Heavy Precipitation Over the US: Has it Increased as Some have Predicted it Should?

[RollingThunder]

Which climate zone has changed? Has the alpine climate of the Rockies suddenly become tropical, desert, or arctic?

Climate zones are shifting as temperatures warm. They are not abruptly changing from 'alpine' to 'tropical' as your idiotic strawman argument would presume.

There is no such thing as climate change!

Apparently, there is no such thing as a brain cell inside your skull. You have got to be one of the most severely brain damaged retards on this forum and that is not an easy distinction to achieve.

I sometimes have to remember that there were a lot of people convinced of global cooling in the 70s and were convinced that ALAR would kill you too. There's a sucker born every minute.

And you are definitely one of those suckers, Katzhitbrainz. "Global cooling" was the subject of some speculation by a few scientists and a few national news magazines in the 1970's but nobody was "convinced" about it and in fact most scientists at the time were more concerned with global warming, you poor confused retard.

As far as ALAR goes, it is one of your braindead pro-corporate rightwingnut myths that ALAR wasn't a problem.

One Bad Apple? Facts and Myths Behind the "Alar Scare"
(excerpts)

Symbolically, at least, the "great Alar apple scare" marks a watershed in industry thinking about the "problem" of free speech. The industry and its PR conduits have endlessly repeated the story of the Alar scare, portraying it as an unscrupulous and unfair attack by environmentalists against apple growers which destroyed farmers' livelihoods by stirring up unfounded consumer fears about a chemical which later turned out to be harmless. Today, even many journalists believe this myth, even though the facts tell a somewhat different story. Alar was a chemical, first marketed in 1968, that growers sprayed on trees to make their apples ripen longer before falling off. In use, however, Alar breaks down to a byproduct called "unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine" or UDMH. The first study showing that UDMH can cause cancer was published in 1973. Further studies published in 1977 and 1978 confirmed that Alar and UDMH caused tumors in laboratory animals.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) opened an investigation of Alar's hazards in 1980, but shelved the investigation after a closed meeting with Alar's manufacturer. In 1984, EPA re-opened its investigation, concluding in 1985 that both Alar and UDMH were "probable human carcinogens," capable of causing as many as 100 cancers per million people exposed to it in their diet for a lifetime--in other words, 100 times the human health hazard considered "acceptable" by EPA standards. Under pressure from the manufacturer, however, EPA allowed Alar to stay on the market. Its use continued, even after tests by the National Food Processors Association and Gerber Baby Foods repeatedly detected Alar in samples of apple sauce and apple juice, including formulations for infants. The states of Massachusetts and New York had banned the chemical, and the American Academy of Pediatrics was urging a similar ban at the federal level. "Risk estimates based on the best available information at this time raise serious concern about the safety of continued, long-term exposure," stated an EPA letter to apple growers which estimated that 50 out of every million adults would get cancer from long-term exposure to Alar and that the danger to children was even greater. Aside from these urgings, however, federal agencies continued to avoid regulatory action.

On February 26, 1989, the public at large first heard about Alar's dangers when CBS-TV's 60 Minutes aired an exposé titled "A is for Apple," which became the opening salvo in a carefully-planned publicity campaign developed for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) by the Fenton Communications PR firm. The industry, its back to the wall, hastily abandoned its use of Alar, and the market for apples quickly rebounded. Within five years, in fact, apple industry profits were 50 percent higher than they had been at the time of the 60 Minutes broadcast. Apple growers claimed that the scare had cost them $100 million and sent dozens of family-owned orchards into bankruptcy. On November 28, 1990, apple growers in the Washington state filed a libel lawsuit against CBS, NRDC and Fenton Communications. In court, the apple growers lost their lawsuit. The apple growers were able to show that the scientific evidence of Alar's dangers was inconclusive, but they were not able to prove that it was wrong. In dismissing the lawsuit, the presiding judge pointed to failures in the federal government's own food safety policies, noting that "governmental methodology fails to take into consideration the distinct hazards faced by preschoolers. The government is in grievous error when allowable exposures are calculated . . . without regard for the age at which exposure occurs." Notwithstanding years of industry efforts to disprove the merits of NRDC's warning, the National Academy of Sciences in 1993 confirmed the central message of the Alar case, which is that infants and young children need greater protection from pesticides in foods. NAS called for an overhaul of regulatory procedures specifically to protect kids, finding that federal calculations for allowable levels of chemicals do not account for increased childhood consumption of fruit, lower body weight, or for their heightened sensitivity.

