Second Coldest Spring In U.S. History
- Thread starter pspr
- Start date
Scientific organizations endorsing the consensus
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
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."
Subsequent research has confirmed this result. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had masterâs degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures.
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
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."
Subsequent research has confirmed this result. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had masterâs degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures.
Repeat after me...... "I pspr am an idiot.......... Every science organization in the world agrees with consensus opinion that man has caused most of the warming over the last few decades. CO2 IS a greenhouse gas and it HAS increased 35% due to man. What was I thinking. Al Gore is right and I, pisspoor am an idiot."
LOL
Read what NOAA has to say.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/globalwarming.html
The Costs of Ideology Masquerading as Science:
As Greenpeace co-founder Peter Moore observed on Fox Business News in January 2011: âWe do not have any scientific proof that we are the cause of the global warming that has occurred in the last 200 yearsâ¦The alarmism is driving us through scare tactics to adopt energy policies that are going to create a huge amount of energy poverty among the poor people. Itâs not good for people and itâs not good for the environmentâ¦In a warmer world we can produce more food.â
When Moore was asked who is responsible for promoting unwarranted climate fear and what their motives are, he said: âA powerful convergence of interests. Scientists seeking grant money, media seeking headlines, universities seeking huge grants from major institutions, foundations, environmental groups, politicians wanting to make it look like they are saving future generations. And all of these people have converged on this issue.â
Paul Ehrlich, best known for his 1968 doom and gloom book, âThe Population Bombâ, reported in a March 2010 Nature editorial that a barrage of challenges countering the notion of a looming global warming catastrophe has his alarmist colleagues in big sweats: âEveryone is scared s***less, but they donât know what to do.â
Yes, and it should, because consequences of subordinating climate science to ideology, however well intentioned, have proven to be incredibly costly.
The U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) reports that federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010 (a total $106.7 billion over that period). This doesnât include $79 billion more spent for climate change technology research, tax breaks for âgreen energyâ, foreign aid to help other countries address âclimate problemsâ; another $16.1 billion since 1993 in federal revenue losses due to green energy subsidies; or still another $26 billion earmarked for climate change programs and related activities in the 2009 âStimulus Billâ.
Virtually all of this is based upon unfounded representations that we are experiencing a known human-caused climate crisis, a claim based upon speculative theories, contrived data and totally unproven modeling predictions. And what redemptive solutions are urgently implored? We must give lots of money to the U.N. to redistribute; abandon fossil fuel use in favor of heavily subsidized but assuredly abundant, âfreeâ, and ârenewableâ alternatives; and expand federal government growth, regulatory powers, and crony capitalist-enriched political campaign coffers.
It is way past time to realize that none of this is really about protecting the planet from man-made climate change. It never was.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...rds-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/3/
<a href=http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/>It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus</a>
Futurecunt is a buffoon for being led by the nose by a bunch of money grubbing organizations who don't want to lose their $8 billion in annual government grants.
As Greenpeace co-founder Peter Moore observed on Fox Business News in January 2011: âWe do not have any scientific proof that we are the cause of the global warming that has occurred in the last 200 yearsâ¦The alarmism is driving us through scare tactics to adopt energy policies that are going to create a huge amount of energy poverty among the poor people. Itâs not good for people and itâs not good for the environmentâ¦In a warmer world we can produce more food.â
When Moore was asked who is responsible for promoting unwarranted climate fear and what their motives are, he said: âA powerful convergence of interests. Scientists seeking grant money, media seeking headlines, universities seeking huge grants from major institutions, foundations, environmental groups, politicians wanting to make it look like they are saving future generations. And all of these people have converged on this issue.â
Paul Ehrlich, best known for his 1968 doom and gloom book, âThe Population Bombâ, reported in a March 2010 Nature editorial that a barrage of challenges countering the notion of a looming global warming catastrophe has his alarmist colleagues in big sweats: âEveryone is scared s***less, but they donât know what to do.â
Yes, and it should, because consequences of subordinating climate science to ideology, however well intentioned, have proven to be incredibly costly.
The U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) reports that federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010 (a total $106.7 billion over that period). This doesnât include $79 billion more spent for climate change technology research, tax breaks for âgreen energyâ, foreign aid to help other countries address âclimate problemsâ; another $16.1 billion since 1993 in federal revenue losses due to green energy subsidies; or still another $26 billion earmarked for climate change programs and related activities in the 2009 âStimulus Billâ.
Virtually all of this is based upon unfounded representations that we are experiencing a known human-caused climate crisis, a claim based upon speculative theories, contrived data and totally unproven modeling predictions. And what redemptive solutions are urgently implored? We must give lots of money to the U.N. to redistribute; abandon fossil fuel use in favor of heavily subsidized but assuredly abundant, âfreeâ, and ârenewableâ alternatives; and expand federal government growth, regulatory powers, and crony capitalist-enriched political campaign coffers.
It is way past time to realize that none of this is really about protecting the planet from man-made climate change. It never was.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...rds-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/3/
<a href=http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/>It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus</a>
Futurecunt is a buffoon for being led by the nose by a bunch of money grubbing organizations who don't want to lose their $8 billion in annual government grants.
A peer-reviewed survey of 1077 geoscientists and engineers finds that "only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis," according to James Taylor, writing at Forbes.com. As he points out, if there is a scientific consensus at all, it would have to be skepticism toward anthropogenic global warming.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/02/global_warming_scientific_consensus_debunked.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/02/global_warming_scientific_consensus_debunked.html
Forbes? American THinker? LOL You are pathetic and you don't even know it.
so your own quote shows you what a loon you are .
as we have been telling you for yeears..
read the last paragraph...
the question is
Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009)
I would say yes to that as well.
We might be making it cooler.
We are cutting down rain forests...
only crazy leftists loons think that there is current science showing man mad CO2 causes warming.
as we have been telling you for yeears..
read the last paragraph...
the question is
Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009)
I would say yes to that as well.
We might be making it cooler.
We are cutting down rain forests...
only crazy leftists loons think that there is current science showing man mad CO2 causes warming.