13 agency report says humans are the dominant cause for climate change

[skookerasbil]

When you are losing, you come up with these kind of bomb thrower reports. Wont matter for dick just like all the other similar reports over the last dozen years. Think about it.......did any of them change the dynamic in the real world ( outside of the little alarmist science club )??? Nope........it throws a bone to the k00ks who get giddy every time they see one but then nothing changes!!!. Its like Linus sitting in the Pumpkin Patch for these people s0ns......

Western governments in charge of energy policy aren't caring.............fossil fuels continue to DOMINATE and will for decades according to any projection outside of a green energy industry projection. But don't take my word for it........check it out for yourself.

 

[elektra]

It is a shame the government could not state what they found with one agency, what an incredible waste of money, to pay 13 different agencies to do the same thing?

 

[Old Rocks]

The thing that people in the AGW community just can't seem to understand is that for those of us that love science nothing is more infuriating than listening to people say they "definitively" know something when everyone knows they don't.

The fact is that when a direct question is asked, "what percentage of global warming is due to man and what percentage is due to natural variation", anyone that answers with anything except "we don't know", is lying. You'll usually hear things like "we believe", which is fine as a starting point to learn more. It is not scientifically "definitive". This is supposed to be science not politics.

And your background in science is what? How many 200 level courses have you taken in any discipline in science?

 

[Old Rocks]

Nuclear weapons are way off the topic. Nice job of derailing the thread.

There is no other source for the majority of the CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere, other than human activity. We know from geological history what the Earth's climate was the last time the GHG's were this high. And we know that times of very rapid increases in GHG's and temperature were times of extinctions from the same record. All of the Scientific Societies, all of the National Academies of Science, and all the major universities have policy statements stating that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. So what the deniers here are claiming is that there is a grand conspiracy involving almost all the scientists in the world, from all the different nations and cultures, as well as political backgrounds. Tin hats, anyone? LOL

That's total bullpoo and you know it. Mankind contributes less than 5% of the entire global CO2 budget. Where the hell do you read that crap? CH4 is likewise mainly NATURAL. Mankind contributing, once again, a paltry amount.

Again, you are one fucked up liar. Natural level was 280 ppm of CO2 and between 700 and 800 ppb of CH4. The present levels are over 400 ppm of CO2 and over 1800 ppb of CH4. And we are responsible for 100% of the increase.

Contributions to accelerating atmospheric CO2 growth from economic activity, carbon intensity, and efficiency of natural sinks

1. Josep G. Canadell a , b ,
2. Corinne Le Quéré c , d ,
3. Michael R. Raupach a ,
4. Christopher B. Field e ,
5. Erik T. Buitenhuis c ,
6. Philippe Ciais f ,
7. Thomas J. Conway g ,
8. Nathan P. Gillett c ,
9. R. A. Houghton h , and
10. Gregg Marland i ,

Abstract
The growth rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), the largest human contributor to human-induced climate change, is increasing rapidly. Three processes contribute to this rapid increase. Two of these processes concern emissions. Recent growth of the world economy combined with an increase in its carbon intensity have led to rapid growth in fossil fuel CO2 emissions since 2000: comparing the 1990s with 2000–2006, the emissions growth rate increased from 1.3% to 3.3% y −1. The third process is indicated by increasing evidence (P = 0.89) for a long-term (50-year) increase in the airborne fraction (AF) of CO2emissions, implying a decline in the efficiency of CO2 sinks on land and oceans in absorbing anthropogenic emissions. Since 2000, the contributions of these three factors to the increase in the atmospheric CO2growth rate have been ≈65 ± 16% from increasing global economic activity, 17 ± 6% from the increasing carbon intensity of the global economy, and 18 ± 15% from the increase in AF. An increasing AF is consistent with results of climate–carbon cycle models, but the magnitude of the observed signal appears larger than that estimated by models. All of these changes characterize a carbon cycle that is generating stronger-than-expected and sooner-than-expected climate forcing.

Contributions to accelerating atmospheric CO2 growth from economic activity, carbon intensity, and efficiency of natural sinks

And that is the National Academy of Science publishing this study, not some fake that never even had a degree, was just a fake weatherman on a TV station.

