What is the IPCC

The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Climate Change

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 (2011), 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 twenty-first century will result in significant 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.

Purpose
This position statement (1) summarizes the strengthened basis for the conclusion that humans are a major factor responsible for recent global warming; (2) describes the significant effects on humans and ecosystems as greenhouse-gas concentrations and global climate reach projected levels; and (3) provides information for policy decisions guiding mitigation and adaptation strategies designed to address the future impacts of anthropogenic warming.

One of the larger Scientific Societies concerned with earth sciences.
You sure do love promoting the lies, don't you? :cuckoo: :eusa_liar: :laugh:
 
You are so full of Bullwinkle, I got my tractor shoes on. BOTH the Mann study and the Marcott study are "hockey sticks"

Marcott 2013. Does this look like a hockey stick to anyone out there?

regemcrufull.jpg

And do note - if you're suddenly ready to join up with the rest of western civilizationas to what constitutes the defining characteristic of a hockey stick - that the spike on the right end is clearly identified as being HadCRUT4 and not Marcott.

. Let's remove all of OUR subjective analysis and listen to how Marcott compared their results to the Mann results in the paper that accompanied their work..

Let s play hockey again Climate Etc.

Yes, let's be completely objective by going to the Queen of Deniers. But don't fret about it. I would have expected no less from you.

The paper contains a comparison in Figure 1B to a version of the TAR hockey stick chart in which the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) disappeared, and ‘Mike’s Nature trick’ was used to ‘hide the [recent proxy] decline’ by pasting in thermometer temperatures. The paper found good agreement of their reconstruction with Mann et al.’s previous reconstructions: indistiguishable within uncertainty”.

And what, precisely is your complaint? His proxy data lines up with newer proxy data and modern instrument data. You've got a problem with that?

The difference between them is that Marcott/Shakun made their process more transparent and Marcott later publicly acknowledged that his work had limitations in it that would make the "unprecendented warming" claim invalid (laughable), whereas Mann is a unrepentant fraud and BullWinkle artist who got caught fudging his cut and paste propaganda piece and juggling tree rings to force a result.

Marcott, Shakun and Mann have all produced excellent work. Certainly better than anything folks on your side have put out. For that matter, has anyone on YOUR side of the argument EVER put out data covering a similar period? And, your ability to accurately quote is questionable. Marcott never said that modern temperature trends were unprecedented in the Holocene. He said they were unprecedented in the last 1500 years, and they are. The pertinent line from Marcott's abstract states "Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history.". You need to stop lying.

Whatever this "instrumented data" is that you think Mann used that makes his shady work more viable is a figment of your imagination...

So, you don't understand a simple data graph.

The link I gave goes on to say...

That is, Judith Curry goes on to say...

How has the MWP almost disappeared again, just in time to perhaps go missing in IPCC AR5? Science’ supplemental information says the average resolution of the 73 paleoclimate series is 160 years, and the median is 120.
The proxy selection was deliberately weighted toward ‘low frequency’ resolution, since the entire Holocene was being assessed. Figure S18c (below) shows there is no statistically valid resolution to the combined proxy set for anything less than 300-year periods. [“Gain” was defined as the ratio of output variance to input white noise in simulations ‘stressing’ combined proxy statistical reliability. In other words, for periods less than three hundred years, white noise in is white noise out (no matter whether the Monte Carlo sampling interval is 20 or 120 years) while for periods over 2000 years the output is about 90% ‘valid’ signal.] The paper itself said, “…our temperature stack does not fully resolve variability at periods shorter than 2000 years…”

Bless their little hearts (Marcott/Shakun) for admitting that their paper was misinterpreted by the AGW regime. At least they WARNED the folks who cared to check on the details..

Mann et al simply didn't care about being used as a tool.. Those days are over Rover.

It apparently doesn't matter to you whether someone is correct or mistaken, whether they are telling the truth or lying. If they present information supportive of AGW, you will attack them. If they attack AGW, you will accept them. And you accuse me ignoring conflicting evidence. You are truly pathetic.
 
Last edited:
Wildcard, what are your arguements? Who supports your position? Other than obese junkies on the AM radio, fake British Lords, and undegreed ex-TV weathermen?
 
