Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
There are also those whose position is that the state of the science does not allow for any conclusion about the magnitude and significance of anthropogenic CO2.What is a denier denying?What a bullshit, nothing comment. That isn't being taught and only goes to prove that the deniers only have the political option to go with, having failed miserably in proving the science wrong.
Well, depends on the flavor of the denier.
Some state that there is no warming at all. That there is a vast conspriracy to misinform the public worldwide.
Others state that the warming is occurring, but is from natural causes. But they cannot point out any of the causes.
Others fly in the face of established physics, and state that CO2, CH4, and the rest of the GHGs really do not affect anything when they are in the atmosphere.
And then there are some that claim scientific credentials, and just mewl and puke about logic, and never say a thing that they can be pinned down on.
Where has this been "established beyond a reasonable doubt"? Citations of the peer-reviewed science demonstrating this, please.....
And established beyond a reasonable doubt that the GHGs that we have introduced into the atmosphere is the primary driver of that warming. .....
National Academy of Sciences
ACC Panel on Advancing the Science of Climate Change
Advancing the Science of Climate Change
A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems, concludes this panel report from the America's Climate Choices suite of studies. As decision makers respond to these risks, the nation's scientific enterprise can contribute both by continuing to improve understanding of the causes and consequences of climate change, and by improving and expanding the options available to limit the magnitude of climate change and adapt to its impacts. To make this possible, the nation needs a comprehensive, integrated, and flexible climate change research enterprise that is closely linked with action-oriented programs at all levels
Access : Impact of regional climate change on human health : Nature
Impact of regional climate change on human health
Jonathan A. Patz1,2, Diarmid Campbell-Lendrum3, Tracey Holloway1 & Jonathan A. Foley1
Top of pageAbstractThe World Health Organisation estimates that the warming and precipitation trends due to anthropogenic climate change of the past 30 years already claim over 150,000 lives annually. Many prevalent human diseases are linked to climate fluctuations, from cardiovascular mortality and respiratory illnesses due to heatwaves, to altered transmission of infectious diseases and malnutrition from crop failures. Uncertainty remains in attributing the expansion or resurgence of diseases to climate change, owing to lack of long-term, high-quality data sets as well as the large influence of socio-economic factors and changes in immunity and drug resistance. Here we review the growing evidence that climatehealth relationships pose increasing health risks under future projections of climate change and that the warming trend over recent decades has already contributed to increased morbidity and mortality in many regions of the world. Potentially vulnerable regions include the temperate latitudes, which are projected to warm disproportionately, the regions around the Pacific and Indian oceans that are currently subjected to large rainfall variability due to the El Niño/Southern Oscillation sub-Saharan Africa and sprawling cities where the urban heat island effect could intensify extreme climatic events.
Access : Impact of regional climate change on human health : Nature
Impact of regional climate change on human health
Jonathan A. Patz1,2, Diarmid Campbell-Lendrum3, Tracey Holloway1 & Jonathan A. Foley1
Top of pageAbstractThe World Health Organisation estimates that the warming and precipitation trends due to anthropogenic climate change of the past 30 years already claim over 150,000 lives annually. Many prevalent human diseases are linked to climate fluctuations, from cardiovascular mortality and respiratory illnesses due to heatwaves, to altered transmission of infectious diseases and malnutrition from crop failures. Uncertainty remains in attributing the expansion or resurgence of diseases to climate change, owing to lack of long-term, high-quality data sets as well as the large influence of socio-economic factors and changes in immunity and drug resistance. Here we review the growing evidence that climate–health relationships pose increasing health risks under future projections of climate change and that the warming trend over recent decades has already contributed to increased morbidity and mortality in many regions of the world. Potentially vulnerable regions include the temperate latitudes, which are projected to warm disproportionately, the regions around the Pacific and Indian oceans that are currently subjected to large rainfall variability due to the El Niño/Southern Oscillation sub-Saharan Africa and sprawling cities where the urban heat island effect could intensify extreme climatic events.
Here's the answer to AGW:
Adapt or die. Pretty much the same rule that has been in place since day one.
