US seared during hottest year on record by far

[jem]

FC troll we have covered this...
98 percent of scientists dont even agree on toothpaste....

your study was a fraudulent piece of shit mis read of the study...

here is the reality of science....



PRINCETON, NJ (January 3, 2011)—S. Fred Singer said in an interview with the National Association of Scholars (NAS) that “the number of skeptical qualified scientists has been growing steadily; I would guess it is about 40% now.”
Singer, a leading scientific skeptic of anthropocentric global warming (AGW), is an atmospheric physicist, and founder of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), an organization that began challenging the published findings of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the 1990s. SEPP established the Leipzig Declaration, a statement of dissent from the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that has been signed by over one hundred scientists and meteorologists.
Asked what he would like to see happen in regard to public opinion and policy on climate change, Singer replied,
I would like to see the public look upon global warming as just another scientific controversy and oppose any public policies until the major issues are settled, such as the cause. If mostly natural, as NIPCC concludes, then the public policies currently discussed are pointless, hugely expensive, and wasteful of resources that could better be applied to real societal problems.
NIPCC is the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, another group established by Singer. In 2009 NIPCC published Climate Change Reconsidered,an 880-page report on scientific research that contradicts the models of man-made global warming. Singer believes that global warming exists but that human contributions to it are minimal. In the interview Singer said he believed his efforts in the last twenty years had been successful in disproving the notion that “the science is settled.”
Singer continues his work in the sciences, focusing lately on geophysical research and the Earth’s atmosphere. He is professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia, and he was the founding Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at the University of Miami (1964-1967) and the Director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics University of Maryland (1953-1962).
The National Association of Scholars does not take a position on global warming but advocates for a full discussion of all sides of the controversy.To learn more about NAS, visit www.nas.org.
####



http://www.nas.org/articles/Estimated_40_Percent_of_Scientists_Doubt_Manmade_Global_Warming

Quote from futurecurrents:

A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis).


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 master’s 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.

Anderegg 2010
This overwhelming consensus among climate experts is confirmed by an independent study that surveys all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus. They find between 97% to 98% of climate experts support the consensus (Anderegg 2010). Moreover, they examine the number of publications by each scientist as a measure of expertise in climate science. They find the average number of publications by unconvinced scientists (eg - skeptics) is around half the number by scientists convinced by the evidence. Not only is there a vast difference in the number of convinced versus unconvinced scientists, there is also a considerable gap in expertise between the two groups.


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
The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 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




However, a lawyer named jem fervently disagrees that there is a consensus......... So we can't be sure. LOL

 

[jem]

Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming

Link to this page
http://www.skepticalscience.com/klaus-martin-schulte-consensus.htm


The skeptic argument...
Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming
Klaus-Martin Schulte examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. While only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. Only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results. (Source: DailyTech)
What the science says...
Schulte's paper makes much of the fact that 48% of the papers they surveyed are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject anthropogenic global warming. The fact that so many studies on climate change don't bother to endorse the consensus position is significant because scientists have largely moved from what's causing global warming onto discussing details of the problem (eg - how fast, how soon, impacts, etc).
Schulte's paper (going on DailyTech's account) places great emphasis on the fact that

 

[jem]

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [9]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[10]
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003), and author of books supporting the validity of dowsing[11]
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU[12]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[13]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [14]
Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes



Graph showing the ability with which a global climate model is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record, and the degree to which those temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. It shows the effects of five forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, and volcanic emissions.[15]
Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[16]
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[17][18]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[19]
Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[20]
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[21]
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[22]
William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[23]
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[24]
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[25]
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[26]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[27]
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[28][29]
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[30]
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[31][32]
Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo[33]
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[34][35][36]
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[37]
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[38]
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center[39]
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[40]
Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown

Scientists in this section have made comments that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks[41]
Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris)[42]
Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University[43]
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC[44][45]
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory[46]
Judith Curry, Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology[47]
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma[48]
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists[49]
Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences

Scientists in this section have made comments that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth's environment. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [50]
Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[51]
Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[52]
See also

Global warming portal
Global warming controversy
Global warming conspiracy theory
Hockey stick controversy
List of authors from the IPCC AR4 WGI report
List of climate scientists
Merchants of Doubt
Oregon petition
Notes