 

[flacaltenn]

Finland already got a bundle from our stimulus package.

Every country is going to have a hand out. Whether it's from a wealthier country or its own people in higher taxes, fees and carbon credit, is the decision.

Oh, did we? Well, I look forward to hearing more about that!!

Lemme help you out here... I would have thought you knew how much money we've tossed overseas to be Green and Stimulated...

Wind Power Does Not Equal Job Power - ABC News

Nearly $2 billion in money from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has been spent on wind power, funding the creation of enough new wind farms to power 2.4 million homes over the past year. But the study found that nearly 80 percent of that money has gone to foreign manufacturers of wind turbines.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called the flow of money to foreign companies an outrage, because the stimulus, he said, was intended to create jobs inside the United States.

"This is one of those stories in Washington that when you tell people five miles outside the Beltway, or anywhere else in America, they cannot believe it," Schumer told ABC News, "It makes people lose faith in government, and it frankly infuriates me."


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/11/u...y-accurate-on-outsourcing.html?pagewanted=all

And Fisker Automotive, a manufacturer of luxury hybrid electric cars based in Anaheim, Calif., said the Republican committee’s description of the company as a “stimulus recipient” was false. The Obama administration approved up to $529 million in loans for the company, but they were under a George W. Bush-era program intended to spur more fuel-efficient technologies, not the stimulus package. The company has taken only $193 million of the loans.

In addition, the company disputes Republican claims that Fisker’s federal money “went abroad for jobs that weren’t created in the United States.” The company is assembling its first electric car, called the Karma, in Finland. But Fisker and Energy Department officials say the portion of the loans being used for the Karma — about $169 million — has been spent on hiring and other functions solely in California and Michigan. “Every single dollar of the loan has been used in the U.S.,” said Roger Ormisher, Fisker’s senior director of global communications.

THAT'S $338K for each of the 500 American jobs that Fisker had here (and "had" is the operative word) and MOST OF THOSE were in SALES AND MARKETING. Not design engineering or manufacturing. Money is fungible and RESULTS aren't important in Stimulus programs. Only the "FEELING" that GOVT is doing SOMETHING to fix a crisis.. So whether it's Finland or China or Mexico -- we're tossing $$BILLs at every green thing we see.

 

[Old Rocks]

Daveman -

I have no stake in this debate at all.

If I found out tomorrow climate change wasn't real, I'd be absolutely delighted.

I'm not a scientist, I don't have money at stake here, I don't work in this field and have nothing at all to lose or gain from whatever scientific proof is presented. I love conflicting ideas, I love good debate.

My only interest is scientific proof, and the evidence I see before me when I travel to countries like Bangladesh, Spain, Australia and Mozambique - all critically effected by climate change today.

What I try away from in general are wild conspiracy theories. I don't believe the CIA blew up the twin towers, I don't believe Jews staged the Holocaust, I don't believe Obama was born in Kenya, and I sure as hell don't believe that the UN is locked in an evil struggle to install a global socialist government - backed and paid for by the German Conservative government.

It really is just laugh-out-loud funny.

Why not take Occam's Razor, and go with an explanation that is both simple and logical?

Because it's neither. You can tell because of the horrifically bad science used to push it.

What you see in your travels is weather -- not climate.

Dumb ass, when are you going to post your good science? And include the peer reviewed scientific journal that it is published in. Kind of like this;

AGW Observer

Area of Hadley cell has increased and area of Polar cell has decreased

Measurements of the movement of the jet streams at mid-latitudes, in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, 1979 to 2010 – Hudson (2012) [FULL TEXT]

