Climate change: 2015 will be the hottest year on record 'by a mile', experts say

[threegoofs]

Obama is a serial liar.

Obama continually claims AGW is a fact as he did today in Alaska.

Why would anyone believe anything a liar says?

What reason have I to give anything you post credibility?

And every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is a fact and that it is also a clear and present danger.

What reason should anyone give anything you post concerning AGW/CC any credibility?

After all, you do enjoy repeating the lies don't you?

In my short time here, he seems like he's spot on.

If you think he's wrong, I'm sure you can come up with a list of organizations that deny AGW is a problem, right?

Here's a hint- you might want to skip all the major organizations/ the National Academy of Sciences, AAAS, the Royal Society, etc. because their statements are clear.

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Consensus

What WAS the consensus of those organizations ?? And what exact question did they answer? Because the world is slightly warming and NOBODY rejects the premise that climate changes.. Did they POLL their membership on any important questions --- or was this a front office statement?

Did they answer the question of what the additional temperature rise was gonna by in 2050? 2100? If not -- how is a massive remediation campaign justified? It's not about fluff and propaganda statements.. It's about science. And if you don't know what questions these "consensus statements" answer -- you better figure out what the scientific arguments ARE -- before you go waving "statements" in front of folks who have folllowed this science misadventure for decades....

Yeah....see, this is why I posted the link. So you could FOLLOW IT and see what they said.

I know exactly what the consensus statements answer, and have a pretty good understanding of the arguments and data behind them.

I have followed this for decades as well, and as a working scientist (albeit in a different field) and former academic, I've got a really good handle on what the strong indicators are of good science.

So read the statements. And then maybe go through the executive summary of the IPCC, to which they generally refer.

 

[IanC]

What reason have I to give anything you post credibility?

And every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is a fact and that it is also a clear and present danger.

What reason should anyone give anything you post concerning AGW/CC any credibility?

After all, you do enjoy repeating the lies don't you?

In my short time here, he seems like he's spot on.

If you think he's wrong, I'm sure you can come up with a list of organizations that deny AGW is a problem, right?

Here's a hint- you might want to skip all the major organizations/ the National Academy of Sciences, AAAS, the Royal Society, etc. because their statements are clear.

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Consensus

You hit all the paid poster crap in one shot.. congratulations! You must be a proud reader of Skeptical Crap and Lies Science..

Can't find one, huh?

Can you show me your secret temperature data base? Otherwise, you couldn't hit the back side of a barn standing 5 feet away.

Secret data?

The Australians made such a fuss over their temperature dataset that a committee was formed to investigate. Although it was in session for only less than one day, it had some interesting conclusions. One thing that they conceded was that homogenization could not be replicated without detailed information that 'experts' made in deciding which stations were to be used in comparisons. Do you doubt that GISS, BEST, etc do not have the same inaccessible choices in their programs?

BEST states on their website that stations are given a reliability number according to matching 'expectations', from 2 to 1/13th. As you can well imagine no cooling stations are left even though Muller admitted that 1/3 of all long running stations had cooling trends before calculations were started. Would you care to find me half a dozen stations in BEST that still have a negative trend? I have seen clumps of stations within a few 10s of kms that have similar records but are then wildly 'adjusted' to match stations hundreds of kms away.

 

[IanC]

Obama is a serial liar.

Obama continually claims AGW is a fact as he did today in Alaska.

Why would anyone believe anything a liar says?

What reason have I to give anything you post credibility?

And every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is a fact and that it is also a clear and present danger.

What reason should anyone give anything you post concerning AGW/CC any credibility?

After all, you do enjoy repeating the lies don't you?

In my short time here, he seems like he's spot on.

If you think he's wrong, I'm sure you can come up with a list of organizations that deny AGW is a problem, right?

Here's a hint- you might want to skip all the major organizations/ the National Academy of Sciences, AAAS, the Royal Society, etc. because their statements are clear.

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Consensus

What WAS the consensus of those organizations ?? And what exact question did they answer? Because the world is slightly warming and NOBODY rejects the premise that climate changes.. Did they POLL their membership on any important questions --- or was this a front office statement?

Did they answer the question of what the additional temperature rise was gonna by in 2050? 2100? If not -- how is a massive remediation campaign justified? It's not about fluff and propaganda statements.. It's about science. And if you don't know what questions these "consensus statements" answer -- you better figure out what the scientific arguments ARE -- before you go waving "statements" in front of folks who have folllowed this science misadventure for decades....