^ In its 2007 assessment report, IPCC projected likely temperature rise for various hypothetical levels of future greenhouse gas emissions, known as "emissions scenarios". They reported that during the 21st century the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 1.1 to 2.9 °C (2 to 5.2 °F) for the lowest emissions scenario used in the report, and 2.4 to 6.4 °C (4.3 to 11.5 °F) for the highest.[53]
References

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from jem:

Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming

Link to this page
http://www.skepticalscience.com/klaus-martin-schulte-consensus.htm


The skeptic argument...
Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming
Klaus-Martin Schulte examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. While only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. Only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results. (Source: DailyTech)
What the science says...
Schulte's paper makes much of the fact that 48% of the papers they surveyed are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject anthropogenic global warming. The fact that so many studies on climate change don't bother to endorse the consensus position is significant because scientists have largely moved from what's causing global warming onto discussing details of the problem (eg - how fast, how soon, impacts, etc).
Schulte's paper (going on DailyTech's account) places great emphasis on the fact that

What the science says.

Schulte's paper makes much of the fact that 48% of the papers they surveyed are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject anthropogenic global warming. The fact that so many studies on climate change don't bother to endorse the consensus position is significant because scientists have largely moved from what's causing global warming onto discussing details of the problem (eg - how fast, how soon, impacts, etc).


In other words, it's word-play, which is what you're doing here.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from jem:

you are such a troll.
the poll was not about CO2 or greenhouse gasses... can't you fricken read your own materials.

Had I been asked I would have said yes just like the 82 percent of scientists. I suspect man is contributing to warming.

You are pretending the polls means something... when it did not even address CO2.

First off- if you notice - after 377 admonished me for name calling - I have not insulted you or made a personal attack.

Second. You do realize, that when scientists say "human activity" they mean the release of greenhouse gasses, the clearing of forests and perhaps sulfates and particulates. They do this to be inclusive of these various things. The vast majority of the greenhouse gas is CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels. They know that.

But your point is taken. The poll was not specifically about CO2.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from jem:

I told you on previous threads.

You told me what? You never said CO2 was a greenhouse gas. Is it a greenhouse gas?

 

[jem]

Quote from futurecurrents:

You told me what? You never said CO2 was a greenhouse gas. Is it a greenhouse gas?

what is your point with this juvenile question?
I have answered it.
It is a basic definition?
Water vapor is a green house case.
Is water vapor causing warming?

1. All the evidence we have says CO2 accumulation and dissipation lag temperature.

You have admitted that.

2. Until today you claimed bullshit about 98 percent of climatoligists.
now you see they did not address CO2 and it was not really 98 percent.
it was 98 percent of those published a certain amount of times in what I am sure is pro alarmist journals.

3. You also learned today we have not warmed in 15 years. (according to the stats.)

So its about time you apologized to all of us for hostile attitude and incorrect statements about temperature the last 15 years.

Given CO2 lags temperature in the data... and that the earth cycles, and that the earth out gasses CO2 and that the earth processes CO2 with earth sinks... and that plants eat CO2..

just show us that man made co2 is causing warming....

that is all we ask.

if you can not...

back off your tone and b.s. and admit it is speculation.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from jem:

[B

1. All the evidence we have says CO2 accumulation and dissipation lag temperature.

[/B]

No, we have evidence right now that CO2 leads temperature. That is why world temps are at or near record highs.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from jem:

what is your point with this juvenile question?
I have answered it.
It is a basic definition?
Water vapor is a green house case.
Is water vapor causing warming?

Holy shit, you can't just say, yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas can you? If you were on the witness stand the judge would hold in contempt of court ! LOL

This is important. Without admitting this, we really can't move forward.

I ask for the tenth time. Is CO2 a greenhouse gas?

 

[jem]

Quote from futurecurrents:

No, we have evidence right now that CO2 leads temperature. That is why world temps are at or near record highs.

That same data... is also susceptible to the idea that the man made gw models failed.

The models predicted we would be at significantly higher temps. Since, we are not at new highs for over 15 years, we can question the idea that CO2 causes warming. (note I am not the one who made this argument... the gw pimp scientists are quite concerned about this... that is why they were caught emailing and fudging numbers in that scandal a few years ago.)