 

[baileyn45]

The thing that people in the AGW community just can't seem to understand is that for those of us that love science nothing is more infuriating than listening to people say they "definitively" know something when everyone knows they don't.

The fact is that when a direct question is asked, "what percentage of global warming is due to man and what percentage is due to natural variation", anyone that answers with anything except "we don't know", is lying. You'll usually hear things like "we believe", which is fine as a starting point to learn more. It is not scientifically "definitive". This is supposed to be science not politics.

And your background in science is what? How many 200 level courses have you taken in any discipline in science?

Typical leftist response, attack the speaker not the point being made. By all means find me a credible source that will state the percentage of global warming that is manmade and the percentage that is natural variation. The fact is there aren't any, period.

 

[Old Rocks]

The thing that people in the AGW community just can't seem to understand is that for those of us that love science nothing is more infuriating than listening to people say they "definitively" know something when everyone knows they don't.

The fact is that when a direct question is asked, "what percentage of global warming is due to man and what percentage is due to natural variation", anyone that answers with anything except "we don't know", is lying. You'll usually hear things like "we believe", which is fine as a starting point to learn more. It is not scientifically "definitive". This is supposed to be science not politics.

And your background in science is what? How many 200 level courses have you taken in any discipline in science?

Typical leftist response, attack the speaker not the point being made. By all means find me a credible source that will state the percentage of global warming that is manmade and the percentage that is natural variation. The fact is there aren't any, period.

Fellow, it was posted in post #44. That your comprehension level is on a third grade level is hardly anyone's fault but yours.

 

[skookerasbil]

Next time this report comes out it'll be 2 dozen agencies. Maybe more!! But could somebody tell me who is actually caring?

The thing that people in the AGW community just can't seem to understand is that for those of us that love science nothing is more infuriating than listening to people say they "definitively" know something when everyone knows they don't.

The fact is that when a direct question is asked, "what percentage of global warming is due to man and what percentage is due to natural variation", anyone that answers with anything except "we don't know", is lying. You'll usually hear things like "we believe", which is fine as a starting point to learn more. It is not scientifically "definitive". This is supposed to be science not politics.

And your background in science is what? How many 200 level courses have you taken in any discipline in science?

Typical leftist response, attack the speaker not the point being made. By all means find me a credible source that will state the percentage of global warming that is manmade and the percentage that is natural variation. The fact is there aren't any, period.

Happens all the time in here.......the sourcing could be right there in your face when you click on the link but it NEVER matters to these people. IDK.....not the way I operate and anybody who is in a message board isn't going to fall for the fakery. Might work on the dumbass uninformed of society, but not in here. For example, I'll post up an article from Breitbart on peer reviewed science that doesn't fit the narrative and the only response I get is, "Oh well.......good try, its Breitbart!". But anybody who is paying attention in here can see that the skeptics dominate the information landscape! How does one know? Because every regular alarmist in this forum is perpetually angry and miserable in their posts while the skeptics are always laughing their asses off!!

 

[baileyn45]

The thing that people in the AGW community just can't seem to understand is that for those of us that love science nothing is more infuriating than listening to people say they "definitively" know something when everyone knows they don't.

The fact is that when a direct question is asked, "what percentage of global warming is due to man and what percentage is due to natural variation", anyone that answers with anything except "we don't know", is lying. You'll usually hear things like "we believe", which is fine as a starting point to learn more. It is not scientifically "definitive". This is supposed to be science not politics.

And your background in science is what? How many 200 level courses have you taken in any discipline in science?

Typical leftist response, attack the speaker not the point being made. By all means find me a credible source that will state the percentage of global warming that is manmade and the percentage that is natural variation. The fact is there aren't any, period.

Fellow, it was posted in post #44. That your comprehension level is on a third grade level is hardly anyone's fault but yours.

Apparently my reading comprehension skills are better than yours. The paper states...

"The growth rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), the largest human contributor to human-induced climate change"

...then proceeds to show evidence of the increase. They then proceed to offer zero evidence that the CO2 is indeed the driving force.