Abstract: “Previous studies have shown that the mean latitude of the sub-tropical jet streams in both hemispheres have shifted toward the poles over the last few decades. This paper presents a study of the movement of both the subtropical and Polar fronts, the location of the respective jet streams, between 1979 and 2010 at mid-latitudes, using total ozone measurements to identify the sharp horizontal boundary that occurs at the position of the fronts. Previous studies have shown that the two fronts are the boundaries of three distinct regimes in the stratosphere, corresponding to the Hadley, Ferrel, and polar meridionally overturning circulation cells in the troposphere. Over the period of study the horizontal area of the Hadley cell has increased at latitudes between 20 and 60 degrees while the area of the Polar cell has decreased. A linear regression analysis was performed to identify the major factors associated with the movement of the subtropical jet streams. These were: (1) changes in the Tropical land plus ocean temperature, (2) direct radiative forcing from greenhouse gases in the troposphere, (3) changes in the temperature of the lower tropical stratosphere, (4) the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation, and (5) volcanic eruptions. The dominant mechanism was the direct radiative forcing from greenhouse gases. Between 1979 and 2010 the poleward movement of the subtropical jet streams was 3.7 ± 0.3 degrees in the Northern Hemisphere and 6.5 ± 0.2 degrees in the Southern Hemisphere. Previous studies have shown that weather systems tend to follow the jet streams. The observed poleward movement in both hemispheres over the past thirty years represents a significant change in the position of the sub-tropical jet streams, which should lead to significant latitudinal shifts in the global weather patterns and the hydrologic cycle.”

Citation: Hudson, R. D.: Measurements of the movement of the jet streams at mid-latitudes, in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, 1979 to 2010, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 7797-7808, doi:10.5194/acp-12-7797-2012, 2012.

 

[daveman]

You and your two years of pre-geology don't even know what that means. You're just a parrot repeating what you've heard.

 

[asterism]

Daveman -

I have no stake in this debate at all.

If I found out tomorrow climate change wasn't real, I'd be absolutely delighted.

I'm not a scientist, I don't have money at stake here, I don't work in this field and have nothing at all to lose or gain from whatever scientific proof is presented. I love conflicting ideas, I love good debate.

My only interest is scientific proof, and the evidence I see before me when I travel to countries like Bangladesh, Spain, Australia and Mozambique - all critically effected by climate change today.

What I try away from in general are wild conspiracy theories. I don't believe the CIA blew up the twin towers, I don't believe Jews staged the Holocaust, I don't believe Obama was born in Kenya, and I sure as hell don't believe that the UN is locked in an evil struggle to install a global socialist government - backed and paid for by the German Conservative government.

It really is just laugh-out-loud funny.

Why not take Occam's Razor, and go with an explanation that is both simple and logical?

So you travel to Bangladesh and Mosabique regularly? And you see direct evidence of global climate change?

Please give some details. Perhaps you are just ignorant of history and the geopolitical dynamic of financial aid.

 

[Old Rocks]

Direct evidence of global climate change.

Fostering discussion on climate change risks | Swiss Re - Leading Global Reinsurer

Fostering discussion on climate change risks

Weather related events have a huge impact on the global economy, and that cost is growing steadily. Over the last 40 years global insured losses from climate-related disasters have jumped from an annual USD 5 billion to approximately USD 60 billion in 2011.

 

[Old Rocks]

Climate change & climate protection | Munich Re

Munich Re believes that weather extremes such as the massive floods experienced by China since early June are due to the advance of climate change. The trend towards increasingly higher losses from natural catastrophe losses is primarily due to socio-economic factors. The population is growing, more and more people are moving into exposed areas, and at the same time property values are also rising. Yet it would seem that the growing number of weather-related catastrophes can only be explained by climate change. The view that weather extremes are more frequent and intense due to global warming is in keeping with current scientific findings as set out in the Fourth IPCC Assessment Report.

As Prof. Peter Höppe, Head of Munich Re’s Geo Risks Research unit, emphasised: "The devastating floods in China are of a dramatic dimension – a phenomenon that has unfortunately occurred in China with increasing frequency over the last few decades. Every year, millions of Chinese are victims of weather-related natural catastrophes. And the risk is steadily growing, for climate change harbours the potential for torrential downpours while the risk of drought in certain regions is also on the rise."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download
» Weather catastrophes in China 1980 – 2010 (PDF, 225 KB)

 

[Old Rocks]

You and your two years of pre-geology don't even know what that means. You're just a parrot repeating what you've heard.

Come on, Davey Boy, post your science. Can you do anything other than flapyap?

 

[Saigon]

So you travel to Bangladesh and Mosabique regularly? And you see direct evidence of global climate change?

Please give some details. Perhaps you are just ignorant of history and the geopolitical dynamic of financial aid.

Yes, I usually spend a couple of months a year in Africa - last month I was in Liberia & Sierra Leone. I was in Mozambique the year before...Bangaldesh a few years earlier when I worked more in Asia.

Climate change is clearly visible in many countries now - deserts are expanding, sea levels are eroding land. There are more storms, more droughts, more floods - depending on where you are. Spain is perhaps the strongest example - the rise in summer temperatures and resulting crop damage and desetification is changing the country dramatically.

