The pseudo science of man-made global warming...

[SSDD]

View attachment 100472

Well now, you seem to think that the temperature for the US is going down. So why are our glaciers melting? If the graph showing a cooling is correct, why are not they expanding, rather than receding? After all, during the little ice age they did actually expand.

Going down?


Can you read a fucking graph?


The glaciers propaganda old rocks have been melting since the last ice age
.

It is like they believe if they repeat the propaganda enough times that it will become true....

 

[Wyatt earp]

View attachment 100472

Well now, you seem to think that the temperature for the US is going down. So why are our glaciers melting? If the graph showing a cooling is correct, why are not they expanding, rather than receding? After all, during the little ice age they did actually expand.

Going down?


Can you read a fucking graph?


The glaciers propaganda old rocks have been melting since the last ice age
.

It is like they believe if they repeat the propaganda enough times that it will become true....

Old rocks is great at that no matter how I smash him he will come back and post the same thing over and over again..

Its starting to get pathetic to watch


.

 

[Esmeralda]

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus

So, every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements that say that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. So, are we to believe an anonymous poster on a message board who has only demonstrated profound ignorance in all spheres over the scientists? LOL

Actually no. I don't believe a word you say, sir.

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES
Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2

• 
  
  American Association for the Advancement of Science
  "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3
• 
  
  American Chemical Society
  "Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4
• 
  
  American Geophysical Union
  "Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5
• 
  
  American Medical Association
  "Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6
• 
  
  American Meteorological Society
  "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7
• 
  
  American Physical Society
  "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8
• 
  
  The Geological Society of America
  "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." (2006; revised 2010)9

SCIENCE ACADEMIES
International academies: Joint statement
"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10

• 
  
  U.S. National Academy of Sciences
  "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11

U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

• 
  
  U.S. Global Change Research Program
  "The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12

INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES

• 
  
  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
  “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”13
  
  “Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.”14

OTHER RESOURCES
List of worldwide scientific organizations
The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

U.S. agencies
The following page contains information on what federal agencies are doing to adapt to climate change.
http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/federal-agencies-adaptation.pdf

And your links?

Oh looky here... a moonbat dropped a bunch of shit and claims that they prove global warming by their political statements...

Your appeals to you make believe authorities is bull shit Old Fraud.. It reminds me of an idiot who is told the bottle doesn't contain poison, the empirical evidence of the labels says it does, and yet the idiot believes the fantasy and drinks the bottle any way, cause they said it was ok and were in consensus... And they were the authorities...

What a moron.

Old Rocks? I agree.

Très amusant

It's BillyBob (and the like) who is the moron,

 

[Rustic]

Great stuff, dumbass progressives in their idol Al gore come up with the funniest things... lol
predictable of crazy Cali...

California regulates cow farts

You cannot call something 'pseudo science' when the vast majority of scientists believe in it. Not when folks like Stephen Hawking believe in it.

Prof Stephen Hawking said the biggest threats to planet Earth were of our own making, including nuclear war, global warming and genetically engineered viruses. .

Watch out for cow farts...

 

[Crick]

On what basis do you reject the work of thousands of scientists over decades of research and study? Blog posts from right wing journalists?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Crick,

Liberterianism is based on one holding their opinion above everyone else on earth no matter what. It is hatred of institutions, government and anything to do with civilization.

The libertarian simply says something and that is enough to make he/she or it believe that they have won. It will end up destroying this country if we don't beat it back,

 

[Wyatt earp]

On what basis do you reject the work of thousands of scientists over decades of research and study? Blog posts from right wing journalists?

They should of saved their time, money and just of asked a 2nd grader he would of told them "the climate has always changed"


That money would of been better spent on infrastructure. Builiding power plants in thirld world countries bringing clean water to africa. So much better then trying to convince man a warmer earth is worse then a New ice age.

.

 

[mamooth]

No one is disputing the fact that the climate has warmed over the last 50 years or so

You mean besides half of your denier brethren?

Half of you claim there's no warming, and that an ice age is around the corner.

Half of you claim there is warming, but it's all natural.

You denier cultists all need to get together and settle on a single kook conspiracy theory, instead of embracing multiple kook conspiracy theories that all contradict each other. That looks really bad, the way you're all over the map with your loopy conspiracy babbling.

 

[Ernie S.]

No one is disputing the fact that the climate has warmed over the last 50 years or so

You mean besides half of your denier brethren?

Half of you claim there's no warming, and that an ice age is around the corner.

Half of you claim there is warming, but it's all natural.

You denier cultists all need to get together and settle on a single kook conspiracy theory, instead of embracing multiple kook conspiracy theories that all contradict each other. That looks really bad, the way you're all over the map with your loopy conspiracy babbling.