No one is disputing rising CO2 levels. The question remains as to whether or not that is the sole factor driving climate change or even the predominant factor. This paper does not even touch on the subject.

 

[baileyn45]

Next time this report comes out it'll be 2 dozen agencies. Maybe more!! But could somebody tell me who is actually caring?

The thing that people in the AGW community just can't seem to understand is that for those of us that love science nothing is more infuriating than listening to people say they "definitively" know something when everyone knows they don't.

The fact is that when a direct question is asked, "what percentage of global warming is due to man and what percentage is due to natural variation", anyone that answers with anything except "we don't know", is lying. You'll usually hear things like "we believe", which is fine as a starting point to learn more. It is not scientifically "definitive". This is supposed to be science not politics.

And your background in science is what? How many 200 level courses have you taken in any discipline in science?

Typical leftist response, attack the speaker not the point being made. By all means find me a credible source that will state the percentage of global warming that is manmade and the percentage that is natural variation. The fact is there aren't any, period.

Happens all the time in here.......the sourcing could be right there in your face when you click on the link but it NEVER matters to these people. IDK.....not the way I operate and anybody who is in a message board isn't going to fall for the fakery. Might work on the dumbass uninformed of society, but not in here. For example, I'll post up an article from Breitbart on peer reviewed science that doesn't fit the narrative and the only response I get is, "Oh well.......good try, its Breitbart!". But anybody who is paying attention in here can see that the skeptics dominate the information landscape! How does one know? Because every regular alarmist in this forum is perpetually angry and miserable in their posts while the skeptics are always laughing their asses off!!

To me science is all about being a skeptic. People just can't seem to comprehend that science is supposed to be held to a higher standard than "I believe" or "that makes sense". I'm listening to scientists who are studying the sun that openly state that they are barely in the infancy of their studies, meanwhile climatologists act as if they know exactly how solar cycles affect the climate. I'm also listening to physicists and planetary scientists that are saying that from what they understand about the properties of CO2, CO2 can't be the primary culprit. And yet this is supposed to be "settled science"?

I always go back to my favorite quote about science, "What do scientists know? More than you do and less than they think".

 

[Old Rocks]

Really? So link us to some of those 'scientists'. In the meantime;

[0804.1126] Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim?

Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim?
J. Hansen (1 and 2), M. Sato (1 and 2), P. Kharecha (1 and 2), D. Beerling (3), R. Berner (4), V. Masson-Delmotte (5), M. Pagani (4), M. Raymo (6), D. L. Royer (7), J. C. Zachos (8) ((1) NASA GISS, (2) Columbia Univ. Earth Institute, (3) Univ. Sheffield, (4) Yale Univ., (5) LSCE/IPSL, (6) Boston Univ., (7) Wesleyan Univ., (8) Univ. California Santa Cruz)
(Submitted on 7 Apr 2008 (v1), last revised 15 Oct 2008 (this version, v3))
Paleoclimate data show that climate sensitivity is ~3 deg-C for doubled CO2, including only fast feedback processes. Equilibrium sensitivity, including slower surface albedo feedbacks, is ~6 deg-C for doubled CO2 for the range of climate states between glacial conditions and ice-free Antarctica. Decreasing CO2 was the main cause of a cooling trend that began 50 million years ago, large scale glaciation occurring when CO2 fell to 450 +/- 100 ppm, a level that will be exceeded within decades, barring prompt policy changes. If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm. The largest uncertainty in the target arises from possible changes of non-CO2 forcings. An initial 350 ppm CO2 target may be achievable by phasing out coal use except where CO2 is captured and adopting agricultural and forestry practices that sequester carbon. If the present overshoot of this target CO2 is not brief, there is a possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects

 

[gipper]

The thing that people in the AGW community just can't seem to understand is that for those of us that love science nothing is more infuriating than listening to people say they "definitively" know something when everyone knows they don't.

The fact is that when a direct question is asked, "what percentage of global warming is due to man and what percentage is due to natural variation", anyone that answers with anything except "we don't know", is lying. You'll usually hear things like "we believe", which is fine as a starting point to learn more. It is not scientifically "definitive". This is supposed to be science not politics.

