Scienceclimatechange

Thu May 7, 2015, 12:14 AM

Why "Global Warming" Failed & Why Climate Change is Real

<iframe width="560" height="315" src=""frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

62 replies, 4944 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 62 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why "Global Warming" Failed & Why Climate Change is Real (Original post)
It Guy May 2015 OP
EGTrise May 2015 #1
shortviking May 2015 #4
stygmata May 2015 #13
orson May 2015 #32
Always Right May 2015 #5
EGTrise May 2015 #6
Always Right May 2015 #7
shortviking May 2015 #8
EGTrise May 2015 #16
Always Right May 2015 #17
EGTrise May 2015 #20
Always Right May 2015 #24
EGTrise May 2015 #25
Always Right May 2015 #28
EGTrise May 2015 #29
oldenuff35 May 2015 #56
EGTrise May 2015 #59
oldenuff35 May 2015 #60
Jack Burton May 2015 #14
stupidicus2 May 2015 #21
EGTrise May 2015 #23
orson May 2015 #33
oldenuff35 May 2015 #57
EGTrise May 2015 #58
Transcendence May 2015 #30
EGTrise May 2015 #31
orson May 2015 #34
Jack Burton May 2015 #35
Transcendence May 2015 #37
EGTrise May 2015 #38
Transcendence May 2015 #39
EGTrise May 2015 #40
Transcendence May 2015 #42
EGTrise May 2015 #43
Transcendence May 2015 #44
EGTrise May 2015 #45
Transcendence May 2015 #46
Currentsitguy May 2015 #54
EGTrise May 2015 #55
Gamle-ged May 2015 #2
marmot84 May 2015 #3
Magyar May 2015 #9
stupidicus2 May 2015 #22
Gamle-ged May 2015 #12
marmot84 May 2015 #26
Gamle-ged May 2015 #27
Gunslinger201 May 2015 #10
msv May 2015 #41
Muzzlehatch May 2015 #11
Jack Burton May 2015 #15
Always Right May 2015 #18
Muzzlehatch May 2015 #19
SummBoddie May 2015 #61
Muzzlehatch May 2015 #62
marmot84 May 2015 #36
Transcendence May 2015 #47
marmot84 May 2015 #48
Transcendence May 2015 #49
marmot84 May 2015 #50
Transcendence May 2015 #51
marmot84 May 2015 #52
Transcendence May 2015 #53

Response to It Guy (Original post)

Thu May 7, 2015, 12:29 AM

1. 97 percent of climate scientists agree that global warming is real and that humans are the cause.

That's a fact.

Multiple studies have been done and they all say the same thing: 97 percent.
Consensus is no longer an issue in the climate field.

It is only an issue in the Denial field, because the Denial industry's product is Doubt.

There isn't any doubt, and this long, time wasting propaganda video is nothing but standard denier fare. Get some new material.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EGTrise (Reply #1)

Thu May 7, 2015, 12:49 AM

4. 97% of hot dog venders think hot dogs are awesome.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shortviking (Reply #4)

Thu May 7, 2015, 08:59 AM

13. Four out of five dentists

recommend Trident for their patients who chew gum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stygmata (Reply #13)

Fri May 8, 2015, 02:04 PM

32. 100% of mine operators

think coal smoke is a harmless by product,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EGTrise (Reply #1)

Thu May 7, 2015, 12:51 AM

5. Is that right? Where oh where did they take a vote on this subject? I don't recall ever hearing such

 

of such a thing. 97% of liberals will tell you that 97% of people in the middle ages thought the world was 97% flat. Would you mind explaining to everybody where the 97% number comes from exactly? If you go look for it you will find out that it is simply made up also. I bet you aren't even aware that 373% of scientists think those 97% of scientists don't even exist, and that also is a fact. 373 is bigger than 97 which means I win by the way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to EGTrise (Reply #6)

Thu May 7, 2015, 01:46 AM

7. What's right? The link explains exactly how it is bullshit.

 

It says nothing about 97% of scientists nor does it talk about a global consensus. I could start raising alarm bells about how it is going to start raining pink elephants. Crank a new published piece out every week and at the end of a year you'll have 52 published pieces and a 100% consensus that it was about to start raining pink elephants. That's 100%, not a mere 97%. After I got funding some other idiot would join me in this. After 2 years we would have 150+ publications about this impending doom, and still 100% consensus of course. Then another would join me, then another. Still at 100% consensus. How long would it take somebody to finally publish the opposite of me?

So you may choose to believe in the impending elephant rain, I will instead believe the guy that finally said enough is enough with that nonsense. Since all of them know much more than you on the subject, what does your opinion based on which scientist is the prettiest mean exactly? Go team go!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Always Right (Reply #7)

Thu May 7, 2015, 01:52 AM

8. It's one big circle jerk.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Always Right (Reply #7)

Thu May 7, 2015, 10:02 AM

16. Fail. 97 percent of climate scientists agree that AGW is real. Your fantasies don't change that fact.

Unlike anonymous message board posters, real scientists need to back up their conclusions with factual, verifiable, repeatable evidence.

You have not done this. The 97 percent consensus is real, verifiable and repeatable.

At this point in the debate, deniers are the same as the flat earthers, the moon landing conspiracy nuts, the creationists and the geocentrists. Perhaps you subscribe to those ideas as well. If so, you would be wrong about those things, too.

97 percent of climate scientists have used multiple lines of evidence to come to the same conclusion: Global warming is happening and humans are causing it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EGTrise (Reply #16)

Thu May 7, 2015, 11:05 AM

17. Then please, like I said, provide us a link that shows this. You have failed to do this

 

yet for some reason keep saying 97% of *belch* believes that they believe that it will rain pink elephants. You previously provided a link that only said something about papers written about pink elephant rain. At this point pink elephant rain dooms day propagandists are photocopies of the purple rhinoceros hail propagandists of 40 years ago. It didn't hail them then, it won't rain them now, and we only await being able to collectively laugh at the dumbasses proclaiming the "problem" is magically fixed so we can enjoy seeing them embarrass themselves with the next silly idea already in the works (spoiler alert: it's a sharknado) so you should collect as many radiation photons for your collection as you can while they are in such abundance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Always Right (Reply #17)

Thu May 7, 2015, 12:30 PM

20. The link I provided shows 97 percent of climate scientists agree that AGW is quite real.

The link shows the abstracts of three published, peer reviewed, evidence-based studies that show exactly that.

The fact of human caused global warming is derived from a wide variety of evidence, by the vast majority of climate scientists, and is accepted by all of the following organizations:

The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
British Antarctic Survey
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Environmental Protection Agency
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society of the UK



13 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:

Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias (Mexico)
Russian Academy of Sciences
Academy of Science of South Africa
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)

A letter from 18 scientific organizations to US Congress states:

"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. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science."