I agree. Many parts of global warming theory are agreed upon by both sides. Unfortunately the media and many of the warmers here don't understand that. Scoffing at a prediction of a two metre sea level rise does not mean that you disagree with some warming caused by man-made CO2 increases. Skeptics disagree with insane prophesies of doom, and exaggerated conclusions not supported by real data, not the general principals of physics.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Its a fucking BS "add in the deep ocean warming" fake number

 

[flacaltenn]

Obama is a serial liar.

Obama continually claims AGW is a fact as he did today in Alaska.

Why would anyone believe anything a liar says?

What reason have I to give anything you post credibility?

And every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is a fact and that it is also a clear and present danger.

What reason should anyone give anything you post concerning AGW/CC any credibility?

After all, you do enjoy repeating the lies don't you?

In my short time here, he seems like he's spot on.

If you think he's wrong, I'm sure you can come up with a list of organizations that deny AGW is a problem, right?

Here's a hint- you might want to skip all the major organizations/ the National Academy of Sciences, AAAS, the Royal Society, etc. because their statements are clear.

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Consensus

What WAS the consensus of those organizations ?? And what exact question did they answer? Because the world is slightly warming and NOBODY rejects the premise that climate changes.. Did they POLL their membership on any important questions --- or was this a front office statement?

Did they answer the question of what the additional temperature rise was gonna by in 2050? 2100? If not -- how is a massive remediation campaign justified? It's not about fluff and propaganda statements.. It's about science. And if you don't know what questions these "consensus statements" answer -- you better figure out what the scientific arguments ARE -- before you go waving "statements" in front of folks who have folllowed this science misadventure for decades....

Yeah....see, this is why I posted the link. So you could FOLLOW IT and see what they said.

I know exactly what the consensus statements answer, and have a pretty good understanding of the arguments and data behind them.

I have followed this for decades as well, and as a working scientist (albeit in a different field) and former academic, I've got a really good handle on what the strong indicators are of good science.

So read the statements. And then maybe go through the executive summary of the IPCC, to which they generally refer.

Then all these Institutions (at least their front offices) agree on the magnitude of the warming expected in 2050 and 2100 and are attributing 100% of the temperature rise to anthropogenic factors??? They have stated the expected sea level rise? WHEN were these statements issued and how often are they renewed. Because after about 2010 ---- ALL of the earlier projections had already started to fail and the projections and scary propaganda has been scaled WAY back.. As they have done with the "magic multipliers" that bestow superpowers on CO2's ability to heat the globe. Waaay beyond what the basic physics and chemistry says about the warming power of CO2. Because according to your theory -- man-made CO2 is only the TRIGGER to a self-sustaining positive feedback in which the Earth destroys itself because of a mere 2degC change in "global" average.

So show me where all these politically motivated statements convey ANY useful information to policy makers or the public.. I've seen them --- don't need the links. Because I KNOW they are standard boilerplate POLICY statements and NOT scientific consensus on the IMPORTANT questions..

 

[flacaltenn]

Also have read a lot of IPCC results. Can you give me the "mission statement" for the IPCC and point out any bias in it?? Do you know what their mission is?? Maybe you ought to investigate..

 

[flacaltenn]

Obama is a serial liar.

Obama continually claims AGW is a fact as he did today in Alaska.

Why would anyone believe anything a liar says?

What reason have I to give anything you post credibility?

And every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is a fact and that it is also a clear and present danger.

What reason should anyone give anything you post concerning AGW/CC any credibility?

After all, you do enjoy repeating the lies don't you?

In my short time here, he seems like he's spot on.

If you think he's wrong, I'm sure you can come up with a list of organizations that deny AGW is a problem, right?

Here's a hint- you might want to skip all the major organizations/ the National Academy of Sciences, AAAS, the Royal Society, etc. because their statements are clear.

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Consensus

You hit all the paid poster crap in one shot.. congratulations! You must be a proud reader of Skeptical Crap and Lies Science..

Can't find one, huh?

I'll assume 3goofs -- you are what you say.. That's just how I am.. Read my tag line. So lemme take a whack at your challenge. NONE of these institutions polled their membership, offered any questions to be answered by the membership -- nor did they ask for APPROVAL of these statements.