And your background in science is what? How many 200 level courses have you taken in any discipline in science?

Typical leftist response, attack the speaker not the point being made. By all means find me a credible source that will state the percentage of global warming that is manmade and the percentage that is natural variation. The fact is there aren't any, period.

They will just make it up and our old dofus OldCrock will believe.

 

[Old Rocks]

Lifetime of Anthropogenic Climate Change: Millennial Time Scales of Potential CO2 and Surface Temperature Perturbations


M. Eby, K. Zickfeld, and A. MontenegroSchool of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
D. ArcherDepartment of the Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
K. J. Meissner and A. J. WeaverSchool of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

Abstract
Multimillennial simulations with a fully coupled climate–carbon cycle model are examined to assess the persistence of the climatic impacts of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. It is found that the time required to absorb anthropogenic CO2 strongly depends on the total amount of emissions; for emissions similar to known fossil fuel reserves, the time to absorb 50% of the CO2 is more than 2000 yr. The long-term climate response appears to be independent of the rate at which CO2 is emitted over the next few centuries. Results further suggest that the lifetime of the surface air temperature anomaly might be as much as 60% longer than the lifetime of anthropogenic CO2 and that two-thirds of the maximum temperature anomaly will persist for longer than 10 000 yr. This suggests that the consequences of anthropogenic CO2 emissions will persist for many millennia.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008JCLI2554.1

It is not only the amount of CO2 that we put into the atmosphere that matters, but the time it takes to remove that CO2 from the atmosphere. And that looks like a very long time.

 

[Old Rocks]

The thing that people in the AGW community just can't seem to understand is that for those of us that love science nothing is more infuriating than listening to people say they "definitively" know something when everyone knows they don't.

The fact is that when a direct question is asked, "what percentage of global warming is due to man and what percentage is due to natural variation", anyone that answers with anything except "we don't know", is lying. You'll usually hear things like "we believe", which is fine as a starting point to learn more. It is not scientifically "definitive". This is supposed to be science not politics.

And your background in science is what? How many 200 level courses have you taken in any discipline in science?

Typical leftist response, attack the speaker not the point being made. By all means find me a credible source that will state the percentage of global warming that is manmade and the percentage that is natural variation. The fact is there aren't any, period.

They will just make it up and our old dofus OldCrock will believe.

No, the scientists are not brainless fools like you. They spend decades studying the subject, not a few minutes listening to some obese junkie on the AM radio.

 

[Old Rocks]

Next time this report comes out it'll be 2 dozen agencies. Maybe more!! But could somebody tell me who is actually caring?

The thing that people in the AGW community just can't seem to understand is that for those of us that love science nothing is more infuriating than listening to people say they "definitively" know something when everyone knows they don't.

The fact is that when a direct question is asked, "what percentage of global warming is due to man and what percentage is due to natural variation", anyone that answers with anything except "we don't know", is lying. You'll usually hear things like "we believe", which is fine as a starting point to learn more. It is not scientifically "definitive". This is supposed to be science not politics.

And your background in science is what? How many 200 level courses have you taken in any discipline in science?

Typical leftist response, attack the speaker not the point being made. By all means find me a credible source that will state the percentage of global warming that is manmade and the percentage that is natural variation. The fact is there aren't any, period.

Happens all the time in here.......the sourcing could be right there in your face when you click on the link but it NEVER matters to these people. IDK.....not the way I operate and anybody who is in a message board isn't going to fall for the fakery. Might work on the dumbass uninformed of society, but not in here. For example, I'll post up an article from Breitbart on peer reviewed science that doesn't fit the narrative and the only response I get is, "Oh well.......good try, its Breitbart!". But anybody who is paying attention in here can see that the skeptics dominate the information landscape! How does one know? Because every regular alarmist in this forum is perpetually angry and miserable in their posts while the skeptics are always laughing their asses off!!