The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Climate Change

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 (2011), 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 twenty-first century will result in significant 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.

Purpose
This position statement (1) summarizes the strengthened basis for the conclusion that humans are a major factor responsible for recent global warming; (2) describes the significant effects on humans and ecosystems as greenhouse-gas concentrations and global climate reach projected levels; and (3) provides information for policy decisions guiding mitigation and adaptation strategies designed to address the future impacts of anthropogenic warming.

One of the larger Scientific Societies concerned with earth sciences.
You sure do love promoting the lies, don't you? :cuckoo: :eusa_liar: :laugh:
And you love to flap a lying yap, with zero support for your arguements. By the way, I thought that this was a Zone 2 now, or do those rules only apply to those that recognize science?

http://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2013/07/AGU-Climate-Change-Position-Statement_August-2013.pdf

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.
Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric
concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat‐trapping greenhouse gases have increased
sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase.
Human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed
global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because
natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide)
from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate
system for millennia.
Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These
observations show large‐scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and
atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers,
snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with long‐
understood physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to
human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with
explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences.
 
The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Climate Change

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 (2011), 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 twenty-first century will result in significant 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.

Purpose
This position statement (1) summarizes the strengthened basis for the conclusion that humans are a major factor responsible for recent global warming; (2) describes the significant effects on humans and ecosystems as greenhouse-gas concentrations and global climate reach projected levels; and (3) provides information for policy decisions guiding mitigation and adaptation strategies designed to address the future impacts of anthropogenic warming.

One of the larger Scientific Societies concerned with earth sciences.
You sure do love promoting the lies, don't you? :cuckoo: :eusa_liar: :laugh:
And you love to flap a lying yap, with zero support for your arguements. By the way, I thought that this was a Zone 2 now, or do those rules only apply to those that recognize science?

http://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2013/07/AGU-Climate-Change-Position-Statement_August-2013.pdf

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.
Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric
concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat‐trapping greenhouse gases have increased
sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase.
Human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed
global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because
natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide)
from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate
system for millennia.
Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These
observations show large‐scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and
atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers,
snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with long‐
understood physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to
human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with
explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences.

:blahblah::blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah:
 
FCT said:
I'm done "showing" you stuff.

Of course you are; because you never had anything to show me in the first place. If you actually had anything significant to put forth, it would be a peer reviewed paper or at least a white paper or signed response by qualified individuals. But you've never had such things. You've given us your own personal arguments. You've quoted denier blogs. You've attacked the names you were told to attack. If you actually had valid support for your arguments, you could identify them in a good deal less space than this disclaimer - a disclaimer I've seen more of from you than anything resembling real support.

FCT said:
Because you CHOOSE to ignore everything that doesn't support your preconceived notions.

It's a sad truth that, to varying degrees, everyone pays less attention to conflicting information than they do to affirming information. You and yours certainly are in no position to claim immunity from such habits. However, I - and others like me - have an advantage. Since I base my opinion on the majority opinion of the experts in this field, the viewpoints I adopt have survived - or are the product of - thousands and thousand of opportunities to objectively examine such conflicting information. Were I applying only my own feeble intellect to this issue, there would exist a far greater chance that those innate biases would prevent me from seeing all sides of the picture, from seeing the mistakes I may have made or the crucial points I had overlooked. Take your opinion for instance. It's never been widely held among climate scientists, has it. It's based almost entirely on your own thinking, isn't it. Who is it, then, that has prevented you from making this particular, commonplace mistake?

FCT said:
Much like you ignore the preconcieved Mission Statement of the IPCC which I've told you about NUMEROUS times.

I'm beginning to wonder about you. I haven't been here for a month and you hadn't been in this forum for a great deal further back than that. When and where are you claiming to have told me your theories regarding the IPCC mission statement? For that matter, where on Earth did you ever get the idea that anyone would be impressed with such fantasies? The IPCC was formed to investiage human-caused global warming. There is no conspiracy. There is no more innate bias in this than exists in the investigation of ANY hypothesis.
FCT said:
And 2 weeks from now you will pretend you've never about it.