The consensus is also endorsed by a Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), including the following bodies:

African Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Madagascar's National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Academy of Science of South Africa
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Sudan Academy of Sciences

Other Academies of Sciences that endorse the consensus:

Australian Academy of Science
Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences


97 percent of climate scientists agree that global warming is real and caused by human activity.

Your inability to acknowledge that is not my problem. It is your problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EGTrise (Reply #20)

Thu May 7, 2015, 02:20 PM

24. You again are simply names of those worried about pink elephants

 

What does that have to do with 97%. Do you want a list of all the organizations and citizens who say 72 virgins await them after death? I promise you that list will be much much much longer, let's say for arguments sake 1001 times as long. So that means that 97,097% of people claim to be getting virgins after death. Are you that oblivious to the error in whatever logic you are using to convince yourself? 97,0097% of people can't all be wrong about us all getting our own virgins now can they?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Always Right (Reply #24)

Thu May 7, 2015, 02:39 PM

25. 97 percent of climate scientists agree that AGW is real and happening.

They use evidence to come to this conclusion.

You do not use evidence.

It's no surprise that deniers cannot distinguish between evidence based conclusions and fantasy, as you have shown in your last several posts. It is one of their defining characteristics.

The evidence for human caused global warming is overwhelming and clear. 97 percent of climate scientists have considered it and agree.

Once again, your inability to consider evidence that doesn't agree with your conclusions isn't my problem.

It's your problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EGTrise (Reply #25)

Thu May 7, 2015, 05:19 PM

28. Lmao, you folks are a creepy broken record. You don't even understand the song mommy has

 

has forced you to sing, but sing it you do anyway. There is no way it can be proven. What is being theorized cannot even be observed in the first place. So clear your throat once again and chirp us out another note that sounds no different than anything else we get from the other annoying songbirds. On a related note I killed 17 of those noisy bastards with a single shot from a .410 once.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Always Right (Reply #28)

Thu May 7, 2015, 05:49 PM

29. 97 percent of climate scientists agree because of real evidence:















I know these mean exactly the same thing to deniers as videos of children singing or insults about fantasy creatures. That's too bad. Someone else reading this might get a bit more out of it.

Please feel free to continue posting nonsense and insults. I know it's all you've got. On the other hand, I have endless material. That's what a 97 percent consensus implies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EGTrise (Reply #16)

Sat May 16, 2015, 05:45 AM

56. In true science what you believe is not worth the paper it is written on

or the time you spend writing it.

It is about research and the whole scientific method thing.... and where are the results form that research in this climate change guessing game you got going on?

design a study, predict the outcome specifically, complete the study and compare the results to the prediction. then go back and make sure you can successfully make those predictions again, and again.

That is not a reality in climate change so there are not scientific facts that prove it in any way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldenuff35 (Reply #56)

Sat May 16, 2015, 09:13 AM

59. Again, be specific. Give an example.

Better yet, explain how the over 20,000 studies, experiments and papers that are in consensus are all invalid and false.

You can do them one at a time. Maybe you should start a new thread just for that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EGTrise (Reply #59)

Sat May 16, 2015, 04:26 PM

60. FACT consensus is not the basis of scientific fact. Every scientist knows this....

You present Climate change as fact, it is not.

Tell me a time in history when climate was not changing.

Take a look at the scientific method, it is the way, the only way, that scientific facts are established. The theory of climate change has not come anywhere near meeting the requirements of this long term scientific standard of determining scientific facts.

produce a theory, design a study, make specific predictions of the study results. conduct the study within the parameters of the design. evaluate the study results to see if they match the predictions. Alter the study or parts of the process until you can correctly predict the results. Repeat the study several times with different people running the same study to insure that it repeatable and predictable.

Since this is a study of climate, not weather, this process will take between 6 decades and a century to complete......

So there is no way in hell that climate change can be considered a fact, and remember consensus does not constitute fact.

At one time there was a consensus that the world was flat......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EGTrise (Reply #1)

Thu May 7, 2015, 09:14 AM

14. All aboard the DOOMtrain



97% "that's a fact" When you get to 98% of all climate scientists let me know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EGTrise (Reply #1)

Thu May 7, 2015, 12:52 PM

21. indeed, that's a "fact"

kinda like the way flat earthers are almost all either grossly ignorant or dishonest these days, and exactly like the idiot that made the video here.


https://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=A0LEVi25eEtVMVUALe4nnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTBwaWxhbWdqBHNlYwNzYy1ib3QEY29sbwNiZjEEdnRpZAM-?p=ben+davidson+debunked&tnr=21&vid=F90DB5ABC12062C70B9AF90DB5ABC12062C70B9A&l=736&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts2.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DWN.8YyrSf5yVBjKcVHXOn%252f29g%26pid%3D15.1&sigi=1210cbd53&rurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D5ikDLujlAOk&sigr=11b41rgpn&tt=b&tit=Ben+Davidson+Exposed+-+drkstrong+--+15+May+2014&sigt=11f3ihq8i&back=https%3A%2F%2Fsearch.yahoo.com%2Fyhs%2Fsearch%3Fp%3Dben%2Bdavidson%2Bdebunked%26hsimp%3Dyhs-001%26hspart%3Dmozilla%26fr%3Dyhs-mozilla-001%26ei%3DUTF-8&sigb=13kllms6o&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001

https://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=A0LEViQdd0tV8H8AlugnnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTBwaWxhbWdqBHNlYwNzYy1ib3QEY29sbwNiZjEEdnRpZAM-?p=ben+davidson+the+other+side+of+climate+change&tnr=21&vid=1AF368348AB1E4492ADF1AF368348AB1E4492ADF&l=1155&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts3.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DWN.jkLBtRKQK1BR4wN6K1N0pw%26pid%3D15.1&sigi=11v03sbn6&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Du8OcF823-0Q&sigr=11a6ua3sk&tt=b&tit=BEN+DAVIDSON+EXPOSED+--+PART+2%3A+SUNSTROKE+--+18+June+2014&sigt=11plp5hvn&back=https%3A%2F%2Fsearch.yahoo.com%2Fyhs%2Fsearch%3Fp%3Dben%2Bdavidson%2Bthe%2Bother%2Bside%2Bof%2Bclimate%2Bchange%26hsimp%3Dyhs-001%26hspart%3Dmozilla%26fr%3Dyhs-mozilla-001%26ei%3DUTF-8&sigb=14c6gi6qg&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001

http://whac-a-troll.blogspot.com/2014/08/suspicious-0bservers-disingenuous-and.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus2 (Reply #21)

Thu May 7, 2015, 01:48 PM

23. The psychology of deniers is interesting.

Scientific skepticism looks at evidence and then asks questions and draws conclusions from the answers based on all of the evidence.

