How far have we already gone?

[sitarro]

The public at large is changing their minds too. And it's not in your favour. .

A BBC study released last year showed that around 77% of people around the world believed human acitivity may be influencing the climate.

Of the 20 countries surveyed, the number of people accepting this rose in 19 countries. Only in the US is it falling. Why that might be is hard to say, but I suspect it is because only in the US is this a political topic. Outside the US it really is not political at all, and most conservative parties around the world are as clear about the need to address climate change as liberal ones are.

In countries clearly most affected by climate change - such as Spain, Australia and a lot of island nations - around 85%+ of people accept that human acitivity influences the climate.

Whichever way you cut it, the belief that human acitivity is in no way influencing the climate is becoming a fringe belief, and something that exists anywhere outside the lunatic fringe only in the US.

I can link this study, but I suspect again you won't have the stomach to read it.

I'm curious, have you spoken to India or China? Or is it just us filthy Americans that are to blame for all of the world's ills?

 

[PredFan]

Wirebender -

Given the entire scientific community have gotten this wrong, perhaps you can explain why. Because let's face it - you know more than anyone else.

Here is the statement of the US Geological Society - who are clearly a bunch of commies.

Position Statement
Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twentyfirst century will result in large impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources...

The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Global Climate Change

Please have a look at their site, and explain where their science is wrong.

No, NOT the entire scientific community. The ones who continue the scam you call scientists, the ones who don't you call deniers. there are a whole lot of deniers.

 

[PredFan]

Are you people seriously going to deny that the earth has warmer in the past? Are you seriously going to deny that the earth has been warmer even in recent (geologically speaking) times?

 

[wirebender]

Wirebender -

Given the entire scientific community have gotten this wrong, perhaps you can explain why. Because let's face it - you know more than anyone else.

The entire scientific community have not gotten it wrong. A very small eleite, well publicized core of scientists have gotten it wrong. An unfortunately large, (but nowhere near a majority) of scientists have, in turn, become victims of an error cascade and group think. A common enough occurence in science. They have built ther work upon the flawed foundation that the above small group established and as a result, their findings are flawed as well.

Don't you find it odd that none of their predictions actually matches observations?

Here is the statement of the US Geological Society - who are clearly a bunch of commies.

That is a position statement by the politcal head of an organization that is interested in funding. Do feel free to bring forward any of that claimed research that represents hard observable evidence of anthropogenic climate change. I am sure you can't because the only data that points to man as a cause of climate change is the output of computer simulations, which does not constitute data.

What you see there is the end result of an error cascade combined with groupthink.

By the way, I have already explained where their science is wrong. The fact that you, and the entire field of climate pseudoscience can not name a single physical law that supports or predicts a greenhouse effect as described by climate pseudoscience is evidence that my explanations are correct. How goofy must one be to accept such a hoax without asking which physical law might support and predict the claims being made? And how abjectly stupid must one be to continue to buy the hoax when it turns out that there are no physical laws that support or predict the claims that have been made?

 

[wirebender]

Says the person who is taking a position opposed by almost every scientist on earth.

Not almost every scientist on earth. Not even a majority of scientists on earth. Nothing more than a small minority. That claim of 90% has been proven to be a hoax as well. That number came from a very small survey of un named scientists answering a loaded question. The fact is that you would have a tough time naming even a hand full of scientists who are on the AGW bandwagon who do not depend on grant money to buy thier daily bread.

The other is to ridicule the science and go with blind faith.

It is you and yours who are operating on blind faith. Again, which physical law(s) support and predict a greenhouse effect as claimed by climate pseudoscience? The fact that neither you, nor those few elite morons who founded climate pseudoscience can answer that question is evidence of your faith.

Me, I rely on the actual laws of physics which state that energy can neither be created nor destroyed (law of conservation of energy) and that energy can not move from a cool object (the sky) to a warm object (the surface of the earth) second law of thermodynamics. And I don't hold with corrupting mathematical formulae in an attempt to get around the laws of physics which is what was done with the Stefan -Boltzman law.

I

'm fine with you doing the latter.

Of course you are because you are one of the faithful and lack the scientific background to either ask, or answer some very important very basic questions. That is the good thing about faith. You don't have to be very smart to practice it do it very well.

 

[wirebender]

The Medieval Warm(ish) Period In Pictures

Unsurprising that you would gravitate to a picture site rocks. Especially a site like skeptical science which is so profoundly bias that you are probably doing yourself irreprable inellectual damage by simply clicking on the link. If you would like to see actual peer reviewed papers demonstrating that the MWP and RWP were both warmer than the present and global in nature, just ask. I have provided them before.