Research shows that around 90% of people in countries like these believe human activity plays a role in climate change, and that's not surprising - they live with the impacts every day. I know many of ous do not see any evidence of climate change where we live (yet), but that does not mean other people in other parts of the world aren't dealing with the impacts right now.

btw, I know more about history than you will ever know.

 

[Saigon]

Because it's neither. You can tell because of the horrifically bad science used to push it.

What you see in your travels is weather -- not climate.

And yet 50 of the world's leading scientific bodies - representing damn near every country and scientific discipline - all agree that human acitivity is playing a part in climate change.

Not a single recognised scientific body agrees with you.

What I see on my travels is the direct impact of climate change.

There are hundreds of examples of this, but one that I think is interesting is that of Australian farmers ploughing grape vines into the earth.

The reason - climate change and increasing droughts means growing wine in that part of Australia is no longer viable. It has been for 50 years, but not anymore.

 

[Saigon]

There is not a single climate zone in the entire world that is changing into another climate zone. Not one. Many have weather conditions that vary.

The deserts of north Africa are threatening to leap the Mediterranean and creep through Spain, according to government figures made public as part of a national campaign to halt desertification.

A third of the country is at risk of being turned into desert as climate change and tourism add to the effects of farming.

More than 90% of land bordering the Mediterranean from Almeria in the south to Tarragona in the north is considered to be at high risk. But that figure climbs to almost 100% in Alicante and Murcia.

Spain warns desert is spreading | Environment | The Guardian

 

[skookerasbil]

Which climate zone has changed? Has the alpine climate of the Rockies suddenly become tropical, desert, or arctic?

Climate zones are shifting as temperatures warm. They are not abruptly changing from 'alpine' to 'tropical' as your idiotic strawman argument would presume.

There is no such thing as climate change!

Apparently, there is no such thing as a brain cell inside your skull. You have got to be one of the most severely brain damaged retards on this forum and that is not an easy distinction to achieve.

I sometimes have to remember that there were a lot of people convinced of global cooling in the 70s and were convinced that ALAR would kill you too. There's a sucker born every minute.

And you are definitely one of those suckers, Katzhitbrainz. "Global cooling" was the subject of some speculation by a few scientists and a few national news magazines in the 1970's but nobody was "convinced" about it and in fact most scientists at the time were more concerned with global warming, you poor confused retard.

As far as ALAR goes, it is one of your braindead pro-corporate rightwingnut myths that ALAR wasn't a problem.

One Bad Apple? Facts and Myths Behind the "Alar Scare"
(excerpts)

Symbolically, at least, the "great Alar apple scare" marks a watershed in industry thinking about the "problem" of free speech. The industry and its PR conduits have endlessly repeated the story of the Alar scare, portraying it as an unscrupulous and unfair attack by environmentalists against apple growers which destroyed farmers' livelihoods by stirring up unfounded consumer fears about a chemical which later turned out to be harmless. Today, even many journalists believe this myth, even though the facts tell a somewhat different story. Alar was a chemical, first marketed in 1968, that growers sprayed on trees to make their apples ripen longer before falling off. In use, however, Alar breaks down to a byproduct called "unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine" or UDMH. The first study showing that UDMH can cause cancer was published in 1973. Further studies published in 1977 and 1978 confirmed that Alar and UDMH caused tumors in laboratory animals.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) opened an investigation of Alar's hazards in 1980, but shelved the investigation after a closed meeting with Alar's manufacturer. In 1984, EPA re-opened its investigation, concluding in 1985 that both Alar and UDMH were "probable human carcinogens," capable of causing as many as 100 cancers per million people exposed to it in their diet for a lifetime--in other words, 100 times the human health hazard considered "acceptable" by EPA standards. Under pressure from the manufacturer, however, EPA allowed Alar to stay on the market. Its use continued, even after tests by the National Food Processors Association and Gerber Baby Foods repeatedly detected Alar in samples of apple sauce and apple juice, including formulations for infants. The states of Massachusetts and New York had banned the chemical, and the American Academy of Pediatrics was urging a similar ban at the federal level. "Risk estimates based on the best available information at this time raise serious concern about the safety of continued, long-term exposure," stated an EPA letter to apple growers which estimated that 50 out of every million adults would get cancer from long-term exposure to Alar and that the danger to children was even greater. Aside from these urgings, however, federal agencies continued to avoid regulatory action.