Denialism is the exact opposite. It starts with a conclusion and then searches for evidence that supports it.

The evidence can be cherry picked, misrepresented, and even fabricated. To a denier, it makes no difference. They absolutely will not look at the entire body of evidence because they aren't wired that way.

They see the world as a conclusion waiting for the right evidence to show up. When you apply this to other positions deniers tend to have, it gets really interesting.

A science based worldview is the opposite. Evidence determines conclusions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EGTrise (Reply #23)

Fri May 8, 2015, 02:10 PM

33. It's just whistling past the graveyard

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EGTrise (Reply #23)

Sat May 16, 2015, 05:48 AM

57. I start from the fact that those involved in this have been caught telling lies

and manipulating data many times. I start from the fact that if you are going to try and sell this then it must be based on the scientific method like everything else in science.
Climate change is nothing more than a belief, it is not a fact no matter how badly you want it to be.

You may need to look up the scientific method to see how it works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldenuff35 (Reply #57)

Sat May 16, 2015, 09:09 AM

58. Your assertions are false. Be specific and I will be happy to debunk your claims.

Your false claim covers many thousands upon thousands of studies and mountains of data, all of which point to a warming globe and human causes.

So, get busy and start providing those specifics

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EGTrise (Reply #1)

Thu May 7, 2015, 10:19 PM

30. 97% of politicians believe in taxes

The remaining 3% are wacko Libertarians who are essentially irrelevant.

Does this mean that Democrats and Republicans view taxes the same way? No.

The 97% figure is basically meaningless. It does not address the crucial question of whether or not warming will be catastrophic and/or whether reducing emissions is a worthwhile thing to do. There is a wide variety of opinion on the subject of AGW within that 97%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Transcendence (Reply #30)

Thu May 7, 2015, 11:18 PM

31. 97% of deniers are incapable of making a valid comparison to the global warming consensus.

As is obvious from this thread.

Your claim that there is "no consensus within the consensus" is meaningless. The disagreements tend to be whether the consequences will be bad, very bad, or truly catastrophic.

Take the IPCC fifth assessment on sea level rise, for example. There was a lot of disagreement among sea level experts about the published range of estimates. But the disagreement was about how much the IPCC had UNDERESTIMATED the rise. Almost no sea level experts thought the IPCC had overestimated it.

Here is another of those pesky fact-based, scientific surveys which gives the details of this particular "lack of consensus":
The survey finds most experts expecting a higher rise than the latest IPCC projections of 28–98 centimeters by the year 2100. Two thirds (65%) of the respondents gave a higher value than the IPCC for the upper end of this range, confirming that IPCC reports tend to be conservative in their assessment.
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/yournews/55465

Claiming "lack of consensus within the consensus", is a red herring. It doesn't mean anything close to what you imply it does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EGTrise (Reply #31)

Fri May 8, 2015, 02:13 PM

34. Real men don't believe in climate change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Reply #34)

Fri May 8, 2015, 06:26 PM

35. Damn straight

Warmer weather means the less we have to wear shirts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EGTrise (Reply #31)

Fri May 8, 2015, 09:28 PM

37. Where is your proof?

You made this claim:

"The disagreements tend to be whether the consequences will be bad, very bad, or truly catastrophic."

Prove that this is true by citing peer reviewed material.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Transcendence (Reply #37)

Fri May 8, 2015, 09:47 PM

38. Already linked. This technique is called "impossible standards".

You make a horseshit claim with no link or proof of any kind.

I counter with a link to
The largest elicitation on sea-level rise ever: 90 key experts from 18 countries
...who between them have published hundreds of peer reviewed papers on the subject in the last ten years.

You respond with "where's your proof".

You have it. I have no illusions at all that you will acknowledge it. That's not the way deniers are wired.

I gave you a well documented example. Your inability to register it is
Not.
My.
Problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EGTrise (Reply #38)

Fri May 8, 2015, 11:10 PM

39. A well documented example?

This is from your link:

Sea-level rise in this century is likely to be 70–120 centimeters by 2100 if greenhouse-gas emissions are not mitigated, a broad assessment of the most active scientific publishers on that topic has revealed. The 90 experts participating in the survey anticipate a median sea-level rise of 200–300 centimeters by the year 2300 for a scenario with unmitigated emissions. In contrast, for a scenario with strong emissions reductions, experts expect a sea-level rise of 40–60 centimeters by 2100 and 60–100 centimeters by 2300. The survey was conducted by a team of scientists from the USA and Germany.

This is what you consider "catastrophic", a 3m rise in sea levels over the next 300 years?

Please.

In order to improve drainage flow, the entire city of Chicago was raised by 1.5m in the 1850's. For centuries the Dutch have used land reclamation efforts to gains thousands of square kilometers of land that was previously underwater. And even if you don't want to spend the money to raise the land and buildings to higher levels, people can always just move. It's not like they don't have plenty of time to do it. Climate doomers make a great deal about the fact that 18 million people in Bangladesh will loose their homes if sea levels rise by a meter over the next hundred years. What they fail to do is place that number in perspective of a planet with over 7 billion people. According to the UN, 20 million people move every year for a wide variety of economic and political reasons. Given this reality, having 18 million people move over a period of 30 or 50 years simply does not qualify as a catastrophe--it's more like business as usual.

Simply put, calling a 3m sea level rise spread out over such a long period of time a catastrophe is hyperbole. Humanity has dealt with changes of much greater magnitude than that before, and they will so again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Transcendence (Reply #39)

Sat May 9, 2015, 12:37 AM

40. Yes, trivializing is also a common denier technique.

So is misrepresentation:

-19th century Chicago has nothing to do with what will be required to mitigate 3 meters of sea level rise.

-With no control of CO2 rise, the ocean will keep rising at an increasing rate. For much more than 300 years. For much more than 3 meters. But feel free to pretend that it will magically stop 300 years from now at 3 meters.

And so is misdirection:

-The original point you made with nothing to back it up, was that there is "no consensus within the consensus", which I have addressed and you have not. To review, I have shown that the experts are generally more pessimistic than the official estimates, not less---which is what YOU implied and which you have done nothing at all to back up.

Are there any other techniques you would like to demonstrate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EGTrise (Reply #40)

Sat May 9, 2015, 03:50 PM

42. Survey results

There simply is no study or poll that supports your assertion that the "disagreements tend to be whether the consequences will be bad, very bad, or truly catastrophic."

Here is the only study I could find that bothered to even ask the appropriate questions:

In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. Catastrophic effects in 50–100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.

Lichter, S. Robert (2008-04-24). "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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Transcendence (Reply #42)

Sat May 9, 2015, 04:42 PM

43. Except for the one I showed you that you are quite literally incapable of acknowledging.

Yes, that is another denier technique. Ignore evidence that doesn't agree with your conclusions.

