Happy Birthday No Global Waming - 18 years old.

Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process. A Skeptical Science peer-reviewed survey of all (over 12,000) peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' and 'global warming' published between 1991 and 2011 (Cook et al. 2013) found that over 97% of the papers taking a position on the subject agreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of the project, the scientist authors were emailed and rated over 2,000 of their own papers. Once again, over 97% of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agreed that humans are causing it.

 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.[5]
  • Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[6]
  • Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[7] Some of the effects intemperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[7] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.[7]
  • The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.[8]
  • 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).[9]
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,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[12] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.
 
Seems like these threads are just a propaganda outlet, something like that. Not sure I need to look at any more of them.
 
Of course it is 97% consensus. It's idiotic to say it's not. The science is simple, obvious, and common sense.

CO2 is a GHG and we have raised it's levels 40%. Of course that will cause warming. It it this obviousness that is the reason that the consensus is practically speaking unanimous in the science community.
 
I agree the threads are becoming repetitive.

If I am lying why don't you nutters post links to all these papers they supposedly have.
I have posted links to dozens of papers showing the sun and tides cause at least some warming and will do so again upon request.
 
Last edited:
futurecurrents said:
Facts don't matter to jerm.
More...

Apparently not. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt regarding his refutation of global warming, but when he bundled it with some rightwing rant about Obama's birthplace and Obama's religion and Obama is trying to destroy the country etc etc etc, I realized it's all of a piece: paranoid conspiracy fantasies which make him no different from Scat or Max. And now he doesn't even bother to find out if his "facts" are true. So why waste the time reading this crap?

He can sail off into whatever waters he chooses. This is nonsense.
 
you lie db. you have been a nutter for months.
you guys posted a salon article distorting reality. I corrected it.

1. We don't know what Obama believes he is a politician.
do you take politicians words for fact? especially from the keep your doctor crowd?

and

2. He did default instead of presenting evidence to a Georgia court review his eligibility. Instead of taking a default... orly taitz put on a circus and lost.

"Ordinarily, the Court would enter a default order against the party that fails to participate in any stage of a proceeding...Nonetheless, despite the Defendant's failure to appear, Plaintiffs asked this Court to decide the case on the merits of their arguments and evidence. The Court granted Plaintiff's request."

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/obama_wins_georgia_ballot_challenge.html#ixzz3FJAm5nlo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top