On February 26, 1989, the public at large first heard about Alar's dangers when CBS-TV's 60 Minutes aired an exposé titled "A is for Apple," which became the opening salvo in a carefully-planned publicity campaign developed for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) by the Fenton Communications PR firm. The industry, its back to the wall, hastily abandoned its use of Alar, and the market for apples quickly rebounded. Within five years, in fact, apple industry profits were 50 percent higher than they had been at the time of the 60 Minutes broadcast. Apple growers claimed that the scare had cost them $100 million and sent dozens of family-owned orchards into bankruptcy. On November 28, 1990, apple growers in the Washington state filed a libel lawsuit against CBS, NRDC and Fenton Communications. In court, the apple growers lost their lawsuit. The apple growers were able to show that the scientific evidence of Alar's dangers was inconclusive, but they were not able to prove that it was wrong. In dismissing the lawsuit, the presiding judge pointed to failures in the federal government's own food safety policies, noting that "governmental methodology fails to take into consideration the distinct hazards faced by preschoolers. The government is in grievous error when allowable exposures are calculated . . . without regard for the age at which exposure occurs." Notwithstanding years of industry efforts to disprove the merits of NRDC's warning, the National Academy of Sciences in 1993 confirmed the central message of the Alar case, which is that infants and young children need greater protection from pesticides in foods. NAS called for an overhaul of regulatory procedures specifically to protect kids, finding that federal calculations for allowable levels of chemicals do not account for increased childhood consumption of fruit, lower body weight, or for their heightened sensitivity.

Hey Thunder............I dont think your font is large enough!!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

You know..........I read all these posts about this emerging disaster, and that emerging disaster from all these people so locked into this stuff.

Let me tell you something............we got alot of people on here who have a clear combination of 1) No real responsibilities 2) Far too much time on their hands 3) A history of perpetual angst in the family 4) Lame social life

People navigating the real world dont have time for this nonsense. I come home from work with barely enough emotional energy to throw a handful of posts up here every so often. Shit.........Rolling Thunder spends almost 1/2 hour engineering each POST!!!!


IDK.........I guess people need to find something to fill voids, but getting damn near suicidal on this environmental shit hardly seems to mean shit when at the end of the day, there isnt jack shit to do about it anyway!!

 

[Katzndogz]

If we didn't have weather, if we had no changes in wind patterns or the jet stream, this would be a dead planet.

We have torrential rains, and droughts, and winds, earthquakes, volcanos and storms just like we have had for millions of years and we will have them for millions more.

 

[RollingThunder]

If we didn't have weather, if we had no changes in wind patterns or the jet stream, this would be a dead planet.

We have torrential rains, and droughts, and winds, earthquakes, volcanos and storms just like we have had for millions of years and we will have them for millions more.

Just more of your usual clueless retarded nonsense, Katzhitbrainz. All of your idiotic posts just emphasize the fact that you have no idea what is happening.

 

[flacaltenn]

Because it's neither. You can tell because of the horrifically bad science used to push it.

What you see in your travels is weather -- not climate.

And yet 50 of the world's leading scientific bodies - representing damn near every country and scientific discipline - all agree that human acitivity is playing a part in climate change.

Not a single recognised scientific body agrees with you.

What I see on my travels is the direct impact of climate change.

There are hundreds of examples of this, but one that I think is interesting is that of Australian farmers ploughing grape vines into the earth.

The reason - climate change and increasing droughts means growing wine in that part of Australia is no longer viable. It has been for 50 years, but not anymore.

You need to realize that "scientific bodies" are not democratically run.. In fact most of the Institutions you're gonna cite for CONSENSUS on Global Warming are highly attached to national politics or state appointed positions. A declaration of Concern or Consensus is not a poll, not a vote, not an expression of Consensus..

My own professional Org makes statements on Global Social Justice and Global Warming all the time. And it means NOTHING to the membership.. Shouldn't mean as much as you are attributing to it..

And the UN is a hotbed of Global Socialism. And Global Warming is their BEST excuse for Global Redistribution of Wealth and prosperity. These idiots have tied GW to Women's Issues and every other leftist cause.

You've WITNESSED the sea eroding the landscape in Africa.. How OLD are you anyway?

You realize that about 1/2 of sea level rise in the past 50 years is from pure THERMAL EXPANSION? Impossible to consider that you've seen a lot of evidence unless you're over 100..

