Climate change is a moral issue on a par with slavery

[RollingThunder]

Shakun has been totally debunked and exposed for the fraud he is, Herr Goebbels.

Not in the real world, CrazyFruitcake. Only in your denier cult myths.

Vostok shows CO2 lagging temp for 600,000 consecutive years, so your Cult members made up phony "proxy" data "proving" your "theory"

That's not how science works

You have no idea what "Vostok shows" or "how science works" because you're an ignorant, anti-science, clueless retard, CrazyFruitcake, as you demonstrate every time you post, so show some actual evidence supporting your idiotic delusions or get stuffed.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

AGW is "Science" for fools and suckers

AGW denial is for fools, suckers, dupes, idiots and paid agents of disinformation.

AGW science is for real scientists.

Scientific opinion on climate change
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (free to reproduce)

The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[5]​

The main conclusions of the IPCC on global warming were the following:

The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.[6]
"There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.[7]
If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise.[8] On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming.[9]​

No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[10][11]

Or, for a very clear explanation of just what this consensus means and how it happens, check this out:

Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

Real science is not done by consensus, Cult Boy

 

[daveman]

Not in the real world, CrazyFruitcake. Only in your denier cult myths.

Vostok shows CO2 lagging temp for 600,000 consecutive years, so your Cult members made up phony "proxy" data "proving" your "theory"

That's not how science works

You have no idea what "Vostok shows" or "how science works" because you're an ignorant, anti-science, clueless retard, CrazyFruitcake, as you demonstrate every time you post, so show some actual evidence supporting your idiotic delusions or get stuffed.

Man, you cultists sure do get defensive when your dogma is criticized, don't you?

 

[westwall]

AGW can't explain a 600,000 year data set showing CO2 lagging temperature so it fails as a theory

Wrong again, as always, CrazyFruitcake. CO2 often leads temperatures. Of course, you're way too retarded to comprehend the facts so I guess you're stuck with your moronic denier cult slogans.

Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag
10 April 2012

Ummmmm, yeah. Seems he made a bunch of mistakes.....like all AGW cultists do. Seems they are not too conversant with math. This is just one post that points out Shakuns errors. There are MANY more.

You'll have to try again because this dude is a failure.

The Reference Frame: Nir Shaviv: evidence shaky for \(CO_2\) as the cause of deglaciation

 

[SSDD]

Our fragile human civilization is currently struggling to feed over seven billion people with a world agricultural network that is very dependent on the stable climate patterns and regular, dependable, seasonally timed rainfall patterns that have prevailed for about the last seven thousand years or so.

Holy crap!!! You are a deluded zealot aren't you. Even with your brother wackos insisting that we burn our food as a gasoline additive, there is an excess of food in the world. It doesn't get distribuited adequately again, because your zealot brother wackos have terrified the third world regarding GM crops while we have been consuming them daily for decades.

Many agricultural regions and high population areas are very dependent on irrigation and drinking water from rivers that are fed by melting ice in the mountains and this water supply is increasingly threatened by the rapid melting of high mountain glaciers all over the planet. If these mountains cease to store water for the summer months, as seems quite likely, vast areas with high populations will go dry in the summer, resulting in massive crop failures and thus mass starvation on top of no drinking water.

All rational studies show that a warmer wetter world will increase food production. If you must worry, worry about the 30 to 50 year cold period that is bearing down on us like a steamroller.

Wars over dwindling vital resources, like water, are very probable, according to Pentagon simulations.

Again with the simulations. Listen closely....THEY AREN'T REAL. Do you also believe that Tom really chases Jerry around?


Grow up and get back on your meds. Delusional paranoia is just too sad.

 

[RollingThunder]

AGW is "Science" for fools and suckers

AGW denial is for fools, suckers, dupes, idiots and paid agents of disinformation.

AGW science is for real scientists.

Scientific opinion on climate change
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (free to reproduce)

The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[5]​

The main conclusions of the IPCC on global warming were the following:

The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.[6]
"There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.[7]
If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise.[8] On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming.[9]​

No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[10][11]

Or, for a very clear explanation of just what this consensus means and how it happens, check this out:

Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

Real science is not done by consensus, Cult Boy

LOLOLOL.....you wouldn't know "real science" if it bit you, CrazyFruitcake, and you certainly have no idea what the term "consensus" means in this context, you poor deluded retard. Real science is done with observation and analysis of the data, then consensus can arise later when large amounts of real science point to the same conclusion and no other explanations can account for the data. I know you'll be incapable of comprehending this material below, given that you're such a moron, but others who read this can use it to see how out of touch with reality you are.