There'll be no pretending. Two weeks from now I will still hold, correctly, that your point is meaningless drivel.

FCT said:
Same deal with the hockey stick graphs. I've repeatedly given you the words of climatologists who have been involved in their making. Words that acknowledge there is insufficient temporal resolution in a Global proxy study to even begin to see 100 or 200 year events. Never mind 50 or 60 year events like our current observations.

Really? You and I have some interestingly divergent recollections. The only place I recall discussing temporal resolution with anyone on this forum (and not actually with you) is in the Holocene work of Shakun and Marcott. Temporal resolution has never been an issue with MBH 98 or any of its descendants and Jeremy Shakun and Shaun Marcott did not produce hockey stick graphs. Just so you avoid such embarrassing mistakes in the future, though, the span of a dataset does not control its temporal resolution. MBH 98's proxy data has far better resolution than 100 to 200 years and the 20th century spike in that graph is instrument data, not proxies.

FCT said:
Nonetheless -- you CONTINUE to post them and pretend to have never heard such criticisms.

You're almost funny. I continue to post them because you have consistently failed to create in me the slightest doubt as to their validity; by ANY of the arguments you have ever presented.

FCT said:
My take is that you've heard them, but since you have so much trouble with really simple charts and data -- you just don't understand any of it.

Of course I've heard them. At least the ones you actually made and that I actually read. For the last 32 years I have been collecting data - hundreds of thousands of records per event, performing calculations with the collected data, performing statistical analyses on those results, assembling the data (in graphic and tabular formats) and my comments into reports and publishing it to appropriate government agencies and naval commands. What have you been doing? Sitting in front of your computer arguing with the other retirees?

FCT said:
Those hockeysticks are a literal "cut and paste" construct designed to get stupid folks to infer that the current warming data is "unprecendented".

The current warming rate is unprecedented in human history. The current CO2 spike is unprecedented in millions of years. We're not the ones being stupid.

FCT said:
One of your favorite words --- aint it Bullwinkle? There's only one thing unprecedented about this.. And that's the amount of time you've wasted throwing a juvenile hissyfit and making no real points or progress with your cause.
Ah... I should have read ahead. I didn't realize you were talking to someone else.

FCT said:
Tell me in your own words how a math process with a time resolution of several hundred years shows an accurate representation of a 50 yr spike at its right side. And what that sucky cumulative resolution would do to an event like the Med. Warm Period.

Otherwise -- I'm done with your "memory" issues..

Well, if I was this Bullwinkle person, I'd ask you what "math process" you're talking about and to explain where you got the idea that the instrumented data of MBH 98 has a time resolution of several hundred years.
Wow, so many words that says nothing holy crap
 
You are so full of Bullwinkle, I got my tractor shoes on. BOTH the Mann study and the Marcott study are "hockey sticks"

Marcott 2013. Does this look like a hockey stick to anyone out there?

regemcrufull.jpg

And do note - if you're suddenly ready to join up with the rest of western civilizationas to what constitutes the defining characteristic of a hockey stick - that the spike on the right end is clearly identified as being HadCRUT4 and not Marcott.

. Let's remove all of OUR subjective analysis and listen to how Marcott compared their results to the Mann results in the paper that accompanied their work..

Let s play hockey again Climate Etc.

Yes, let's be completely objective by going to the Queen of Deniers. But don't fret about it. I would have expected no less from you.

The paper contains a comparison in Figure 1B to a version of the TAR hockey stick chart in which the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) disappeared, and ‘Mike’s Nature trick’ was used to ‘hide the [recent proxy] decline’ by pasting in thermometer temperatures. The paper found good agreement of their reconstruction with Mann et al.’s previous reconstructions: indistiguishable within uncertainty”.

And what, precisely is your complaint? His proxy data lines up with newer proxy data and modern instrument data. You've got a problem with that?

The difference between them is that Marcott/Shakun made their process more transparent and Marcott later publicly acknowledged that his work had limitations in it that would make the "unprecendented warming" claim invalid (laughable), whereas Mann is a unrepentant fraud and BullWinkle artist who got caught fudging his cut and paste propaganda piece and juggling tree rings to force a result.

