You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
Quote from gwb-trading:
Huh? There is no scientific evidence whatsoever to support this assertion. All the global measurements over the past 16 years show the rise in temperatures have stopped ("paused" to use IPCC language).
Ummm, of course there is. You show your ignorance with every post.
Quote from gwb-trading:
Oh, wow this is generally the same list (or their predecessors) that supported "global cooling" in the 1970s -- plus NCAR, CRU, NAS, NASA â as did the CIA.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/the-1970s-ice-age-scare/
Once again, your ignorance is showing. The majority of science papers from the 70's predicted global warming.
Besides, it's a pretty weak argument to say that because 40 years ago a few scientists got it wrong that virtually the entire world's science must be wrong now. A very weak argument indeed and essentially illogical. A lot has changed since then including; temperatures, CO2 levels, computer modeling, satellite observations....to name a few.
Here's what the American Meteorological Society says..
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7
Quote from futurecurrents:
Once again, your ignorance is showing. The majority of science papers from the 70's predicted global warming.
Besides, it's a pretty weak argument to say that because 40 years ago a few scientists got it wrong that virtually the entire world's science must be wrong now. A very weak argument indeed and essentially illogical. A lot has changed since then including; temperatures, CO2 levels, computer modeling, satellite observations....to name a few.
Here's what the American Meteorological Society says..
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7
Once again your bring up your totally incorrect assertions that very few scientific papers in the 1970s supported global cooling and that the majority of the papers in the 1970s supported global warming - which was totally debunked earlier when you posted this nonsense about only 14 papers in the 1970s support global cooling - Do you remember us clearly outlined the troves of scientific papers and media articles from the 1970s showing you were totally incorrect.
Let's start with a 1970s global cooling paper from NASA. It is easy to search the NASA site and find 50 more.
Rasool, S.I., and S.H. Schneider, 1971: Atmospheric carbon dioxide and aerosols: Effects of large increases on global climate. Science, 173, 138-141, doi:10.1126/science.173.3992.138.
Quote from Lucrum:
I've seen countless similar rationalizations here on ET. From those slow to recognize a trend change as they try to convince themselves the previous trend will return and bail them out of their losing position.
It's like the global warming alarmists double down on their losing positions until they totally implode.
Quote from gwb-trading:
Once again your bring up your totally incorrect assertions that very few scientific papers in the 1970s supported global cooling and that the majority of the papers in the 1970s supported global warming - which was totally debunked earlier when you posted this nonsense about only 14 papers in the 1970s support global cooling - Do you remember us clearly outlined the troves of scientific papers and media articles from the 1970s showing you were totally incorrect.
Let's start with a 1970s global cooling paper from NASA. It is easy to search the NASA site and find 50 more.
Rasool, S.I., and S.H. Schneider, 1971: Atmospheric carbon dioxide and aerosols: Effects of large increases on global climate. Science, 173, 138-141, doi:10.1126/science.173.3992.138.
Even if what you say is true, which it is not, do you think that proves, or even provides evidence, that the current overwhelming consensus is wrong?
Is that the kind of logic you find compelling?
And, not that it matters but, yes there were many papers predicting global cooling. There were many more predicting warming. And we are talking research papers not articles in popular media.
Quote from futurecurrents:
Even if what you say is true, which it is not, do you think that proves, or even provides evidence, that the current overwhelming consensus is wrong?
Welcome to 2013 where AGW is supported by less than 50% of scientists in surveys. You can stay in your 97% fantasy consensus world or face the reality of waning support world-wide for the global warming farce.
Quote from gwb-trading:
It's like the global warming alarmists double down on their losing positions until they totally implode.
Yes, the ignorant silly alarmists, like the American Geophysical Union which states..
"The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system â 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 â 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 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007)5
Quote from gwb-trading:
Welcome to 2013 where AGW is supported by less than 50% of scientists in surveys. You can stay in your 97% fantasy consensus world or face the reality of waning support world-wide for the global warming farce.
You're not even close. You are trying to say black is white and up is down. Every reasonable metric proves the consensus is overwhelming and is well north of 95%. You can ignore them, but still they are there.
Here's what the American Association for the Advancement of Science says
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)
Don't Miss it! Climate Depot Factsheet on 1970s Coming Ice Age Claims
'Fears of a coming ice age, showed up in peer-reviewed literature, at scientific conferences, by prominent scientists and throughout the media'
http://www.climatedepot.com/2009/10...s-factsheet-on-1970s-coming-ice-age-claims-2/
Despite many claims to the contrary, the 1970's global cooling fears were widespread among many scientists and in the media. Despite the fact that there was no UN IPCC organization created to promote global cooling in the 1970s and despite the fact that there was nowhere near the tens of billions of dollars in funding spent today to promote man-made global warming, fears of a coming ice age, showed up in peer-reviewed literature, at scientific conferences, voiced by prominent scientists and throughout the media.
(more at above url)
FC - I suggest that you read it for a change to find out the truth.
'Fears of a coming ice age, showed up in peer-reviewed literature, at scientific conferences, by prominent scientists and throughout the media'
http://www.climatedepot.com/2009/10...s-factsheet-on-1970s-coming-ice-age-claims-2/
Despite many claims to the contrary, the 1970's global cooling fears were widespread among many scientists and in the media. Despite the fact that there was no UN IPCC organization created to promote global cooling in the 1970s and despite the fact that there was nowhere near the tens of billions of dollars in funding spent today to promote man-made global warming, fears of a coming ice age, showed up in peer-reviewed literature, at scientific conferences, voiced by prominent scientists and throughout the media.
(more at above url)
FC - I suggest that you read it for a change to find out the truth.