The truly fascinating thing is that you found further evidence to refute yourself, pasted and even bolded it, and yet it does not register.

Deniers are actually incapable of seeing anything that doesn't agree with their belief. Thanks for that demonstration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EGTrise (Reply #43)

Sat May 9, 2015, 06:01 PM

44. Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing

If you seriously believe that the section that I bolded in my post supports your position you have a reading comprehension problem, Let's review:

What you said (post #31):

The disagreements tend to be whether the consequences will be bad, very bad, or truly catastrophic.

(a statement made btw, without any supporting evidence whatsoever)

What I said (post #42

Catastrophic effects in 50–100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.

(with a supporting link)


What are you trying to claim, that the phrase "little danger" equates to "bad", the phrase "moderate effects" equates to "very bad"? Please, give up now. You are just embarrassing yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Transcendence (Reply #44)

Sat May 9, 2015, 06:36 PM

45. sad. Predictable.

Done wasting time with your silly tail chasing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EGTrise (Reply #45)

Sun May 10, 2015, 09:22 PM

46. You are the predictable one

When a person who has responded back and forth numerous times in a thread suddenly says they are "done wasting time", it is almost always because they realize they cannot possible respond without looking even more ridiculous than they already do.

Someday I hope you'll realize that global warming, while very real, is simply not as big a threat as it was once thought. I won't hold my breath though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EGTrise (Reply #1)

Tue May 12, 2015, 10:57 AM

54. Argumentum ad populum

Percentage of consensus is not an argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Currentsitguy (Reply #54)

Tue May 12, 2015, 11:01 AM

55. It is when the bullshit OP says lack of consensus is relevant.

Typical denier bullshit.

Make an argument. Get your ass handed to you. Claim that the argument is irrelevant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to It Guy (Original post)

Thu May 7, 2015, 12:34 AM

2. The Big Bang Theory remains a theory, yet Global Warming is declared to be "settled science"...

... and isn't even referred to as a "theory." This illustrates the immense power of The Church of the Global Warming...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamle-ged (Reply #2)

Thu May 7, 2015, 12:41 AM

3. You don't understand elementary science

Gravitation is "only a theory" and if polled you would find that there are about 3% of physicists who disagree with the currently accepted version (Einstein's General Relativity.)

When something is called "a theory" it doesn't mean that it is speculation or a partially supported hypothesis. It has a much more significant meaning than that in modern science.

Educate yourself...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Reply #3)

Thu May 7, 2015, 03:20 AM

9. Useless,, waste of time.

I've given up on them.


Glad you have the energy and patience to keep trying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Magyar (Reply #9)

Thu May 7, 2015, 12:54 PM

22. indeed, it's like trying to teach a first grader

algebra

it's rather obvious that almost evry flat earther here lacks any background knowledge whatsoever to build upon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Reply #3)

Thu May 7, 2015, 08:40 AM

12. When someone with the gravitas of Einstein proclaims Global Warming to be "established science"...

... the speculation will diminish. Until then, enjoy the new "religion"...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamle-ged (Reply #12)

Thu May 7, 2015, 04:13 PM

26. Steven Hawking on Global Warming:

As cosmologist Stephen Hawking celebrates his 70th birthday he warns that climate change is one of a greatest threats posed to the future of human-kind and the world.

In an interview ahead of his birthday this Sunday (8 January), Professor Hawking spoke to BBC’s Radio 4 Today Programme and answered questions put to him by listeners.

He said: “It is possible that the human race could become extinct but it is not inevitable. I think it is almost certain that a disaster, such as nuclear war or global warming will befall the earth within a thousand years.”


- See more at: http://www.rtcc.org/2012/01/06/stephen-hawking-warns-of-climate-disaster-ahead-of-70th-birthday/#sthash.BkfbYoPO.dpuf[

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Reply #26)

Thu May 7, 2015, 04:47 PM

27. Smarty-pants...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamle-ged (Reply #2)

Thu May 7, 2015, 06:04 AM

10. Jet Propulsion is a Theory

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamle-ged (Reply #2)

Sat May 9, 2015, 04:42 AM

41. Your problem with terms aside

GW is far more clear than anything so distant as the Big Bang, because we're watching it happen. It's literally right in front of us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to It Guy (Original post)

Thu May 7, 2015, 08:35 AM

11. Scientific opinion on climate change:

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report summarized:

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.
Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.
Benefits and costs of climate change for society will vary widely by location and scale. Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative. Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.
The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.
The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its statement to its current non-committal position. Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.
...
The U.S. Global Change Research Program reported in June 2009 that:

Observations show that warming of the climate is unequivocal. The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with important contributions from the clearing of forests, agricultural practices, and other activities.

The report, which is about the effects that climate change is having in the United States, also says:

Climate-related changes have already been observed globally and in the United States. These include increases in air and water temperatures, reduced frost days, increased frequency and intensity of heavy downpours, a rise in sea level, and reduced snow cover, glaciers, permafrost, and sea ice. A longer ice-free period on lakes and rivers, lengthening of the growing season, and increased water vapor in the atmosphere have also been observed. Over the past 30 years, temperatures have risen faster in winter than in any other season, with average winter temperatures in the Midwest and northern Great Plains increasing more than 7°F. Some of the changes have been faster than previous assessments had suggested.
...
In 2004, the intergovernmental Arctic Council and the non-governmental International Arctic Science Committee released the synthesis report of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment:

Climate conditions in the past provide evidence that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are associated with rising global temperatures. Human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas), and secondarily the clearing of land, have increased the concentration of carbon dioxide, methane, and other heat-trapping ("greenhouse") gases in the atmosphere...There is international scientific consensus that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.
...
Statements by scientific organizations of national or international standing

This is a list of scientific bodies of national or international standing, that have issued formal statements of opinion, classifies those organizations according to whether they concur with the IPCC view, are non-committal, or dissent from it.

Concurring
Academies of science (general science)
Since 2001, 34 national science academies, three regional academies, and both the international InterAcademy Council and International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences have made formal declarations confirming human induced global warming and urging nations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The 34 national science academy statements include 33 who have signed joint science academy statements and one individual declaration by the Polish Academy of Sciences in 2007.

Joint national science academy statements
2001 Following the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, seventeen national science academies issued a joint statement, entitled "The Science of Climate Change", explicitly acknowledging the IPCC position as representing the scientific consensus on climate change science. The statement, printed in an editorial in the journal Science on May 18, 2001, was signed by the science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, Turkey, and the United Kingdom.
2005 The national science academies of the G8 nations, plus Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action, and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus. The eleven signatories were the science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
2007 In preparation for the 33rd G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration referencing the position of the 2005 joint science academies' statement, and acknowledging the confirmation of their previous conclusion by recent research. Following the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the declaration states, "It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken." The thirteen signatories were the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
2007 In preparation for the 33rd G8 summit, the Network of African Science Academies submitted a joint “statement on sustainability, energy efficiency, and climate change” :
A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change. The IPCC should be congratulated for the contribution it has made to public understanding of the nexus that exists between energy, climate and sustainability.