Marcott, Shakun and Mann have all produced excellent work. Certainly better than anything folks on your side have put out. For that matter, has anyone on YOUR side of the argument EVER put out data covering a similar period? And, your ability to accurately quote is questionable. Marcott never said that modern temperature trends were unprecedented in the Holocene. He said they were unprecedented in the last 1500 years, and they are. The pertinent line from Marcott's abstract states "Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history.". You need to stop lying.

Whatever this "instrumented data" is that you think Mann used that makes his shady work more viable is a figment of your imagination...

So, you don't understand a simple data graph.

The link I gave goes on to say...

That is, Judith Curry goes on to say...

How has the MWP almost disappeared again, just in time to perhaps go missing in IPCC AR5? Science’ supplemental information says the average resolution of the 73 paleoclimate series is 160 years, and the median is 120.
The proxy selection was deliberately weighted toward ‘low frequency’ resolution, since the entire Holocene was being assessed. Figure S18c (below) shows there is no statistically valid resolution to the combined proxy set for anything less than 300-year periods. [“Gain” was defined as the ratio of output variance to input white noise in simulations ‘stressing’ combined proxy statistical reliability. In other words, for periods less than three hundred years, white noise in is white noise out (no matter whether the Monte Carlo sampling interval is 20 or 120 years) while for periods over 2000 years the output is about 90% ‘valid’ signal.] The paper itself said, “…our temperature stack does not fully resolve variability at periods shorter than 2000 years…”

Bless their little hearts (Marcott/Shakun) for admitting that their paper was misinterpreted by the AGW regime. At least they WARNED the folks who cared to check on the details..

Mann et al simply didn't care about being used as a tool.. Those days are over Rover.

It apparently doesn't matter to you whether someone is correct or mistaken, whether they are telling the truth or lying. If they present information supportive of AGW, you will attack them. If they attack AGW, you will accept them. And you accuse me ignoring conflicting evidence. You are truly pathetic.


Someone owes me a steak dinner. All that went right over his head. All he sees Iis that the historical proxy data "lines up" withe cut and pasted thermometer data. Future education is futile. Like trying to reason with one of those end of the worlders. Doesnt understand the change in horizontal scalinng between The 2 different studies. Cant find the mann hockey stick in IDENTICAL data.. This guy cannot read a simple graph but wants to convince me how noble and honest the IPCC process is.
 
The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Climate Change

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 (2011), 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 twenty-first century will result in significant 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.

Purpose
This position statement (1) summarizes the strengthened basis for the conclusion that humans are a major factor responsible for recent global warming; (2) describes the significant effects on humans and ecosystems as greenhouse-gas concentrations and global climate reach projected levels; and (3) provides information for policy decisions guiding mitigation and adaptation strategies designed to address the future impacts of anthropogenic warming.

One of the larger Scientific Societies concerned with earth sciences.
You sure do love promoting the lies, don't you? :cuckoo: :eusa_liar: :laugh:
And you love to flap a lying yap, with zero support for your arguements. By the way, I thought that this was a Zone 2 now, or do those rules only apply to those that recognize science?

http://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2013/07/AGU-Climate-Change-Position-Statement_August-2013.pdf

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.
Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric
concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat‐trapping greenhouse gases have increased
sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase.
Human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed
global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because
natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide)
from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate
system for millennia.
Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These
observations show large‐scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and
atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers,
snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with long‐
understood physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to
human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with
explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences.

And yet when the members of the Australian Geo Society demanded they be involved in drafting their new CC statement, the debate got so contentious that the Society DECLINED to issue a new one. ORocks should understand the difference between front office political statements and scientific consensus. Members join these societies for discounts on conferences and car rentals and dental insurance for the most part. But they will push back when the organization goes rouge with statements and positions.
 
Someone owes me a steak dinner.

No one owes you jack shit.

All that went right over his head. All he sees Iis that the historical proxy data "lines up" withe cut and pasted thermometer data.

What was it you were hoping I'd see there? That proxy data for the last ten thousand years doesn't manufacture a huge spike for the MWP? Who the fuck cares about the MWP? I know you do - what else have you got? But with regards to the current situation, the MWP doesn't mean a god damned thing.