You want an interesting story on what happens when a prestigious institution puts up a statement like this to their general membership???



Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

AUSTRALIA’S peak body of earth scientists has declared itself unable to publish a position statement on climate change due to the deep divisions within its membership on the issue.

After more than five years of debate and two false starts, Geological Society of Australia president Laurie Hutton said a statement on climate change was too difficult to achieve.

Mr Hutton said the issue “had the potential to be too divisive and would not serve the best interests of the society as a whole.”

The backdown, published in the GSA quarterly newsletter, is the culmination of two rejected position statements and years of furious correspondence among members. Some members believe the failure to make a strong statement on climate change is an embarrassment that puts Australian earth scientists at odds with their international peers.

It undermines the often cited stance that there is near unanimity among climate scientists on the issue.

GSA represents more than 2000 Australian earth scientists from academe, industry, government and research organisations.

Should have just let the old one ride. Want to quote me any REVISIONS of policy statements made by those orgs since 2011 or so? Gonna be WAAAAY hard to find. As it is in "polls" after 2012.. Because the projections have largely failed ALREADY and the hype was too transparent and the scientists involved have more principles than activism ..

 

[threegoofs]

What reason have I to give anything you post credibility?

And every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is a fact and that it is also a clear and present danger.

What reason should anyone give anything you post concerning AGW/CC any credibility?

After all, you do enjoy repeating the lies don't you?

In my short time here, he seems like he's spot on.

If you think he's wrong, I'm sure you can come up with a list of organizations that deny AGW is a problem, right?

Here's a hint- you might want to skip all the major organizations/ the National Academy of Sciences, AAAS, the Royal Society, etc. because their statements are clear.

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Consensus

What WAS the consensus of those organizations ?? And what exact question did they answer? Because the world is slightly warming and NOBODY rejects the premise that climate changes.. Did they POLL their membership on any important questions --- or was this a front office statement?

Did they answer the question of what the additional temperature rise was gonna by in 2050? 2100? If not -- how is a massive remediation campaign justified? It's not about fluff and propaganda statements.. It's about science. And if you don't know what questions these "consensus statements" answer -- you better figure out what the scientific arguments ARE -- before you go waving "statements" in front of folks who have folllowed this science misadventure for decades....

Yeah....see, this is why I posted the link. So you could FOLLOW IT and see what they said.

I know exactly what the consensus statements answer, and have a pretty good understanding of the arguments and data behind them.

I have followed this for decades as well, and as a working scientist (albeit in a different field) and former academic, I've got a really good handle on what the strong indicators are of good science.

So read the statements. And then maybe go through the executive summary of the IPCC, to which they generally refer.

Then all these Institutions (at least their front offices) agree on the magnitude of the warming expected in 2050 and 2100 and are attributing 100% of the temperature rise to anthropogenic factors??? They have stated the expected sea level rise? WHEN were these statements issued and how often are they renewed. Because after about 2010 ---- ALL of the earlier projections had already started to fail and the projections and scary propaganda has been scaled WAY back.. As they have done with the "magic multipliers" that bestow superpowers on CO2's ability to heat the globe. Waaay beyond what the basic physics and chemistry says about the warming power of CO2. Because according to your theory -- man-made CO2 is only the TRIGGER to a self-sustaining positive feedback in which the Earth destroys itself because of a mere 2degC change in "global" average.

So show me where all these politically motivated statements convey ANY useful information to policy makers or the public.. I've seen them --- don't need the links. Because I KNOW they are standard boilerplate POLICY statements and NOT scientific consensus on the IMPORTANT questions..

Like I said, maybe you should actually read them. A little reading might probably help you.

They are referring to the general tenets of the IPCC. You seem unfamiliar with them.

I never claimed these statements were the consensus. But they sure reflect the consensus.

 

[threegoofs]

Also have read a lot of IPCC results. Can you give me the "mission statement" for the IPCC and point out any bias in it?? Do you know what their mission is?? Maybe you ought to investigate..

You're not real good at posting links, eh?

If you grasp the science, you'd understand there is no bias. It's like a cardiology consensus paper on heart failure that assumes heart failure is a real condition, and ignores the 3% of chiropractors that say it's just a misaligned vertebra.

 

[Wyld Kard]

Obama is a serial liar.

Obama continually claims AGW is a fact as he did today in Alaska.

Why would anyone believe anything a liar says?

What reason have I to give anything you post credibility?