— The thirteen signatories were the science academies of Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, as well as the African Academy of Sciences ,
2008 In preparation for the 34th G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration reiterating the position of the 2005 joint science academies’ statement, and reaffirming “that climate change is happening and that anthropogenic warming is influencing many physical and biological systems.” Among other actions, the declaration urges all nations to “(t)ake appropriate economic and policy measures to accelerate transition to a low carbon society and to encourage and effect changes in individual and national behaviour.” The thirteen signatories were the same national science academies that issued the 2007 joint statement.
2009 In advance of the UNFCCC negotiations to be held in Copenhagen in December 2009, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a joint statement declaring, "Climate change and sustainable energy supply are crucial challenges for the future of humanity. It is essential that world leaders agree on the emission reductions needed to combat negative consequences of anthropogenic climate change". The statement references the IPCC's Fourth Assessment of 2007, and asserts that "climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated; global CO2 emissions since 2000 have been higher than even the highest predictions, Arctic sea ice has been melting at rates much faster than predicted, and the rise in the sea level has become more rapid." The thirteen signatories were the same national science academies that issued the 2007 and 2008 joint statements.
Polish Academy of Sciences
In December 2007, the General Assembly of the Polish Academy of Sciences (Polska Akademia Nauk), which has not been a signatory to joint national science academy statements issued a declaration endorsing the IPCC conclusions, and stating:

it is the duty of Polish science and the national government to, in a thoughtful, organized and active manner, become involved in realisation of these ideas.

Problems of global warming, climate change, and their various negative impacts on human life and on the functioning of entire societies are one of the most dramatic challenges of modern times.

PAS General Assembly calls on the national scientific communities and the national government to actively support Polish participation in this important endeavor.

Additional national science academy and society statements
American Association for the Advancement of Science as the world's largest general scientific society, adopted an official statement on climate change in 2006:
The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society....The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.

Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies in 2008 published FASTS Statement on Climate Change which states:
Global climate change is real and measurable...To reduce the global net economic, environmental and social losses in the face of these impacts, the policy objective must remain squarely focused on returning greenhouse gas concentrations to near pre-industrial levels through the reduction of emissions. The spatial and temporal fingerprint of warming can be traced to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, which are a direct result of burning fossil fuels, broad-scale deforestation and other human activity.

United States National Research Council through its Committee on the Science of Climate Change in 2001, published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions. This report explicitly endorses the IPCC view of attribution of recent climate change as representing the view of the scientific community:
The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century... The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue.

Royal Society of New Zealand having signed onto the first joint science academy statement in 2001, released a separate statement in 2008 in order to clear up "the controversy over climate change and its causes, and possible confusion among the public":
The globe is warming because of increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Measurements show that greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are well above levels seen for many thousands of years. Further global climate changes are predicted, with impacts expected to become more costly as time progresses. Reducing future impacts of climate change will require substantial reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.

The Royal Society of the United Kingdom has not changed its concurring stance reflected in its participation in joint national science academies' statements on anthropogenic global warming. According to the Telegraph, "The most prestigious group of scientists in the country was forced to act after fellows complained that doubts over man made global warming were not being communicated to the public". In May 2010, it announced that it "is presently drafting a new public facing document on climate change, to provide an updated status report on the science in an easily accessible form, also addressing the levels of certainty of key components." The society says that it is three years since the last such document was published and that, after an extensive process of debate and review, the new document was printed in September 2010. It summarises the current scientific evidence and highlights the areas where the science is well established, where there is still some debate, and where substantial uncertainties remain. The society has stated that "this is not the same as saying that the climate science itself is in error – no Fellows have expressed such a view to the RS". The introduction includes this statement:
There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, including agriculture and deforestation.

International science academies
African Academy of Sciences in 2007 was a signatory to the "statement on sustainability, energy efficiency, and climate change", the joint statement of African science academies, organized through the Network of African Science Academies, confirming anthropogenic global warming and presented to the leaders meeting at the G8 Summit in Heiligendamm, Germany.
European Academy of Sciences and Arts in 2007 issued a formal declaration on climate change titled Let's Be Honest:
Human activity is most likely responsible for climate warming. Most of the climatic warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Documented long-term climate changes include changes in Arctic temperatures and ice, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns and extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones. The above development potentially has dramatic consequences for mankind’s future.

European Science Foundation in a 2007 position paper states:
There is now convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases have become a major agent of climate change... On-going and increased efforts to mitigate climate change through reduction in greenhouse gases are therefore crucial.

InterAcademy Council As the representative of the world’s scientific and engineering academies, the InterAcademy Council issued a report in 2007 titled Lighting the Way: Toward a Sustainable Energy Future.
Current patterns of energy resources and energy usage are proving detrimental to the long-term welfare of humanity. The integrity of essential natural systems is already at risk from climate change caused by the atmospheric emissions of greenhouse gases. Concerted efforts should be mounted for improving energy efficiency and reducing the carbon intensity of the world economy.

International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences (CAETS) in 2007, issued a Statement on Environment and Sustainable Growth:
As reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), most of the observed global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human-produced emission of greenhouse gases and this warming will continue unabated if present anthropogenic emissions continue or, worse, expand without control. CAETS, therefore, endorses the many recent calls to decrease and control greenhouse gas emissions to an acceptable level as quickly as possible.

Physical and chemical sciences
American Chemical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
Australian Institute of Physics
European Physical Society
Earth sciences
American Geophysical Union
The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, adopted by the society in 2003, revised in 2007, and revised and expanded in 2013, affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:

“Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.

While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic changes than anticipated."

American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America
In May, 2011, the American Society of Agronomy (ASA), Crop Science Society of America (CSSA), and Soil Science Society of America (SSSA) issued a joint position statement on climate change as it relates to agriculture:

A comprehensive body of scientific evidence indicates beyond reasonable doubt that global climate change is now occurring and that its manifestations threaten the stability of societies as well as natural and managed ecosystems. Increases in ambient temperatures and changes in related processes are directly linked to rising anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere.

Unless the emissions of GHGs are curbed significantly, their concentrations will continue to rise, leading to changes in temperature, precipitation, and other climate variables that will undoubtedly affect agriculture around the world.