To me science is all about being a skeptic. People just can't seem to comprehend that science is supposed to be held to a higher standard than "I believe" or "that makes sense". I'm listening to scientists who are studying the sun that openly state that they are barely in the infancy of their studies, meanwhile climatologists act as if they know exactly how solar cycles affect the climate. I'm also listening to physicists and planetary scientists that are saying that from what they understand about the properties of CO2, CO2 can't be the primary culprit. And yet this is supposed to be "settled science"?

I always go back to my favorite quote about science, "What do scientists know? More than you do and less than they think".

Ah yes, a skeptic. LOL A skeptic without any knowledge of the subject about which they are expressing skepticism. That is not a skeptic, that is an ignorant blowhard.

 

[gipper]

The thing that people in the AGW community just can't seem to understand is that for those of us that love science nothing is more infuriating than listening to people say they "definitively" know something when everyone knows they don't.

The fact is that when a direct question is asked, "what percentage of global warming is due to man and what percentage is due to natural variation", anyone that answers with anything except "we don't know", is lying. You'll usually hear things like "we believe", which is fine as a starting point to learn more. It is not scientifically "definitive". This is supposed to be science not politics.

And your background in science is what? How many 200 level courses have you taken in any discipline in science?

Typical leftist response, attack the speaker not the point being made. By all means find me a credible source that will state the percentage of global warming that is manmade and the percentage that is natural variation. The fact is there aren't any, period.

They will just make it up and our old dofus OldCrock will believe.

No, the scientists are not brainless fools like you. They spend decades studying the subject, not a few minutes listening to some obese junkie on the AM radio.

You will believe whatever Big Brother tells you.

We both know you would love an Orwellian society, where you would flourish.

Did you blow fat Albert Gore again this morning?

 

[skookerasbil]

Next time this report comes out it'll be 2 dozen agencies. Maybe more!! But could somebody tell me who is actually caring?

The thing that people in the AGW community just can't seem to understand is that for those of us that love science nothing is more infuriating than listening to people say they "definitively" know something when everyone knows they don't.

The fact is that when a direct question is asked, "what percentage of global warming is due to man and what percentage is due to natural variation", anyone that answers with anything except "we don't know", is lying. You'll usually hear things like "we believe", which is fine as a starting point to learn more. It is not scientifically "definitive". This is supposed to be science not politics.

And your background in science is what? How many 200 level courses have you taken in any discipline in science?

Typical leftist response, attack the speaker not the point being made. By all means find me a credible source that will state the percentage of global warming that is manmade and the percentage that is natural variation. The fact is there aren't any, period.

Happens all the time in here.......the sourcing could be right there in your face when you click on the link but it NEVER matters to these people. IDK.....not the way I operate and anybody who is in a message board isn't going to fall for the fakery. Might work on the dumbass uninformed of society, but not in here. For example, I'll post up an article from Breitbart on peer reviewed science that doesn't fit the narrative and the only response I get is, "Oh well.......good try, its Breitbart!". But anybody who is paying attention in here can see that the skeptics dominate the information landscape! How does one know? Because every regular alarmist in this forum is perpetually angry and miserable in their posts while the skeptics are always laughing their asses off!!

To me science is all about being a skeptic. People just can't seem to comprehend that science is supposed to be held to a higher standard than "I believe" or "that makes sense". I'm listening to scientists who are studying the sun that openly state that they are barely in the infancy of their studies, meanwhile climatologists act as if they know exactly how solar cycles affect the climate. I'm also listening to physicists and planetary scientists that are saying that from what they understand about the properties of CO2, CO2 can't be the primary culprit. And yet this is supposed to be "settled science"?

I always go back to my favorite quote about science, "What do scientists know? More than you do and less than they think".

Very astute........but if you, notice in here, if the science you present isn't part of the science club with the established narrative, then the science is fake.

But Ive been saying for years in here and will continue to say......most of the public is disinterested in this climate change stuff because they don't view this as some crisis and have seen prediction after prediction fall flat on its face. You look at any poll from Pew, Gallup, Rasmussen........all show climate change waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay at the bottom of the list of concerns for voters.....they are way too busy navigating in the real world to worry about shit that might happen 50 years from now.........