And with Australian grapes as with everything else.. It's a lot more complicated than a 0.5degC change in past couple decades...

Winegrape harvest 2012 – preliminary report 15 March | Wine Grape Growers Australia

Smaller but sweeter: high quality and low yields characterise the 2012 harvest
A phone survey by WGGA in early March 2012, following drenching rain and flooding on the eastern seaboard found that these conditions in the east starkly contrasted with high temperatures and very dry conditions at the same time in the west. Nevertheless, at the meeting in the middle, ideal conditions continued to prevail.

Despite the disheartening circumstances for the severely rain-affected growing regions in the east, the major themes of the 2012 harvest are largely consistent across the country. The first of the major themes of this year’s harvest is generally lower than long-run yields, brought about by fewer bunches and less fruitfulness per bunch. This occurred after coolness in November 2011 which hampered the fruit set. In addition, 2012 represents an off-year after a heavy cropping 2011 (despite not all of last year’s fruit being harvested due to disease impact). By contrast, yields will be slightly higher in WA because of good spring rain and warmer development over the summer. The second major theme of the 2012 harvest is the generally ideal conditions for flavour and colour development. This has resulted from the mild weather conditions that created steady, ideal ripening in addition to concentration of colour and flavour in the smaller bunches and berries. Stand-out quality profiles will be available from the majority of the fruit that escapes the recent weather extremes.

The mild-to-cool start to the season brought about early reports of downy incidence but it was of low incidence and effectively dealt with by vineyard managers who were in a state of readiness after last year. Reports of botrytis have also been made, and while the incidence is only a shadow of last year, it remains a potential threat for the remaining crop as the eastern states emerge from the recent wetness.

All in all, with disease contained and colour/flavour profiles high, quality is expected to be exceptionally high from a smaller crop in 2012.

Grapes and winos are very fickle...

 

[RollingThunder]

Because it's neither. You can tell because of the horrifically bad science used to push it.

What you see in your travels is weather -- not climate.

And yet 50 of the world's leading scientific bodies - representing damn near every country and scientific discipline - all agree that human acitivity is playing a part in climate change.

Not a single recognised scientific body agrees with you.

What I see on my travels is the direct impact of climate change.

There are hundreds of examples of this, but one that I think is interesting is that of Australian farmers ploughing grape vines into the earth.

The reason - climate change and increasing droughts means growing wine in that part of Australia is no longer viable. It has been for 50 years, but not anymore.

You need to realize that "scientific bodies" are not democratically run.. In fact most of the Institutions you're gonna cite for CONSENSUS on Global Warming are highly attached to national politics or state appointed positions. A declaration of Concern or Consensus is not a poll, not a vote, not an expression of Consensus..

Complete nonsense. Denier cult rationalizations. As usual, you have no idea what you're talking about, Fecalhead. Your fantasy that large secret majorities of the members of all of these professional organizations, scientific societies, etc., are somehow opposed to the position papers their organizations put out but never speak up or protest is beyond absurd into outright insanity.

Scientific opinion on climate change

My own professional Org...

LOLOLOL.....I didn't realize that professional retards like you had your own organization....I guess I just assumed that the Republican Party was the umbrella organization for retards like you and the other denier cultists.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Science is not done by "Consensus" that's how you know you're dealing with a cult and not science

 

[RollingThunder]

Science is not done by "Consensus" that's how you know you're dealing with a cult and not science

Oh CrazyFruitcake, you're obviously far too ignorant and retarded to have any idea how science is done or "not done". Global warming science is based on evidence and data, not 'consensus'. Because the evidence is so conclusive, there is, in fact, a consensus among scientists on the fact that the current abrupt warming trend is human caused but that consensus is not the basis of the scientific conclusions, it is the result. Too bad you're too retarded to comprehend this.

Scientific consensus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(free to reproduce)
(excerpts)

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.[1] 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.[2] 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'.[2]

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.[2] 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.

 

[daveman]

If we didn't have weather, if we had no changes in wind patterns or the jet stream, this would be a dead planet.

We have torrential rains, and droughts, and winds, earthquakes, volcanos and storms just like we have had for millions of years and we will have them for millions more.

Just more of your usual clueless retarded nonsense, Katzhitbrainz. All of your idiotic posts just emphasize the fact that you have no idea what is happening.

Really? We never had weather before?

I'll be darned.