Climate change has the potential to increase weather variability as well as gradually increase global temperatures. Both of these impacts have the potential to negatively impact the adaptability and resilience of the world’s food production capacity; current research indicates climate change is already reducing the productivity of vulnerable cropping systems.

European Federation of Geologists
In 2008, the European Federation of Geologists (EFG) issued the position paper Carbon Capture and geological Storage :

The EFG recognizes the work of the IPCC and other organizations, and subscribes to the major findings that climate change is happening, is predominantly caused by anthropogenic emissions of CO2, and poses a significant threat to human civilization.

It is clear that major efforts are necessary to quickly and strongly reduce CO2 emissions. The EFG strongly advocates renewable and sustainable energy production, including geothermal energy, as well as the need for increasing energy efficiency.

CCS should also be regarded as a bridging technology, facilitating the move towards a carbon free economy.

European Geosciences Union
In 2005, the Divisions of Atmospheric and Climate Sciences of the European Geosciences Union (EGU) issued a position statement in support of the joint science academies’ statement on global response to climate change. The statement refers to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as "the main representative of the global scientific community", and asserts that the IPCC

represents the state-of-the-art of climate science supported by the major science academies around the world and by the vast majority of science researchers and investigators as documented by the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

Additionally, in 2008, the EGU issued a position statement on ocean acidification which states, "Ocean acidification is already occurring today and will continue to intensify, closely tracking atmospheric CO2 increase. Given the potential threat to marine ecosystems and its ensuing impact on human society and economy, especially as it acts in conjunction with anthropogenic global warming, there is an urgent need for immediate action." The statement then advocates for strategies "to limit future release of CO2 to the atmosphere and/or enhance removal of excess CO2 from the atmosphere."

Geological Society of America
In 2006, the Geological Society of America adopted a position statement on global climate change. It amended this position on April 20, 2010 with more explicit comments on need for CO2 reduction.

Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. 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. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twentyfirst century will result in large impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.

Geological Society of London
In November 2010, the Geological Society of London issued the position statement Climate change: evidence from the geological record:

The last century has seen a rapidly growing global population and much more intensive use of resources, leading to greatly increased emissions of gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, from the burning of fossil fuels (oil, gas and coal), and from agriculture, cement production and deforestation. Evidence from the geological record is consistent with the physics that shows that adding large amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere warms the world and may lead to: higher sea levels and flooding of low-lying coasts; greatly changed patterns of rainfall; increased acidity of the oceans; and decreased oxygen levels in seawater.

There is now widespread concern that the Earth’s climate will warm further, not only because of the lingering effects of the added carbon already in the system, but also because of further additions as human population continues to grow. Life on Earth has survived large climate changes in the past, but extinctions and major redistribution of species have been associated with many of them. When the human population was small and nomadic, a rise in sea level of a few metres would have had very little effect on Homo sapiens. With the current and growing global population, much of which is concentrated in coastal cities, such a rise in sea level would have a drastic effect on our complex society, especially if the climate were to change as suddenly as it has at times in the past. Equally, it seems likely that as warming continues some areas may experience less precipitation leading to drought. With both rising seas and increasing drought, pressure for human migration could result on a large scale.

International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
In July 2007, the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG) adopted a resolution titled “The Urgency of Addressing Climate Change”. In it, the IUGG concurs with the “comprehensive and widely accepted and endorsed scientific assessments carried out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and regional and national bodies, which have firmly established, on the basis of scientific evidence, that human activities are the primary cause of recent climate change.” They state further that the “continuing reliance on combustion of fossil fuels as the world’s primary source of energy will lead to much higher atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, which will, in turn, cause significant increases in surface temperature, sea level, ocean acidification, and their related consequences to the environment and society.”

National Association of Geoscience Teachers
In July 2009, the National Association of Geoscience Teachers (NAGT) adopted a position statement on climate change in which they assert that "Earth's climate is changing "that present warming trends are largely the result of human activities":

NAGT strongly supports and will work to promote education in the science of climate change, the causes and effects of current global warming, and the immediate need for policies and actions that reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

Meteorology and oceanography
American Meteorological Society
The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2012 concluded:

There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate. To inform decisions on adaptation and mitigation, it is critical that we improve our understanding of the global climate system and our ability to project future climate through continued and improved monitoring and research. This is especially true for smaller (seasonal and regional) scales and weather and climate extremes, and for important hydroclimatic variables such as precipitation and water availability.

Technological, economic, and policy choices in the near future will determine the extent of future impacts of climate change. Science-based decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. National and international policy discussions should include consideration of the best ways to both adapt to and mitigate climate change. Mitigation will reduce the amount of future climate change and the risk of impacts that are potentially large and dangerous. At the same time, some continued climate change is inevitable, and policy responses should include adaptation to climate change. Prudence dictates extreme care in accounting for our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life.

Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
The Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society has issued a Statement on Climate Change, wherein they conclude:

Global climate change and global warming are real and observable ... It is highly likely that those human activities that have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have been largely responsible for the observed warming since 1950. The warming associated with increases in greenhouse gases originating from human activity is called the enhanced greenhouse effect. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased by more than 30% since the start of the industrial age and is higher now than at any time in at least the past 650,000 years. This increase is a direct result of burning fossil fuels, broad-scale deforestation and other human activity.”

Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
In November 2005, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences (CFCAS) issued a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada stating that

We concur with the climate science assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001 ... We endorse the conclusions of the IPCC assessment that 'There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities'. ... There is increasingly unambiguous evidence of changing climate in Canada and around the world. There will be increasing impacts of climate change on Canada’s natural ecosystems and on our socio-economic activities. Advances in climate science since the 2001 IPCC Assessment have provided more evidence supporting the need for action and development of a strategy for adaptation to projected changes.

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
In November 2009, a letter to the Canadian Parliament by The Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society states:

Rigorous international research, including work carried out and supported by the Government of Canada, reveals that greenhouse gases resulting from human activities contribute to the warming of the atmosphere and the oceans and constitute a serious risk to the health and safety of our society, as well as having an impact on all life.

Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
In February 2007, after the release of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, the Royal Meteorological Society issued an endorsement of the report. In addition to referring to the IPCC as " world’s best climate scientists", they stated that climate change is happening as “the result of emissions since industrialization and we have already set in motion the next 50 years of global warming – what we do from now on will determine how worse it will get.”

World Meteorological Organization
In its Statement at the Twelfth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change presented on November 15, 2006, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) confirms the need to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” The WMO concurs that “scientific assessments have increasingly reaffirmed that human activities are indeed changing the composition of the atmosphere, in particular through the burning of fossil fuels for energy production and transportation.” The WMO concurs that “the present atmospheric concentration of CO2 was never exceeded over the past 420,000 years;” and that the IPCC “assessments provide the most authoritative, up-to-date scientific advice.”