It depends on where you start from. I started 50 years ago. If memory serves, there has been some increase, most of which can be explained by the Soviet Union shutting down hundreds of weather stations in Siberia.
If we go back 20 years, there has been either no increase, or a slight decrease, depending on who's computer model produces the results.

 

[Ernie S.]

Crick,

Liberterianism is based on one holding their opinion above everyone else on earth no matter what. It is hatred of institutions, government and anything to do with civilization.

The libertarian simply says something and that is enough to make he/she or it believe that they have won. It will end up destroying this country if we don't beat it back,

This is who Reagan was referring to when he said, "It's not that our Liberal friends are ignorant, it's that they know so much that isn't so.

 

[Wyatt earp]

No one is disputing the fact that the climate has warmed over the last 50 years or so

You mean besides half of your denier brethren?

Half of you claim there's no warming, and that an ice age is around the corner.

Half of you claim there is warming, but it's all natural.

You denier cultists all need to get together and settle on a single kook conspiracy theory, instead of embracing multiple kook conspiracy theories that all contradict each other. That looks really bad, the way you're all over the map with your loopy conspiracy babbling.

How about you study the climate on the earth the past billions of years before you make that statement?



Its called the Earths Climate...since when has it ever been stable ?

Only in your fairy tale propaganda world.

.

 

[Ernie S.]

On what basis do you reject the work of thousands of scientists over decades of research and study? Blog posts from right wing journalists?

On the basis that their funding is contingent on them arriving at a predetermined result.

 

[ScienceRocks]

On what basis do you reject the work of thousands of scientists over decades of research and study? Blog posts from right wing journalists?

On the basis that their funding is contingent on them arriving at a predetermined result.

Lol, things that are a national security threat and economic threat to our nation must be studied.

 

[Wyatt earp]

On what basis do you reject the work of thousands of scientists over decades of research and study? Blog posts from right wing journalists?

On the basis that their funding is contingent on them arriving at a predetermined result.

I wonder if their real goal is encasing the world in one huge polycarbonite bubble...and in one super secerete location there is only one thermoset set exactly at 67.5 degrees ...to bad world live with it

 

[ding]

No one is disputing the fact that the climate has warmed over the last 50 years or so

You mean besides half of your denier brethren?

Half of you claim there's no warming, and that an ice age is around the corner.

Half of you claim there is warming, but it's all natural.

You denier cultists all need to get together and settle on a single kook conspiracy theory, instead of embracing multiple kook conspiracy theories that all contradict each other. That looks really bad, the way you're all over the map with your loopy conspiracy babbling.

You forgot about the ones who believe it part of the natural climate of an interglacial cycle. I am feeling a bit left out, pussycat.

 

[Ernie S.]

On what basis do you reject the work of thousands of scientists over decades of research and study? Blog posts from right wing journalists?

On the basis that their funding is contingent on them arriving at a predetermined result.

Lol, things that are a national security threat and economic threat to our nation must be studied.

One of the largest economic threats our nation faces today is your desire to cripple the conventional energy sector before there is a viable alternative. The motive of the AGW cult escapes me other than I see a desire by a new would be elite to replace the wealthy oil and coal folks that generally support Conservative values with Solyndra/Tesla types that want the government to invest in the immature technology and grant tax incentives they will use to become Liberal Carnages, Rockefellers and Fords.
Invest your own money to develop your technology. Bring it to market when it can stand on it's own without subsidies and if you are more efficient, more reliable, cleaner and safer, you will replace carbon based energy production like gasoline replaced steam.

 

[Ernie S.]

On what basis do you reject the work of thousands of scientists over decades of research and study? Blog posts from right wing journalists?

On the basis that their funding is contingent on them arriving at a predetermined result.

I wonder if their real goal is encasing the world in one huge polycarbonite bubble...and in one super secerete location there is only one thermoset set exactly at 67.5 degrees ...to bad world live with it

67.5 is fine if you don't want polar bears, reindeer, peanut butter, bananas or cotton. What these people can't tell you is what is the ideal temperature or how much rain we should have. It's like they've decided that the average temperature should be what it was in, say March 31, 1948, the date of their titular messiah's birth. why not set our benchmark at 500 million years ago when global temperature was about 8 degrees higher and life went through an explosion of diversity. Obviously global temperatures were more favorable for more species then than at any time since.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus

Actually no. I don't believe a word you say, sir.

