.

My gosh, I have never seen such an anti-science diatribe. I was saying that many precise "observable, measurable, testable" measurements have been made in labs and they agree perfectly with mathematical predictions. Then you reply with definitions of the experiments, a comparison with a child, and distractions into a denigration medical science and of modern physics.

Yet, your own misunderstanding of the science of thermodynamics and radiation physics is a travesty. Absolutely no physicist believes what you do in those fields. You are alone in your opinion of what modern science is.

Do you understand that the entropy definition of the second law of thermodynamics is about the dynamic nature of disordered states of systems and and has no restrictions on thermal photons moving from cold bodies to warmer bodies?

Do you disagree with the entropy definition?
 

Forum List

Back
Top