No AGW Say 20+ NASA Scientists

[futurecurrents]

Quote from bwolinsky:

The center of the milky way galaxy is a torsion field generator whose waves impact the solar systems of our galaxy universally.

If we were to look at the climate changes of other planets, NASA already sees that those planets are changing just as the entire galaxy is changing.

AGW is bunk horseshit built on a panic short squeeze by the look of the chart and let me repeat for future currents that there are no credible scientific people with the proper background and training claiming that there is AGW. They really just say there's not enough data.

I hate how climate change in p&r keeps coming up with useless debate when educated folks don't need to hear anything but be properly introduced to the literature, which very clearly states that there is no conclusive evidence of AGW nor any way for "evidence" to ever be conclusive.

Torsion fields particularly have contributed to the rise in temperature at least in our own solar system, and this has absolutely nothing to do with man made climate change.

Torsion fields? LOL!!

Oh yeah AGW is bunk. That's why 97% of all the world's climate experts and every major science organization in the world agree on the basics of AGW.

Really, I wonder what the deniers use for brains.

It's really very simple. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and levels have gone up some 35% from the burning of fossil fuels so the temps are rising. It is so simple and understandable that a ten year old can understand it. Strangely the idiot deniers can't.

Do YOU understand it? And why not? What in the above do you idiots not get?

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from bwolinsky:

FC, the debate is AGW, not whether we see temperature's rising. AGW is false.

No, these organizations believe it is due to CO2. As do 97% of the climate scientists in the world and virtually all the world's science organizations.

 

[futurecurrents]

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise” [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: “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” [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change” (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

 

[futurecurrents]

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming
Scientific societies and scientists have released statements and studies showing the growing consensus on climate change science. A common objection to taking action to reduce our heat-trapping emissions has been uncertainty within the scientific community on whether or not global warming is happening and if it is caused by humans. However, there is now an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is indeed happening and humans are contributing to it. Below are links to documents and statements attesting to this consensus.

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." (October, 2009)

American Meteorological Society: Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society

"Indeed, strong observational evidence and results from modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human activities are a major contributor to climate change." (February 2007)

American Physical Society: Statement on Climate Change

"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." (November 2007)

American Geophysical Union: Human Impacts on Climate

"The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century." (Adopted December 2003, Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007)

American Association for the Advancement of Science: AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change

"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (December 2006)

Geological Society of America: Global Climate Change

"The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries." (October 2006)

American Chemical Society: Statement on Global Climate Change

"There is now general agreement among scientific experts that the recent warming trend is real (and particularly strong within the past 20 years), that most of the observed warming is likely due to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and that climate change could have serious adverse effects by the end of this century." (July 2004)

National Science Academies

U.S. National Academy of Sciences: Understanding and Responding to Climate Change (pdf)

"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)

http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html

 

[bigarrow]

Quote from futurecurrents:

Torsion fields? LOL!!

Oh yeah AGW is bunk. That's why 97% of all the world's climate experts and every major science organization in the world agree on the basics of AGW.

Really, I wonder what the deniers use for brains.

It's really very simple. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and levels have gone up some 35% from the burning of fossil fuels so the temps are rising. It is so simple and understandable that a ten year old can understand it. Strangely the idiot deniers can't.

Do YOU understand it? And why not? What in the above do you idiots not get?

It doesn't matter what all the other scientist have said THE scientist, bwolinsky, has spoken.

 

[bwolinsky]

Quote from bigarrow:

It doesn't matter what all the other scientist have said THE scientist, bwolinsky, has spoken.

Great... let's bleed ourselves economically trying to solve a problem the solar field rinser that melts water more frequently these days should be our best option...

 

[bwolinsky]

OK, fine, I just couldn't take the side of a High School girlfriend who patents CO2 scrubbers for coal plants. Word is they'll bankrupt you, but not before insiders can cash out.

I'm asking why the solution is taxation? Regulation? Cause everyone wants it, right?

 

[bwolinsky]

Quote from futurecurrents:

Torsion fields? LOL!!

Oh yeah AGW is bunk. That's why 97% of all the world's climate experts and every major science organization in the world agree on the basics of AGW.

Really, I wonder what the deniers use for brains.

It's really very simple. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and levels have gone up some 35% from the burning of fossil fuels so the temps are rising. It is so simple and understandable that a ten year old can understand it. Strangely the idiot deniers can't.

Do YOU understand it? And why not? What in the above do you idiots not get?

CO2 up is from solar activity and galactic, universal constants governed by exosolar particle waves, such as torsion fields.

In other words, there's nothing you can do about it (ie: rise in temperature). CO2 is "helping"? A LOT, Yes. It's still governed by light fields in the dark matter of our universe.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from bwolinsky:

OK, fine, I just couldn't take the side of a High School girlfriend who patents CO2 scrubbers for coal plants. Word is they'll bankrupt you, but not before insiders can cash out.

I'm asking why the solution is taxation? Regulation? Cause everyone wants it, right?

I've got a way to address it that would not cost anything. Ban any vehicle that gets less than say 35 MPG. Exceptions for commercial uses.

Push nuclear power.

Invest more into research on fusion. For some reason, our government which is largely in the pocket of big coal/oil does not seem to be pushing this. I wonder why.

There are many things that can be done that don't have to be onerous and in fact may spur new economic development.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from bwolinsky:

CO2 up is from solar activity and galactic, universal constants governed by exosolar particle waves, such as torsion fields.

In other words, there's nothing you can do about it (ie: rise in temperature). CO2 is "helping"? A LOT, Yes. It's still governed by light fields in the dark matter of our universe.

Umm no. CO2 is up because we are emitting 9 billion tons of it into the atmosphere every year. The extra CO2 has been proven to be from fossil fuels using isotope analysis.