13 agency report says humans are the dominant cause for climate change

Apparently Rick Perry, Scott Pruitt and The Mango Mussolini himself were just too tired from defending themselves and one another to fight it. :)

WASHINGTON — Directly contradicting much of the Trump administration’s position on climate change, 13 federal agencies unveiled an exhaustive scientific report on Friday that says humans are the dominant cause of the global temperature rise that has created the warmest period in the history of civilization.

Over the past 115 years global average temperatures have increased 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, leading to record-breaking weather events and temperature extremes, the report says. The global, long-term warming trend is “unambiguous,” it says, and there is “no convincing alternative explanation” that anything other than humans — the cars we drive, the power plants we operate, the forests we destroy — are to blame.

The report was approved for release by the White House, but the findings come as the Trump administration is defending its climate change policies. The United Nations convenes its annual climate change conference next week in Bonn, Germany, and the American delegation is expected to face harsh criticism over President Trump’s decision to walk away from the 195-nation Paris climate accord and top administration officials’ stated doubts about the causes and impacts of a warming planet.

“This report has some very powerful, hard-hitting statements that are totally at odds with senior administration folks and at odds with their policies,” said Philip B. Duffy, president of the Woods Hole Research Center. “It begs the question, where are members of the administration getting their information from? They’re obviously not getting it from their own scientists.”​

Continued:

U.S. Report Says Humans Cause Climate Change, Contradicting Top Trump Officials





Wow, more computer generated fiction. It's funny how you people can't seem to understand that computer models are not real. They are not "data" They are fiction. Amazing that a concept so simple can elude you for so long.
Molders live in a fantasy world. They always will. Defending that fantasy at all costs is protecting their own jobs. The fact that most alarmists can not discern empirically observed facts from fictionally derived BS doesn't surprise me. IF it fits their belief structure/political agenda no amount of empirical fact will change their minds. Fantasy looks too good to them..

The fact that they changed the training point for their modeling from 19998 to 2008 removed the massive failure of the models, in an attempt to make them reflect the system they were modeling, is a stunning fraud. They attempted to give themselves cover for another 30 years, yet they never fixed the models. They doubled down on the fraud.

The original training point:
upload_2017-9-19_9-24-30-png.150044



And the new and improved training point:

afig6.jpg


This removes the massive failure in just 10 years of modeling. But the empirical evidence is already on the 2std line and failing in just 7 years with massive deviation from the mean.
 
Last edited:
Okay, well the Paris deal will never fly because Americans are simply not wanting to pay for cleaning up other countries. Your looking at a clean your own damn mess nation.

The iran

The Paris Climate agreement cost us NOTHING and was not binding. Most countries who signed on are complying. China is well ahead of schedule.

Nah DF, this was merely about Trump undoing every Obama accomplishment.

And in doing so, we joined only one other country not a part of it - Syria.

Now there's some rarified air! :rolleyes:
If it's non binding then why sign it?
 
Wow, more computer generated fiction. It's funny how you people can't seem to understand that computer models are not real. They are not "data" They are fiction. Amazing that a concept so simple can elude you for so long.

You have regurgitated your anti-science talking points to perfection Grasshopper ;)

ext








No, I merely pointed out how divested from science climatology truly is. climatology as a "science" was always a soft science. That means it isn't exacting. It is kind of like anthropology and archaeology in that they look at a small piece of something and make up a story about it. Then they try to convince someone about that story. climatology just happened to tell a tale that coincided with the one thing that government always wants. More power. Thus the government bought the tall tale hook, line, and sinker.

Look at how much money has been poured into climatology and how little we have to show for it. In modern dollars the Manhattan Project received 30 billion dollars, that investment ended the war and gave us nuclear power and accelerated our knowledge base in physics, chemistry, cosmology, astronomy, quantum mechanics, etc.

We have so far spent over 125 billion on climatology studies and the net result of that is a claim that for the mere expenditure of 76 trillion more dollars we can lower the global temperature by one degree in 100 years....maybe.

What a farce.
 
Okay, well the Paris deal will never fly because Americans are simply not wanting to pay for cleaning up other countries. Your looking at a clean your own damn mess nation.

The iran

The Paris Climate agreement cost us NOTHING and was not binding. Most countries who signed on are complying. China is well ahead of schedule.

Nah DF, this was merely about Trump undoing every Obama accomplishment.

And in doing so, we joined only one other country not a part of it - Syria.

Now there's some rarified air! :rolleyes:






Might want to read the darned thing. You clearly have no idea what it was going to make us do. MAKE equals COST. But I guess when you live in fantasy land you don't understand the concept. Like you.
 
Exactly! If it's not worth the paper it's printed on how do claim it's an Obama accomplishment?

It was an Obama accomplishment because it was WORKING (as many good faith agreements do)!
Clinton's good faith agreement with North Korea. Working for them not us.
Obama's good faith agreement with Iran. Working for them not us.
I like agreements that work for us!
 
Clinton's good faith agreement with North Korea. Working for them not us.
Obama's good faith agreement with Iran. Working for them not us.
I like agreements that work for us!

And how will no inspections work better than inspections and universally acknowledged compliance at present?

Trump is playing with fire here my friend - they are liable to launch their nuke program into overdrive.
 
Clinton's good faith agreement with North Korea. Working for them not us.
Obama's good faith agreement with Iran. Working for them not us.
I like agreements that work for us!

And how will no inspections work better than inspections and universally acknowledged compliance at present?

Trump is playing with fire here my friend - they are liable to launch their nuke program into overdrive.
The Iran inspections are done by Iran. They even refused the Swiss branch of the UN NRC.
So how do I trust that inspection?
 