And every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is a fact and that it is also a clear and present danger.

What reason should anyone give anything you post concerning AGW/CC any credibility?

After all, you do enjoy repeating the lies don't you?

In my short time here, he seems like he's spot on.

If you think he's wrong, I'm sure you can come up with a list of organizations that deny AGW is a problem, right?

Here's a hint- you might want to skip all the major organizations/ the National Academy of Sciences, AAAS, the Royal Society, etc. because their statements are clear.

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Consensus

In my short time here, he seems like he's spot on.

That's because you are just as gullible as he is.

Global warming: The BIGGEST LIE exposed

 

[flacaltenn]

What reason should anyone give anything you post concerning AGW/CC any credibility?

After all, you do enjoy repeating the lies don't you?

In my short time here, he seems like he's spot on.

If you think he's wrong, I'm sure you can come up with a list of organizations that deny AGW is a problem, right?

Here's a hint- you might want to skip all the major organizations/ the National Academy of Sciences, AAAS, the Royal Society, etc. because their statements are clear.

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Consensus

What WAS the consensus of those organizations ?? And what exact question did they answer? Because the world is slightly warming and NOBODY rejects the premise that climate changes.. Did they POLL their membership on any important questions --- or was this a front office statement?

Did they answer the question of what the additional temperature rise was gonna by in 2050? 2100? If not -- how is a massive remediation campaign justified? It's not about fluff and propaganda statements.. It's about science. And if you don't know what questions these "consensus statements" answer -- you better figure out what the scientific arguments ARE -- before you go waving "statements" in front of folks who have folllowed this science misadventure for decades....

Yeah....see, this is why I posted the link. So you could FOLLOW IT and see what they said.

I know exactly what the consensus statements answer, and have a pretty good understanding of the arguments and data behind them.

I have followed this for decades as well, and as a working scientist (albeit in a different field) and former academic, I've got a really good handle on what the strong indicators are of good science.

So read the statements. And then maybe go through the executive summary of the IPCC, to which they generally refer.

Then all these Institutions (at least their front offices) agree on the magnitude of the warming expected in 2050 and 2100 and are attributing 100% of the temperature rise to anthropogenic factors??? They have stated the expected sea level rise? WHEN were these statements issued and how often are they renewed. Because after about 2010 ---- ALL of the earlier projections had already started to fail and the projections and scary propaganda has been scaled WAY back.. As they have done with the "magic multipliers" that bestow superpowers on CO2's ability to heat the globe. Waaay beyond what the basic physics and chemistry says about the warming power of CO2. Because according to your theory -- man-made CO2 is only the TRIGGER to a self-sustaining positive feedback in which the Earth destroys itself because of a mere 2degC change in "global" average.

So show me where all these politically motivated statements convey ANY useful information to policy makers or the public.. I've seen them --- don't need the links. Because I KNOW they are standard boilerplate POLICY statements and NOT scientific consensus on the IMPORTANT questions..

Like I said, maybe you should actually read them. A little reading might probably help you.

They are referring to the general tenets of the IPCC. You seem unfamiliar with them.

I never claimed these statements were the consensus. But they sure reflect the consensus.

You say --
"They are NOT the consensus --- but they reflect the consensus." Do I have that correct?

Actually -- those statements generally say that the Earth is warming (sometimes with an unjustified "unprecedented" in there) and that man made emissions is the approximate cause..

I AGREE to those conditions. In that some or a majority of the warming we've seen MAY LIKELY be due to man emissions.. That's NOT what the panicked and scary predictions are predicated on. But if the bottom line is 1 or 1.5 degC of warming by 2100 -- this wouldn't even justify 1/10th of the exaggerated media and political hysteria.

You theory says that the Planet we live on is a lemon. And that it will destroy itself --- irreversibly --- without any help from man if we reach a 2degC (or so) trigger. And the panic is about hysterical projections made back in the 80s and 90s about 6 to 12 degF by 2100 and likely up to 20degF in the Northern Hemi by that time.. You need to understand the subtle but important nuance in that CO2 emissions alone by man -- does NOT get you to those numbers invented to scare people... That's the magical part of GW theory that I disagree with.