 

[IanC]

What you see there is the end result of an error cascade combined with groupthink.

I concur.

 

[wirebender]

Seriously - that is your BEST response?!

Facts tend to be the best response if you are interested in truth.

You can find nothing at all to fault the science involved in creating the thousand or so major research projects conducted in the past decade?

Profound problems have been pointed out already but you don't appear to be quite bright enough to even recognize them. Allow me to reiterate. Neither you, nor your climate pseudoscience priests can name a single physical law that supports or predicts a greenhouse effect as claimed by climate pseudoscience and which is absolutely necessary for their claims to be true.

The law of conservation of energy, the second law of thermodynamics, and the Stefan-Boltzman law all say that such a greenhouse effect as claimed by climate pseudoscience is not possible. So there are just a few problems and they exist at the very foundation of climate pseudoscience. As a result, everying that is built upon those flaws is also flawed.

Climate pseudoscience is no more substantial than a house of cards because it is not founded on anything even resembling actual science.

]

 

[wirebender]

I'd be delighted to post a dozen peer-reviewed pieces of science here, all of which were conducted by US PhD level researchers, and which have been impeccably conducted. Perhaps we could start with one concerning the collapse of Alaska glaciers.

Instead of a dozen bits of pal reviewed science, how about you post 1 peer reviewed piece which examines the basis of climate science and relates it to the actual laws of physics which climate pseudoscience has completely disregarded.

 

[mudwhistle]

At the present 395 ppm of CO2, what are we already committed to in terms of ice melt, disregarding feedback effects? According to the paleo-record, an increase of about 25 meters in sea level.

AGU FM11 - Paleoclimate record points toward potential rapid climate changes - YouTube

Interesting.....not.

 

[ScienceRocks]

If there's NO greenhouse effect then how could the earth have possibly been warmer than today 100 million years ago? A good 8-14c in some periods with tropical like conditions in the polar lats.

The sun was dimmer at this time as it was a cooler star. So the theory that all warming comes from our star is challenged.

 

[IanC]

Crusader -

If you can establish that a report (conducted by a top US University, led by one of the best researchers in his field and involving field work on literally thousands of glaciers) is not science without even looking at it, then I won't bother posting it.

As far as I can tell, your position on Alaska glaciers is based entirely on faith and politics. Is that correct?

Alaskan glaciers. good topic.

I could go on and on about how most of the loss of AGs happened in the 1800's but I would like to bring up a slightly different aspect.

first I want you to refresh your thoughts on the scientific method. is it OK to hide an experiment that doesnt give you the expected results? most scientists would say no, but climate science is a different kettle of fish.

the Canadian govt funded an ice core project for a glacier in Alaska. it was done. but no results were released. the funding required that a preliminary report must be filed and when someone FOIed that it showed that the glacier was only ~2000 years old. bad news for the global warming gang that insist that we have never been warm before. so it just sits on the shelf, hidden from embarrassing publicity. is this how science should be done?

 

[Old Rocks]

Crusader -

If you can establish that a report (conducted by a top US University, led by one of the best researchers in his field and involving field work on literally thousands of glaciers) is not science without even looking at it, then I won't bother posting it.

As far as I can tell, your position on Alaska glaciers is based entirely on faith and politics. Is that correct?

Alaskan glaciers. good topic.

I could go on and on about how most of the loss of AGs happened in the 1800's but I would like to bring up a slightly different aspect.

first I want you to refresh your thoughts on the scientific method. is it OK to hide an experiment that doesnt give you the expected results? most scientists would say no, but climate science is a different kettle of fish.

the Canadian govt funded an ice core project for a glacier in Alaska. it was done. but no results were released. the funding required that a preliminary report must be filed and when someone FOIed that it showed that the glacier was only ~2000 years old. bad news for the global warming gang that insist that we have never been warm before. so it just sits on the shelf, hidden from embarrassing publicity. is this how science should be done?

When you make a claim like that, provide a link. Otherwise, it is just considered bullshit.

 

[Old Rocks]

You see, Ian, this is how it is done. You go to a credible site, in this case, a three decaded study of the North Cascades and other glaciated areas in the Pacific Northwest, Western Canada, and Alaska.