The Iran inspections are done by Iran. They even refused the Swiss branch of the UN NRC.
So how do I trust that inspection?

Nope, they were done by the IAEA

Iran has received nearly two snap nuclear inspections a month and almost double the overall number of visits it had just five years ago, indicating the value of the deal the U.S. and its allies reached in 2015 to rein in the country’s nuclear program.

International Atomic Energy Agency monitors conducted 402 site visits and 25 snap inspections in the first 12 months since the deal was enacted in early 2016, according to data from reports to IAEA members. The figures may help dispel doubts over the adequacy of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action agreement involving the U.S., China, France, Germany, Russia and the U.K.​

Iran Atomic Inspections Double With Deal Questioned by Trump
 
Clinton's good faith agreement with North Korea. Working for them not us.
Obama's good faith agreement with Iran. Working for them not us.
I like agreements that work for us!

And how will no inspections work better than inspections and universally acknowledged compliance at present?

Trump is playing with fire here my friend - they are liable to launch their nuke program into overdrive.







The point being there were no inspections. It was all smoke and mirrors as has been made perfectly obvious to anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together figured out. obummer gave them billions of dollars to do just that, launch their nuke program into overdrive. Iran was getting perilously close to going under. obummer revived a dying patient. What an absolute idiot that man is.
 
The point being there were no inspections. It was all smoke and mirrors as has been made perfectly obvious to anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together figured out. obummer gave them billions of dollars to do just that, launch their nuke program into overdrive. Iran was getting perilously close to going under. obummer revived a dying patient. What an absolute idiot that man is.

Nonsense - Google the IAEA

Iran Atomic Inspections Double With Deal Questioned by Trump
 
The point being there were no inspections. It was all smoke and mirrors as has been made perfectly obvious to anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together figured out. obummer gave them billions of dollars to do just that, launch their nuke program into overdrive. Iran was getting perilously close to going under. obummer revived a dying patient. What an absolute idiot that man is.

Nonsense - Google the IAEA

Iran Atomic Inspections Double With Deal Questioned by Trump





And you can't go to any military installation. Care to guess where the main nuke research is happening? My gosh you fools will believe anything.


Iran rejects U.S. demand for U.N. visit to military sites
ANKARA (Reuters) - Iran has dismissed a U.S. demand for United Nations nuclear inspectors to visit its military bases as “merely a dream”.

Iran rejects U.S. demand for U.N. visit to military sites
 
Nuclear weapons are way off the topic. Nice job of derailing the thread.

There is no other source for the majority of the CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere, other than human activity. We know from geological history what the Earth's climate was the last time the GHG's were this high. And we know that times of very rapid increases in GHG's and temperature were times of extinctions from the same record. All of the Scientific Societies, all of the National Academies of Science, and all the major universities have policy statements stating that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. So what the deniers here are claiming is that there is a grand conspiracy involving almost all the scientists in the world, from all the different nations and cultures, as well as political backgrounds. Tin hats, anyone? LOL
 
And you can't go to any military installation. Care to guess where the main nuke research is happening? My gosh you fools will believe anything.

Because the IAEA does not deemed it necessary - You fools will believe anything! ;)

VIENNA (Reuters) - The United States is pushing U.N. nuclear inspectors to check military sites in Iran to verify it is not breaching its nuclear deal with world powers. But for this to happen, inspectors must believe such checks are necessary and so far they do not, officials say.

The IAEA has the authority to request access to facilities in Iran, including military ones, if there are new and credible indications of banned nuclear activities there, according to officials from the agency and signatories to the deal.

But they said Washington has not provided such indications to back up its pressure on the IAEA to make such a request.​

U.S. pressure or not, U.N. nuclear watchdog sees no need to check Iran military sites
 
And you can't go to any military installation. Care to guess where the main nuke research is happening? My gosh you fools will believe anything.

Because the IAEA does not deemed it necessary - You fools will believe anything! ;)

VIENNA (Reuters) - The United States is pushing U.N. nuclear inspectors to check military sites in Iran to verify it is not breaching its nuclear deal with world powers. But for this to happen, inspectors must believe such checks are necessary and so far they do not, officials say.

The IAEA has the authority to request access to facilities in Iran, including military ones, if there are new and credible indications of banned nuclear activities there, according to officials from the agency and signatories to the deal.

But they said Washington has not provided such indications to back up its pressure on the IAEA to make such a request.​

U.S. pressure or not, U.N. nuclear watchdog sees no need to check Iran military sites




Well, you know what they say...."You can't fix stupid".
 
Nuclear weapons are way off the topic. Nice job of derailing the thread.

There is no other source for the majority of the CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere, other than human activity. We know from geological history what the Earth's climate was the last time the GHG's were this high. And we know that times of very rapid increases in GHG's and temperature were times of extinctions from the same record. All of the Scientific Societies, all of the National Academies of Science, and all the major universities have policy statements stating that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. So what the deniers here are claiming is that there is a grand conspiracy involving almost all the scientists in the world, from all the different nations and cultures, as well as political backgrounds. Tin hats, anyone? LOL





That's total bullpoo and you know it. Mankind contributes less than 5% of the entire global CO2 budget. Where the hell do you read that crap? CH4 is likewise mainly NATURAL. Mankind contributing, once again, a paltry amount.
 
The thing that people in the AGW community just can't seem to understand is that for those of us that love science nothing is more infuriating than listening to people say they "definitively" know something when everyone knows they don't.

The fact is that when a direct question is asked, "what percentage of global warming is due to man and what percentage is due to natural variation", anyone that answers with anything except "we don't know", is lying. You'll usually hear things like "we believe", which is fine as a starting point to learn more. It is not scientifically "definitive". This is supposed to be science not politics.
 

Forum List

Back
Top