American Quaternary Association
The American Quaternary Association (AMQUA) has stated

Few credible Scientists now doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise of global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution,” citing “the growing body of evidence that warming of the atmosphere, especially over the past 50 years, is directly impacted by human activity.

International Union for Quaternary Research
The statement on climate change issued by the International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA) reiterates the conclusions of the IPCC, and urges all nations to take prompt action in line with the UNFCCC principles.

Human activities are now causing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases — including carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide — to rise well above pre-industrial levels….Increases in greenhouse gases are causing temperatures to rise…The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action….Minimizing the amount of this carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere presents a huge challenge but must be a global priority.

Biology and life sciences
Life science organizations have outlined the dangers climate change pose to wildlife.

American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Institute of Biological Sciences. In October 2009, the leaders of 18 US scientific societies and organizations sent an open letter to the United States Senate reaffirming the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and is primarily caused by human activities. The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) adopted this letter as their official position statement. The letter goes on to warn of predicted impacts on the United States such as sea level rise and increases in extreme weather events, water scarcity, heat waves, wildfires, and the disturbance of biological systems. It then advocates for a dramatic reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases.
American Society for Microbiology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Institute of Biology (UK)
Society of American Foresters issued two position statements pertaining to climate change in which they cite the IPCC and the UNFCCC.
The Wildlife Society (international)
Human health
A number of health organizations have warned about the numerous negative health effects of global warming

American Academy of Pediatrics
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Medical Association
American Public Health Association
Australian Medical Association in 2004 and in 2008
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Health Organization
There is now widespread agreement that the Earth is warming, due to emissions of greenhouse gases caused by human activity. It is also clear that current trends in energy use, development, and population growth will lead to continuing – and more severe – climate change.

The changing climate will inevitably affect the basic requirements for maintaining health: clean air and water, sufficient food and adequate shelter. Each year, about 800,000 people die from causes attributable to urban air pollution, 1.8 million from diarrhoea resulting from lack of access to clean water supply, sanitation, and poor hygiene, 3.5 million from malnutrition and approximately 60,000 in natural disasters. A warmer and more variable climate threatens to lead to higher levels of some air pollutants, increase transmission of diseases through unclean water and through contaminated food, to compromise agricultural production in some of the least developed countries, and increase the hazards of extreme weather.

Miscellaneous
A number of other national scientific societies have also endorsed the opinion of the IPCC:

American Astronomical Society
American Statistical Association
The Institution of Engineers Australia
International Association for Great Lakes Research
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
The World Federation of Engineering Organizations (WFEO)
Non-committal

American Association of Petroleum Geologists
As of June 2007, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) Position Statement on climate change stated:

the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases ... Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models.

Prior to the adoption of this statement, the AAPG was the only major scientific organization that rejected the finding of significant human influence on recent climate, according to a statement by the Council of the American Quaternary Association. Explaining the plan for a revision, AAPG president Lee Billingsly wrote in March 2007:

Members have threatened to not renew their memberships… if AAPG does not alter its position on global climate change... And I have been told of members who already have resigned in previous years because of our current global climate change position… The current policy statement is not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members.

AAPG President John Lorenz announced the "sunsetting" of AAPG’s Global Climate Change Committee in January 2010. The AAPG Executive Committee determined:

Climate change is peripheral at best to our science AAPG does not have credibility in that field and as a group we have no particular knowledge of global atmospheric geophysics.

American Institute of Professional Geologists
In 2009, the American Institute of Professional Geologists (AIPG) sent a statement to President Barack Obama and other US government officials:

The geological professionals in AIPG recognize that climate change is occurring and has the potential to yield catastrophic impacts if humanity is not prepared to address those impacts. It is also recognized that climate change will occur regardless of the cause. The sooner a defensible scientific understanding can be developed, the better equipped humanity will be to develop economically viable and technically effective methods to support the needs of society.

Concerned that the original statement issued in March 2009 was too ambiguous, AIPG’s National Executive Committee approved a revised position statement issued in January 2010:

The geological professionals in AIPG recognize that climate change is occurring regardless of cause. AIPG supports continued research into all forces driving climate change.

In March 2010, AIPG’s Executive Director issued a statement regarding polarization of opinions on climate change within the membership and announced that the AIPG Executive had made a decision to cease publication of articles and opinion pieces concerning climate change in AIPG’s news journal, The Professional Geologist. The Executive Director said that “the question of anthropogenicity of climate change is contentious.”

Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
The science of global climate change is still evolving and our understanding of this vital Earth system is not as developed as is the case for other Earth systems such as plate tectonics. What is known with certainty is that regardless of the causes, our global climate will continue to change for the foreseeable future... The level of CO2 in our atmosphere is now greater than at any time in the past 500,000 years; there will be consequences for our global climate and natural systems as a result.

Geological Society of Australia
After a long and extensive and extended consultation with society members, the GSA executive committee has decided not to proceed with a climate change position statement.

Dissenting
See also: List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
As of 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement, no scientific body of national or international standing rejected the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Plus, of course, there's the IPCC - and anyone who says the IPCC is 'biased', 'in it for the money' and so on is just projecting their own greed onto people who are telling them truth they don't want to hear. The IPCC is the world's best experts on the subjects related to climate change.

There is no excuse for this idiotic American far right denial of basic scientific reality. Climate change is man-made, it's happening, and it will get worse without changes to the way we get the energy for our society. Go and check the links on Wikipedia - there are over 100. Don't wallow in your ignorance, just because fossil fuel companies are funding the RW thinktanks to talk bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muzzlehatch (Reply #11)

Thu May 7, 2015, 09:59 AM

15. Let the hunt begin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Burton (Reply #15)

Thu May 7, 2015, 11:09 AM

18. I'm cereal!

 

Why won't anybody believe me?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Always Right (Reply #18)

Thu May 7, 2015, 12:02 PM

19. Your signature, perhaps?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muzzlehatch (Reply #11)

Mon May 18, 2015, 03:22 AM

61. TL;dr. climate change is real cause reasons, so shut up

Basically the alarmists use the massive govt. sponsored megaphone to shout down skeptics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SummBoddie (Reply #61)

Mon May 18, 2015, 06:14 AM

62. You think that giving lots of reasons means something should be ignored?

The odd thing is that deniers seem to think that governments like having to deal with climate change. it would be a lot simpler for a politician if they could say "carbon dioxide is not a problem - keep burning the fossil fuels for cheap energy!". But the simple scientific reality is that CO2 is warming the world, and governments are reluctantly facing up to that. Reality is not a "massive govt. sponsored megaphone".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to It Guy (Original post)

Fri May 8, 2015, 08:37 PM

36. So I watched the entire video with careful attention

I have to say that it is scary that people can't see through this type of thing.