The skeptics have already prevailed on those projections and the earth itself has failed to cooperate. Since the temperatures have barely risen over the last 12 to 18 years. And the RATE of warming is now down to about 0.13degC/decade for the last 80 or 100 years. NO accelerations, just a lot of excuses for the failure of the IPCC models in less than 20 years since they were run... And an embarrassment that climate science (IPCC science at least) has not appreciated the NATURAL volatility in temperature vis a vis man's contributions.

Go find a consensus TODAY... It doesn't exist.. Unless the questions are juvenile and unimportant.. Like is the climate changing? Or does man "have a role" in that change.

 

[flacaltenn]

Also have read a lot of IPCC results. Can you give me the "mission statement" for the IPCC and point out any bias in it?? Do you know what their mission is?? Maybe you ought to investigate..

You're not real good at posting links, eh?

If you grasp the science, you'd understand there is no bias. It's like a cardiology consensus paper on heart failure that assumes heart failure is a real condition, and ignores the 3% of chiropractors that say it's just a misaligned vertebra.

I purposely didn't link it --- assuming that you either KNEW what their mission was --- or that you can use basic search tools and find it.. I like to know we're BOTH working on learning here. Besides -- I post it EVERY WEEK because the warmers we now have in this forum keep convieniently forgetting it..

The IPCC mission is to investigate MAN-MADE causes of Global Warming --- Not Climate Change, Not objectively ALL the science on the issue of our little "blip" in temperature --- but ONLY the man-made causes of climate change. That's because the UN political body is bound and determined to make a social justice issue by encouraging calls to redistribute wealth from the Industrialized to the non .................

And their purposeful UNDERESTIMATION of natural variations in Global temperatures has bit them in the ass with the current "pause" and no real good estimation of how "NATURAL" variation can almost make the man-made signature disappear for a couple decades. The rout is on. The game is almost over.. Thanks for playing. REAL climate science will have to be done in order to reach USEFUL consensus... Not biased ones like the IPCC...

 

[threegoofs]

Obama is a serial liar.

Obama continually claims AGW is a fact as he did today in Alaska.

Why would anyone believe anything a liar says?

What reason have I to give anything you post credibility?

And every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is a fact and that it is also a clear and present danger.

What reason should anyone give anything you post concerning AGW/CC any credibility?

After all, you do enjoy repeating the lies don't you?

In my short time here, he seems like he's spot on.

If you think he's wrong, I'm sure you can come up with a list of organizations that deny AGW is a problem, right?

Here's a hint- you might want to skip all the major organizations/ the National Academy of Sciences, AAAS, the Royal Society, etc. because their statements are clear.

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Consensus

In my short time here, he seems like he's spot on.

That's because you are just as gullible as he is.

Global warming: The BIGGEST LIE exposed

LOL.

The Heartland Institute.

The same guys who fought for tobacco companies, and then when they lost and the money dried up, they went to coal and oil companies.

 

[threegoofs]

Go find a consensus TODAY... It doesn't exist.. Unless the questions are juvenile and unimportant.. Like is the climate changing? Or does man "have a role" in that change.

A consensus certainly exists today. And it's stronger than its been in the past. Look at the last IPCC. Heck- glance at any scientific journal, from the top ones to Scientific American- they all agree with the NAS, AGU, and the AAAS.

You're living in the hottest year of the hottest decade ever directly recorded. And it was predicted almost 30 years ago, fairly closely. That's pretty good evidence right there.

 

[threegoofs]

Also have read a lot of IPCC results. Can you give me the "mission statement" for the IPCC and point out any bias in it?? Do you know what their mission is?? Maybe you ought to investigate..

You're not real good at posting links, eh?

If you grasp the science, you'd understand there is no bias. It's like a cardiology consensus paper on heart failure that assumes heart failure is a real condition, and ignores the 3% of chiropractors that say it's just a misaligned vertebra.

I purposely didn't link it --- assuming that you either KNEW what their mission was --- or that you can use basic search tools and find it.. I like to know we're BOTH working on learning here. Besides -- I post it EVERY WEEK because the warmers we now have in this forum keep convieniently forgetting it..

The IPCC mission is to investigate MAN-MADE causes of Global Warming --- Not Climate Change, Not objectively ALL the science on the issue of our little "blip" in temperature --- but ONLY the man-made causes of climate change. That's because the UN political body is bound and determined to make a social justice issue by encouraging calls to redistribute wealth from the Industrialized to the non .................