Global glacier retreat

Beginning in the 1990's, using a laser measuring device mounted on the underside of an airplane, researchers compared glacier altitude differences with ground survey maps created in the 1950's. 85% of the glaciers flown over stretching from Alaska to Washington state had a reduction in altitude, and therefore, a thinning of the glacial mass. Further flights since then indicate that this thinning is accelerating and is now double what it was in the 40 years before the mid 1990's. [20] The glaciers of Denali National Park are shrinking. The National Park Service has been chronicling the retreat with repeat photographs of glaciers from locations where historic photographs exist. The program has been a cooperation between glaciologist Guy Adema and photographer Ron Karpillo. In Denali National Park the terminus of the Toklat Glacier is retreating 24 m/year and the Cantwell Glacier 10 m/year. East Taklanika Glacier has also retreated 1100 m between . In that time the lower section of the glacier has lost over 100 m of ice thickness. There are many surging glacier in the Park and in Alaska whose terminus responses are part due to climate and part due to surging behavior.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Crusader -

If you can establish that a report (conducted by a top US University, led by one of the best researchers in his field and involving field work on literally thousands of glaciers) is not science without even looking at it, then I won't bother posting it.

As far as I can tell, your position on Alaska glaciers is based entirely on faith and politics. Is that correct?

Seriously, post it and I will respond to it.

 

[Saigon]

Frank -

Ok, I will do. I don't have time right now, but I'll post it in a new thread at the weekend, in the environment section.

 

[wirebender]

If there's NO greenhouse effect then how could the earth have possibly been warmer than today 100 million years ago? A good 8-14c in some periods with tropical like conditions in the polar lats.

The sun was dimmer at this time as it was a cooler star. So the theory that all warming comes from our star is challenged.

Are you sure that the output of the sun is hither today than it was 100 million years ago? Exactly which empirical evidence do you base that claim on.

That, matthew is how error cascades and group think hijack actual science. You assume that the sun was dimmer now but no actual evidence exists that would confirm such an assumption.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Crsuader Frank -

No, it's a model. A designed to help people understand science by making it simple.

I'd be delighted to post a dozen peer-reviewed pieces of science here, all of which were conducted by US PhD level researchers, and which have been impeccably conducted. Perhaps we could start with one concerning the collapse of Alaska glaciers.

Will you commit to reading it?

Post whatever you want, I've probably read them and it's still not science.

LOL. Frankie Boy believes the moon is hollow and artificial, that is the extent of his scientific prowess.LOL

And yet I'm still waiting for you to post that one repeatable experiment that shows how a .01% change in the composition of the atmosphere by adding a wisp of CO2 raises temperature and acidifies the oceans

Also, as recently as a few months ago NASA was still analyzing the data from the Apollo 13 booster impact that had the Moon resonating as if it were a hollow body.

And there's still not a coherent theory that accounts for the natural formation of the Moon. In fact, it appears that the Double Impact Theory needs to be shelved

Moon Formation Theory Challenged by New Discovery | Moon History | Space.com

The Moon can't be there; it's too big and the orbit is wrong. One prominent astrophysics said the only way to account for the Moon is "Observational error" just assume it's not really there. Unlike every other planet and Moon, Earth has continents, it's not a solid crust all over and we have a Moon that is made of the exact same material. It rings when it's hit, it has Mass Concentrations beneath the surface that alter the orbit of whatever ship we send around it and Carl Sagan correctly pointed out that, "A natural satellite cannot be a hollow object."

Right, Carl

 

[Old Rocks]

If there's NO greenhouse effect then how could the earth have possibly been warmer than today 100 million years ago? A good 8-14c in some periods with tropical like conditions in the polar lats.

The sun was dimmer at this time as it was a cooler star. So the theory that all warming comes from our star is challenged.

Are you sure that the output of the sun is hither today than it was 100 million years ago? Exactly which empirical evidence do you base that claim on.

That, matthew is how error cascades and group think hijack actual science. You assume that the sun was dimmer now but no actual evidence exists that would confirm such an assumption.

HR Diagram and Stellar Evolution

 

[westwall]

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

Human Impacts on Climate

Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

Where do the scientific organizations get their funding from? Where do the scientists who run the organizations get their funding from? Oh yeah, that's right....they get it from the taxpayers. They get their money based on how dire their predictions are. I wonder when they will actually get a prediction correct? So far they've had 30 year and 100 billion dollars to make some wonderful predictions but instead, we get Hansen and his prediction which is 300% off. But in olfrauds world that is considered pretty accurate.

And you clowns wonder why you're losing.