A great deal of propaganda packed into 36 minutes. The video abounds with strawman arguments and cherry picked science along with a mix of pseudoscience and half truths.

What is problematic is that people see this video and think "Well there is a legitimate scientific argument for both sides," because they don't have the expertise to see the flaws in this propaganda piece.

But part of me doesn't care. The truths of AGW will become clear enough in the coming decades. For me the question is "can we make changes to our technological society which are significant enough to change the trend?" I honestly don't know but the scientific trend (not based on model results) is quite clear. The Earth is warming and the rate is absolutely consistent with a CO2 and methane (fossile fuel burning) Greenhouse effect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Reply #36)

Sun May 10, 2015, 10:02 PM

47. Could you be more specific?

As in actually quoting something from the video that was factually incorrect?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Transcendence (Reply #47)

Sun May 10, 2015, 11:26 PM

48. There were several assertions which were at best

pseudoscience. Since I'm not writting a report on the damn thing the answer to your question is most definitely "No not right now - I'm tired and should go to sleep.

Can you be more specific? Was there anything in the video that you found questionable or did you swallow it hook line and sinker? I thought it was pretty weak actually. If it were an academic excersise I could give you a point by point refutation - it isn't so I'm not going to. He alluded to several debunked arguments and asserted that they were possibly true. His points seemed to be disconnected and several of them actually contridicted others. If he had a thesis - then it seemed to be that the whole solar system was warming or at least experiencing what he termed "climate change" - that SPECIFICALLY is ABSOLUTE HOGWASH. When I was an Visiting Assistant Professor of Physics several years ago we would get better arguments from the yahoo's who sometimes came in claiming to have found a flaw in the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Reply #48)

Mon May 11, 2015, 12:28 AM

49. Response

Can you be more specific? Was there anything in the video that you found questionable or did you swallow it hook line and sinker?

There are a couple things that I found questionable, in particular I think he is mistaken about Mars experiencing warming just like the Earth is.

His points seemed to be disconnected and several of them actually contradicted others.

I didn't notice this. Can you give me an example?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Transcendence (Reply #49)

Mon May 11, 2015, 04:39 PM

50. Points disconnected and contradictory...

Last edited Mon May 11, 2015, 07:04 PM - Edit history (4)

Actually there are so many it is hard to think of where to start.

When he looks at ice cores and makes the denier statement "temperature leads CO2" he makes a significant mistake in implying that he is presenting a flaw in climate scientists understanding. This is just false, climate scientists have a very sophisticated understanding of the ice core data and they understand why temperature leads CO2. He misrepresents the science on this one and apparently he does this intentionally in order to give the impression that the link between CO2 and temperature is suspect. It should trouble all of us that this time ONLY CO2 LEADS temperature. This was a strawman presented as an inital diversion for the audience. He uses other strawman arguments. Particularly at the beginning of the video. He asserts that the "leading scientists" are turning against the Global Warming. Well who exactly are these "leading scientists"? We can easily guess based on the recent climate misinformation published in places like the London Independent which is little more than a tabloid. I guess he gets to decide what scientific credentials qualify someone to be "leading." But we know, because this has been studied, most of the so called scientists involved in the denier movement either are not climate scientists or are not leading. Freeman Dyson hardly qualifies as a "leading" climate scientist. By world class measures he's only a 2nd rate physicist. I'm sure other cases are similar and his claim that "leading scientists" are turning against global would fall flat on its face given the slightest honest investigation.

I mean, I'm sorry but most of the whole thing was hogwash. Some of it was smoke and mirrors, much of it was misrepresentation and also wishful thinking, some of it was just flat out WRONG. His attempted points about the deterioration of the scientific concensus and his attacks on the IPCC was pretty unfounded and political. Several assertions were not scientifically founded on ANYTHING yet he was criticized the IPCC and scientific consensus freely though it has been rigorously peer reviewed and debated in public. So apparently he can assert whatever hair-brain scheme he wants, even if it has been shown to be erroneous or uncorrelated and debunked by several reputible scientific papers (here I'm refering to so called "the cosmic ray effect" which has been shown to be FAR short of accounting for any current climate data.) But climate scientists supported and well documented conclusions are all wrong. Why? Because HE says so. I feel sorry for anyone who takes this guy seriously. He's not a legitimate scientist nor does he represent science in a legitimate way. I mean do you really buy the stuff about "there is evidence that the Earth can fix itself" crap? That specifically was unadulterated psuedoscience. And furthermore if Anthropogenic CO2 is not the cause of climate change then why does the Earth need to fix anything?

I've only scrated the surface of the problems with this talk. As I said, I'm not doing an academic paper to be graded so I don't have to list point and counter point and detail them. I have legitimate scientific credentials and I will say that from my point of view this talk and the presented science were pure CRAP. This guy was nothing more than the modern day equivalent of a snake oil sailsman. He is apparently selling confusion and I bet he's making a good profit on it. Sure he's not associated with big Oil, he doesn't need to be to sell his modern day snake oil.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Reply #50)

Mon May 11, 2015, 10:32 PM

51. Freeman Dyson a "2nd rate physicist"?

Here are the awards he has received:

Lorentz Medal in 1966
Max Planck Medal in 1969
J. Robert Oppenheimer Memorial Prize in 1970
Harvey Prize in 1977
Enrico Fermi Award in 1993

Does that sound like 2nd rate physicist? I think not.

I think that whatever problems the video contains, what we are seeing in climate science today is the result of some pretty big egos to refusing to admit that they were a little extreme in their initial pronouncements of doom. When you produce models that predicted temperature increases of 3 or 4 degrees by the end of the century, and then observations fail to match your models, you can't just stick your head in the sand and pretend there is nothing wrong with your models. A real scientist will admit that his model is wrong, and then go off to figure out why. Personally, I think that is precisely what a lot of real scientists ARE doing, it's just that now we are hearing primarily from environmental activists, not scientists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Transcendence (Reply #51)

Mon May 11, 2015, 11:13 PM

52. Freeman Dyson

IS a 2nd rate physicist on the world stage. Yes, I used to admire the man but he's shown himself to be an idiot at least as on old man. Where's his Nobel? That's what I meant by "2nd rate" - notice that I did qualify it by saying "on the world stage"

As far as climate science is concerned EGO's have NOTHING to do with it, That kind of argument is called a "RED HERRING" argument. Speaking of ego's that jerk in that 3rd rate video had a pretty big ego or didn't you notice?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Reply #52)

Tue May 12, 2015, 12:22 AM

53. If not ego, then what?

What is your explanation for their denial of what has happened the last 16 years? Again, when you produce models that predicted temperature increases of 3 or 4 degrees by the end of the century, and then observations fail to match your models, you can't just stick your head in the sand and pretend there is nothing wrong with your models.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Scienceclimatechange