And their purposeful UNDERESTIMATION of natural variations in Global temperatures has bit them in the ass with the current "pause" and no real good estimation of how "NATURAL" variation can almost make the man-made signature disappear for a couple decades. The rout is on. The game is almost over.. Thanks for playing. REAL climate science will have to be done in order to reach USEFUL consensus... Not biased ones like the IPCC...

Again, feel free to post the link.

And as for your other rantings, you might want to post some articles which back your statements up. Not Heartland articles or blog posts, but actual scientific studies.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Go away, noob

I thought so.

Can't respond, so you pretend that your length of time being wrong somehow trumps my length of time pointing out you're wrong.

All you are doing is harping on sources...I have little patience for that rookie crap.

Yessireee............ Silly lass hates sources. Much prefers nonsense form obese junkies and fake British Lords.

I'm starting to see the pattern here. No coherent arguments, denial of basic facts, and misinterpretation simple sources.

And then when they've not noting else, they accuse the other side of being paid to post.

Oh, well, I guess they think I seem very professional.

i'll stick with degreed scientist over you...You think you know more then them??? No wonder you think we don't need any of our science institutions. Goddamn, seek help.

What denial of basic facts? This year based on the surface data is turning out to be extremely warm. How is that denial? This is partly because of a insanely powerful nino! How is that not a fact?

Professional? lol You wouldn't be made a toilet washer at the noaa. haha

The only science you know Matthew is how to use baking soda, water and powder cocaine to make crack ....

Lay down the crack pipe Matthew and quit listening to Naomi...

 

[IanC]

What reason have I to give anything you post credibility?

And every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is a fact and that it is also a clear and present danger.

What reason should anyone give anything you post concerning AGW/CC any credibility?

After all, you do enjoy repeating the lies don't you?

In my short time here, he seems like he's spot on.

If you think he's wrong, I'm sure you can come up with a list of organizations that deny AGW is a problem, right?

Here's a hint- you might want to skip all the major organizations/ the National Academy of Sciences, AAAS, the Royal Society, etc. because their statements are clear.

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Consensus

You hit all the paid poster crap in one shot.. congratulations! You must be a proud reader of Skeptical Crap and Lies Science..

Can't find one, huh?

I'll assume 3goofs -- you are what you say.. That's just how I am.. Read my tag line. So lemme take a whack at your challenge. NONE of these institutions polled their membership, offered any questions to be answered by the membership -- nor did they ask for APPROVAL of these statements.

You want an interesting story on what happens when a prestigious institution puts up a statement like this to their general membership???



Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

AUSTRALIA’S peak body of earth scientists has declared itself unable to publish a position statement on climate change due to the deep divisions within its membership on the issue.

After more than five years of debate and two false starts, Geological Society of Australia president Laurie Hutton said a statement on climate change was too difficult to achieve.

Mr Hutton said the issue “had the potential to be too divisive and would not serve the best interests of the society as a whole.”

The backdown, published in the GSA quarterly newsletter, is the culmination of two rejected position statements and years of furious correspondence among members. Some members believe the failure to make a strong statement on climate change is an embarrassment that puts Australian earth scientists at odds with their international peers.

It undermines the often cited stance that there is near unanimity among climate scientists on the issue.

GSA represents more than 2000 Australian earth scientists from academe, industry, government and research organisations.

Should have just let the old one ride. Want to quote me any REVISIONS of policy statements made by those orgs since 2011 or so? Gonna be WAAAAY hard to find. As it is in "polls" after 2012.. Because the projections have largely failed ALREADY and the hype was too transparent and the scientists involved have more principles than activism ..

Yup. Consensus drops precipitously once the questions go beyond the absolute basics.

It should be noted that there have been some pretty high profile physicists who have publicly resigned because of their disgust with global warming alarmism decreed by politically motivated leadership in many of these associations.

 

[IanC]

Also have read a lot of IPCC results. Can you give me the "mission statement" for the IPCC and point out any bias in it?? Do you know what their mission is?? Maybe you ought to investigate..

You're not real good at posting links, eh?

If you grasp the science, you'd understand there is no bias. It's like a cardiology consensus paper on heart failure that assumes heart failure is a real condition, and ignores the 3% of chiropractors that say it's just a misaligned vertebra.

Wow! Just wow. What a stupid straw man analogy.

 

[flacaltenn]

Go find a consensus TODAY... It doesn't exist.. Unless the questions are juvenile and unimportant.. Like is the climate changing? Or does man "have a role" in that change.