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES
Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2

• 
  
  American Association for the Advancement of Science
  "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3
• 
  
  American Chemical Society
  "Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4
• 
  
  American Geophysical Union
  "Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5
• 
  
  American Medical Association
  "Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6
• 
  
  American Meteorological Society
  "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7
• 
  
  American Physical Society
  "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8
• 
  
  The Geological Society of America
  "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." (2006; revised 2010)9

SCIENCE ACADEMIES
International academies: Joint statement
"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10

• 
  
  U.S. National Academy of Sciences
  "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11

U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

• 
  
  U.S. Global Change Research Program
  "The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12

INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES

• 
  
  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
  “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”13
  
  “Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.”14

OTHER RESOURCES
List of worldwide scientific organizations
The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

U.S. agencies
The following page contains information on what federal agencies are doing to adapt to climate change.
http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/federal-agencies-adaptation.pdf

And your links?

Oh looky here... a moonbat dropped a bunch of shit and claims that they prove global warming by their political statements...

Your appeals to you make believe authorities is bull shit Old Fraud.. It reminds me of an idiot who is told the bottle doesn't contain poison, the empirical evidence of the labels says it does, and yet the idiot believes the fantasy and drinks the bottle any way, cause they said it was ok and were in consensus... And they were the authorities...

What a moron.

Old Rocks? I agree.

Très amusant

It's BillyBob (and the like) who is the moron,

I see the parrot now has a parrot of his own.... Esmerelda want a cracker? moron!

 

[ding]

On what basis do you reject the work of thousands of scientists over decades of research and study? Blog posts from right wing journalists?

Let's see... this...

"One of the most vivid predictions of global warming theory is a “hotspot” in the tropical upper troposphere, where increased tropical convection responding to warming sea surface temperatures (SSTs) is supposed to cause enhanced warming in the upper troposphere.

The trouble is that radiosonde (weather ballons) and satellites have failed to show evidence of a hotspot forming in recent decades. Instead, upper tropospheric warming approximately the same as surface warming has been observed...."

"...Note that the linear warming trend in the UT product (+0.07 C/decade, bright red trend line) is less than the HadSST3 sea surface temperature trend (light green, +0.10 C/decade) for the same 20N-20S latitude band, whereas theory would suggest it should be about twice as large (+0.20 C/decade).

And what is really striking in the above plot is how strong the climate models’ average warming trend over the tropical oceans is in the upper troposphere (+0.35 C/decade, dark red), which I calculate to be about 1.89 times the models’ average surface trend (+0.19 C/decade, dark green). This ratio of 1.89 is based upon the UT weighting function applied to the model average temperature trend profile from the surface to 100 mb (16 km) altitude.

So, what we see is that the models are off by about a factor of 2 on surface warming, but maybe by a factor of 5 (!) for upper tropospheric warming.

This is all preliminary, of course, since we still must submit our Version 6 paper for publication. So, make of it what you will.

But I am increasingly convinced that the hotspot really has gone missing. And the reason why (I still believe) is most likely related to water vapor feedback and precipitation processes, which largely govern the total heat budget of the free-troposphere (the layer above the turbulently mixed boundary layer).

I believe the missing hotspot is indirect evidence that upper tropospheric water vapor is not increasing, and so upper tropospheric water vapor (the most important layer for water vapor feedback) is not amplifying warming from increasing CO2. The fact that UT warming is indeed amplified — by about a factor of 2 — during El Nino events in the above plot might be related to the relatively short time scales involved, since convective heating and radiative cooling are far out of balance during short term variations, but are much closer to being balanced in the long-term with global warming.

The lack of positive water vapor feedback is an especially controversial assertion to make, given that (1) SSM/I satellite measurements of water vapor have indeed been increasing in lock-step with SST warming, and (2) probably a unanimous opinion in the IPCC climate community that water vapor feedback is positive.

But the SSM/I measurements are largely insensitive to the very low levels of upper tropospheric water vapor, so they can’t tell us anything about upper tropospheric vapor. And while lower-tropospherc water vapor is governed mostly by SST, upper tropospheric vapor is governed by precipitation processes, and we don’t even understand how those might change with warming, let alone have those physics included in climate models.

Instead, I suspect the models have been adjusted so that precipitation systems detrain more water vapor into the upper troposphere with warming, simply because that’s what we see on short time scales, say during El Nino events, and so the convective parameterizations in the models are adjusted to meet that expectation..."

New Satellite Upper Troposphere Product: Still No Tropical “Hotspot” « Roy Spencer, PhD

 

[ding]

On what basis do you reject the work of thousands of scientists over decades of research and study? Blog posts from right wing journalists?

And this...

Global Warming : Feature Articles

Which shows that our TEMPERATURE today is still within the normal range of an interglacial cycle and that during interglacial cycles there is a saw tooth behavior of temperatures where the temperature can fall and then increase just like we have seen for the past 1000 years.

Wow... doesn't that look like we have a problem!!!!

Not really. It is all part of a natural cycle that has been occurring for the past 400,000 years.