Scientific consensus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.

Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others) and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the 'normal' debates through which science progresses may seem to outsiders as contestation. On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside" of the scientific community. In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing what the consensus is can be quite straightforward.

Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which may not be controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution[3][4] or the claimed linkage of MMR vaccinations and autism.[2]

Uncertainty and scientific consensus in policy making

In public policy debates, the assertion that there exists a consensus of scientists in a particular field is often used as an argument for the validity of a theory and as support for a course of action by those who stand to gain from a policy based on that consensus. Similarly arguments for a lack of scientific consensus are often encouraged by sides who stand to gain from a more ambiguous policy.

People of various backgrounds (political, scientific, media, action groups, and so on) have argued that there is a scientific consensus on the causes of global warming. The historian of science Naomi Oreskes published an article in Science reporting that a survey of the abstracts of 928 science articles published between 1993 and 2003 showed none which disagreed explicitly with the notion of anthropogenic global warming.[9] In an editorial published in the Washington Post, Oreskes stated that those who opposed these scientific findings are amplifying the normal range of scientific uncertainty about any facts into an appearance that there is a great scientific disagreement, or a lack of scientific consensus.[10] Oreskes's findings were replicated by other methods that require no interpretation.[2]

The theory of evolution through natural selection is an accepted part of the science of biology, to the extent that few observations in biology can be understood without reference to natural selection and common descent. Opponents of evolution claim that there is significant dissent on evolution within the scientific community.[11] The wedge strategy, an ambitious plan to supplant scientific materialism seen as inimical to religion, with a religion-friendly theistic science, depended greatly on seeding and building on public perceptions of absence of consensus on evolution.[12] Stephen Jay Gould has argued that creationists misunderstand the nature of the debate within the scientific community, which is not about "if" evolution occurred, but "how" it occurred.[11]

The inherent uncertainty in science, where theories are never proven but can only be disproven (see falsifiability), poses a problem for politicians, policymakers, lawyers, and business professionals. Where scientific or philosophical questions can often languish in uncertainty for decades within their disciplinary settings, policymakers are faced with the problems of making sound decisions based on the currently available data, even if it is likely not a final form of the "truth". The tricky part is discerning what is close enough to "final truth". For example, social action against smoking probably came too long after science was 'pretty consensual'.

Certain domains, such as the approval of certain technologies for public consumption, can have vast and far-reaching political, economic, and human effects should things run awry of the predictions of scientists. However, insofar as there is an expectation that policy in a given field reflect knowable and pertinent data and well-accepted models of the relationships between observable phenomena, there is little good alternative for policy makers than to rely on so much of what may fairly be called 'the scientific consensus' in guiding policy design and implementation, at least in circumstances where the need for policy intervention is compelling. While science cannot supply 'absolute truth' (or even its complement 'absolute error') its utility is bound up with the capacity to guide policy in the direction of increased public good and away from public harm. Seen in this way, the demand that policy rely only on what is proven to be "scientific truth" would be a prescription for policy paralysis and amount in practice to advocacy of acceptance of all of the quantified and unquantified costs and risks associated with policy inaction.

No part of policy formation on the basis of the ostensible scientific consensus precludes persistent review either of the relevant scientific consensus or the tangible results of policy. Indeed, the same reasons that drove reliance upon the consensus drives the continued evaluation of this reliance over time—and adjusting policy as needed.

 

[skookerasbil]

Lets not forget here that in the world of energy production, barely anythig has changed in the past ten years and all projections have fossil fuels dominating for at least the next 25 years!!! At this point, Im too bored to bother putting up the spectacular graphs I have many times in the past. So.........in other words, for all the hysterical science, the environmental radicals havent made a single dent in the landscape = losing

LOL.......coal consumption in Europe INCREASED almost 3.5% in 2011 Coal Mining in Europe - Overview

As Ive been saying..........spiking the ball on the "science" is irrelevant................

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Remember when there was Consensus on "Peak Oil"?

How's that working out, Cult Boy?

 

[skookerasbil]