A consensus certainly exists today. And it's stronger than its been in the past. Look at the last IPCC. Heck- glance at any scientific journal, from the top ones to Scientific American- they all agree with the NAS, AGU, and the AAAS.

You're living in the hottest year of the hottest decade ever directly recorded. And it was predicted almost 30 years ago, fairly closely. That's pretty good evidence right there.

What is the last date you can find on ANY of those statements? You do understand that front office statements are policy and not science and not MEMBERSHIP approved. And you read what happened to the Aussie GU when the membership DID get involved?? NONE of those agencies would EVER dare put this to it's membership now since the projections have failed and failed badly.. Hansen in 1988 told the world to expect 0.5degC/decade warming rate. He's the Chief Charlatan that got the circus rolling...

Which brings us to your misconception that they haven't failed and badly... So here's a link I will provide.. And you should probably read the AR5 IPCC where they ADMIT that the models had failed..

That's the IPCC version of the failure. From a draft of the AR5 to discuss WHY their selected models had FAILED less than 20 years out.. If you understand that chart -- you can no longer claim that the predictions are correct..

AFTER the politicians and the UN publishers got a hold of it. They tried to tone down the MAGNITUDE of the failure by tacking on about 100 years of irrelevant unmodeled history to the left side of that graph to minify the apparent disagreement. They also TRUNCATED the original projections that went out to 2050 and beyond because that was just too embarrassing to reprint...


But there t'is....

 

[threegoofs]

What reason should anyone give anything you post concerning AGW/CC any credibility?

After all, you do enjoy repeating the lies don't you?

In my short time here, he seems like he's spot on.

If you think he's wrong, I'm sure you can come up with a list of organizations that deny AGW is a problem, right?

Here's a hint- you might want to skip all the major organizations/ the National Academy of Sciences, AAAS, the Royal Society, etc. because their statements are clear.

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Consensus

You hit all the paid poster crap in one shot.. congratulations! You must be a proud reader of Skeptical Crap and Lies Science..

Can't find one, huh?

I'll assume 3goofs -- you are what you say.. That's just how I am.. Read my tag line. So lemme take a whack at your challenge. NONE of these institutions polled their membership, offered any questions to be answered by the membership -- nor did they ask for APPROVAL of these statements.

You want an interesting story on what happens when a prestigious institution puts up a statement like this to their general membership???



Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

AUSTRALIA’S peak body of earth scientists has declared itself unable to publish a position statement on climate change due to the deep divisions within its membership on the issue.

After more than five years of debate and two false starts, Geological Society of Australia president Laurie Hutton said a statement on climate change was too difficult to achieve.

Mr Hutton said the issue “had the potential to be too divisive and would not serve the best interests of the society as a whole.”

The backdown, published in the GSA quarterly newsletter, is the culmination of two rejected position statements and years of furious correspondence among members. Some members believe the failure to make a strong statement on climate change is an embarrassment that puts Australian earth scientists at odds with their international peers.

It undermines the often cited stance that there is near unanimity among climate scientists on the issue.

GSA represents more than 2000 Australian earth scientists from academe, industry, government and research organisations.

Should have just let the old one ride. Want to quote me any REVISIONS of policy statements made by those orgs since 2011 or so? Gonna be WAAAAY hard to find. As it is in "polls" after 2012.. Because the projections have largely failed ALREADY and the hype was too transparent and the scientists involved have more principles than activism ..

Yup. Consensus drops precipitously once the questions go beyond the absolute basics.

It should be noted that there have been some pretty high profile physicists who have publicly resigned because of their disgust with global warming alarmism decreed by politically motivated leadership in many of these associations.

I can't see sigs on Tapatalk.

And frankly, the forum quoting makes posts pretty tough to read on the app, too.

So let's see...no, the organizations didn't poll their members generally. But few got any pushback. You found one, there have been a few others where people resigned in a huff, but that's pretty rare.

The deal is that there is a very solid consensus that the climate is warming, and man, specifically from CO2 burning, is the primary cause. The degree of warming is not known, but the general consensus is that if we don't actively try to mitigate emissions soon, it will be a bad outcome. This is less a scientific consensus than a policy one, since science isn't really equipped to answer questions of cost utility as well as physics. But the physics say we are headed for a 3-5 degree rise byn2100 if we do nothing, and that's widely seen as bad.