Like trying to reason with one of those end of the worlders. Doesnt understand the change in horizontal scalinng between The 2 different studies. Cant find the mann hockey stick in IDENTICAL data.. This guy cannot read a simple graph but wants to convince me how noble and honest the IPCC process is.

You've got nothing. You never did. You never will.
 
Last edited:
Wildcard, all you have presented is stupid cartoons and unsupported flap yap. How about some evidence from real scientists, presented in a peer reviewed journal. You do know what those are, right?
Why don't you?
 
Someone owes me a steak dinner.

No one owes you jack shit.

All that went right over his head. All he sees Iis that the historical proxy data "lines up" withe cut and pasted thermometer data.

What was it you were hoping I'd see there? That proxy data for the last ten thousand years doesn't manufacture a huge spike for the MWP? Who the fuck cares about the MWP? I know you do - what else have you got? But with regards to the current situation, the MWP doesn't mean a god damned thing.

Like trying to reason with one of those end of the worlders. Doesnt understand the change in horizontal scalinng between The 2 different studies. Cant find the mann hockey stick in IDENTICAL data.. This guy cannot read a simple graph but wants to convince me how noble and honest the IPCC process is.

You've got nothing. You never did. You never will.
Ditto to you
 
Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Consensus

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




    • 476_AAAS_320x240.jpg

      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
    • 478_americanchemicalsociety_320x240.jpg

      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
    • 479_americangeophysicalunion_320x240.jpg

      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
    • 480_americanmedicalassociation_320x240.jpg

      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
    • 481_americanmeteorologicalsociety_320x240.jpg

      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
    • 482_americanphysicalsociety_320x240.jpg

      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
    • 484_geologicalsocietyamerica_320x240.jpg

      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




    • 485_nationalacademyscience_320x240.jpg

      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



    • 486_usgcrp_320x240.jpg

      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
So, you just know so much more than all of these scientists.
Dude, you can post all that shit everyday till eternity and it doesn't mean shit and you've been told that repeatedly. Just shows who walks with stupid daily. Don't forget to feed it
 
Someone owes me a steak dinner.

No one owes you jack shit.

All that went right over his head. All he sees Iis that the historical proxy data "lines up" withe cut and pasted thermometer data.

What was it you were hoping I'd see there? That proxy data for the last ten thousand years doesn't manufacture a huge spike for the MWP? Who the fuck cares about the MWP? I know you do - what else have you got? But with regards to the current situation, the MWP doesn't mean a god damned thing.

Like trying to reason with one of those end of the worlders. Doesnt understand the change in horizontal scalinng between The 2 different studies. Cant find the mann hockey stick in IDENTICAL data.. This guy cannot read a simple graph but wants to convince me how noble and honest the IPCC process is.

You've got nothing. You never did. You never will.
Then don't expect to reach a conclusion here
 
Oh, I think that most people of any intellect at all have reached a conclusion concerning yours. Evidence was asked for, evidence was presented. And all you returned was useless flap yap. The IPCC is in line with all the evidence presented by the scientists. You fellows are simply denying the obvious, and making fools of yourselves.
 
Oh, I think that most people of any intellect at all have reached a conclusion concerning yours. Evidence was asked for, evidence was presented. And all you returned was useless flap yap. The IPCC is in line with all the evidence presented by the scientists. You fellows are simply denying the obvious, and making fools of yourselves.
What evidence? I was told you can't provide any. So dude you didn't
 
Oh, I think that most people of any intellect at all have reached a conclusion concerning yours. Evidence was asked for, evidence was presented. And all you returned was useless flap yap. The IPCC is in line with all the evidence presented by the scientists. You fellows are simply denying the obvious, and making fools of yourselves.

What "Evidence" did you present?
 
Oh, I think that most people of any intellect at all have reached a conclusion concerning yours. Evidence was asked for, evidence was presented. And all you returned was useless flap yap. The IPCC is in line with all the evidence presented by the scientists. You fellows are simply denying the obvious, and making fools of yourselves.

IPCC admitted AGW is a scam to redistribute wealth
 

Forum List

Back
Top