A press release about a panel's report (a panel containing politicians) is not a peer-reviewed scientific piece.I see, the National Academy of Sciences is not considered peer reviewed? ....
Where has this been "established beyond a reasonable doubt"? Citations of the peer-reviewed science demonstrating this, please.
National Academy of Sciences
ACC Panel on Advancing the Science of Climate Change
Advancing the Science of Climate Change
A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems, concludes this panel report from the America's Climate Choices suite of studies. As decision makers respond to these risks, the nation's scientific enterprise can contribute both by continuing to improve understanding of the causes and consequences of climate change, and by improving and expanding the options available to limit the magnitude of climate change and adapt to its impacts. To make this possible, the nation needs a comprehensive, integrated, and flexible climate change research enterprise that is closely linked with action-oriented programs at all levels
I asked for a peer-reviewed citation of the science demonstrating this. That is not one.
Scholarly peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. Peer review requires a community of experts in a given (and often narrowly defined) field, who are qualified and able to perform impartial review. Impartial review, especially of work in less narrowly defined or inter-disciplinary fields, may be difficult to accomplish; and the significance (good or bad) of an idea may never be widely appreciated among its contemporaries. Although generally considered essential to academic quality, and used in most important scientific publications, peer review has been criticized as ineffective, slow, and misunderstood (see anonymous peer review and open peer review).
Pragmatically, peer review refers to the work done during the screening of submitted manuscripts and funding applications. This process encourages authors to meet the accepted standards of their discipline and prevents the dissemination of irrelevant findings, unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations, and personal views. Publications that have not undergone peer review are likely to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals.
[edit] Justification
It is difficult for authors and researchers, whether individually or in a team, to spot every mistake or flaw in a complicated piece of work. This is not necessarily a reflection on those concerned, but because with a new and perhaps eclectic subject, an opportunity for improvement may be more obvious to someone with special expertise or who simply looks at it with a fresh eye. Therefore, showing work to others increases the probability that weaknesses will be identified and improved. For both grant-funding and publication in a scholarly journal, it is also normally a requirement that the subject is both novel and substantial.[dubious – discuss]
Furthermore, the decision whether or not to publish a scholarly article, or what should be modified before publication, lies with the editor of the journal to which the manuscript has been submitted. Similarly, the decision whether or not to fund a proposed project rests with an official of the funding agency. These individuals usually refer to the opinion of one or more reviewers in making their decision. This is primarily for three reasons:
* Workload. A small group of editors/assessors cannot devote sufficient time to each of the many articles submitted to many journals.
* Diversity of opinion. Were the editor/assessor to judge all submitted material themselves, approved material would solely reflect their opinion.
* Limited expertise. An editor/assessor cannot be expected to be sufficiently expert in all areas covered by a single journal or funding agency to adequately judge all submitted material.
Thus it is normal for manuscripts and grant proposals to be sent to one or more external reviewers for comment.
Reviewers are typically anonymous and independent, to help foster unvarnished criticism, and to discourage cronyism in funding and publication decisions. However, US government guidelines governing peer review for federal regulatory agencies require that reviewer's identity be disclosed under some circumstances. Anonymity may be unilateral or reciprocal (single- or double-blinded reviewing).
Since reviewers are normally selected from experts in the fields discussed in the article, the process of peer review is considered critical to establishing a reliable body of research and knowledge. Scholars reading the published articles can only be expert in a limited area; they rely, to some degree, on the peer-review process to provide reliable and credible research that they can build upon for subsequent or related research. As a result, significant scandal ensues when an author is found to have falsified the research included in an article, as many other scholars, and the field of study itself, may have relied upon the original research (see Peer review failures below).
....
Here's the answer to AGW:
Adapt or die. Pretty much the same rule that has been in place since day one.
There will be some adapting and much dying. Which will your grandchildren do?
Yeah let's teach kids that the only way to get anything done is to let big government tax the shit out of us all in the name of saving the planet.
What a bullshit, nothing comment. That isn't being taught and only goes to prove that the deniers only have the political option to go with, having failed miserably in proving the science wrong.