 

[gipper]

Next time this report comes out it'll be 2 dozen agencies. Maybe more!! But could somebody tell me who is actually caring?

The thing that people in the AGW community just can't seem to understand is that for those of us that love science nothing is more infuriating than listening to people say they "definitively" know something when everyone knows they don't.

The fact is that when a direct question is asked, "what percentage of global warming is due to man and what percentage is due to natural variation", anyone that answers with anything except "we don't know", is lying. You'll usually hear things like "we believe", which is fine as a starting point to learn more. It is not scientifically "definitive". This is supposed to be science not politics.

And your background in science is what? How many 200 level courses have you taken in any discipline in science?

Typical leftist response, attack the speaker not the point being made. By all means find me a credible source that will state the percentage of global warming that is manmade and the percentage that is natural variation. The fact is there aren't any, period.

Happens all the time in here.......the sourcing could be right there in your face when you click on the link but it NEVER matters to these people. IDK.....not the way I operate and anybody who is in a message board isn't going to fall for the fakery. Might work on the dumbass uninformed of society, but not in here. For example, I'll post up an article from Breitbart on peer reviewed science that doesn't fit the narrative and the only response I get is, "Oh well.......good try, its Breitbart!". But anybody who is paying attention in here can see that the skeptics dominate the information landscape! How does one know? Because every regular alarmist in this forum is perpetually angry and miserable in their posts while the skeptics are always laughing their asses off!!

To me science is all about being a skeptic. People just can't seem to comprehend that science is supposed to be held to a higher standard than "I believe" or "that makes sense". I'm listening to scientists who are studying the sun that openly state that they are barely in the infancy of their studies, meanwhile climatologists act as if they know exactly how solar cycles affect the climate. I'm also listening to physicists and planetary scientists that are saying that from what they understand about the properties of CO2, CO2 can't be the primary culprit. And yet this is supposed to be "settled science"?

I always go back to my favorite quote about science, "What do scientists know? More than you do and less than they think".

Very astute........but if you, notice in here, if the science you present isn't part of the science club with the established narrative, then the science is fake.

But Ive been saying for years in here and will continue to say......most of the public is disinterested in this climate change stuff because they don't view this as some crisis and have seen prediction after prediction fall flat on its face. You look at any poll from Pew, Gallup, Rasmussen........all show climate change waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay at the bottom of the list of concerns for voters.....they are way too busy navigating in the real world to worry about shit that might happen 50 years from now.........

Yet we have too many fools like Old Crotch screaming the sky is falling.....oh no!!!!!!!!..............who demands we must give more power and wealth to central governments run by criminals, to save us from the bogus boogie man Global Warming.

Now...how dumb is that?

I give you my friend Old Crotch...as he looks every day of his life.

 

[elektra]

This is a joke, right, 13 agencies concur came up with this dribble!

scary facts!!!
Climate Science Special Report: Potential Surprises: Compound Extremes and Tipping Elements

climate models are more likely to underestimate than to overestimate the amount of long-term future change.

So, they state the models "underestimate"? Is underestimating science?

The "scientist" in the executive summary tell as "about" how much the temperature has increased? Again, why are they not using facts? About is not fact or science.
Climate Science Special Report: Executive Summary

air temperature has increased by about

This is real funny, the scientists have "concluded", that it is "extremely likely", why can they not say it is a fact, that after 13 agencies have done so much research, that at best, they found it is "extremely likely". Not just likely, but scary, extremely likely!

This assessment concludes, based on extensive evidence, that it is extremely likely

It is time to end the climate science by the government, predictions of an 8 foot rise in the sea level is just plain old ridiculous.

 

[IanC]

There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact. -Mark Twain

This is the problem. Two 'experts' look at the same data and come to different conclusions. Which one is right? The truth is that both are almost certainly wrong.

CO2 has a warming influence, as shown by simple radiative physics. Some experts believe interactions with the other factors will multiply the amount, some think it will divide it.

You cannot just look back in time for an era with similar CO2 levels because the extra CO2 is mostly human caused, not the result of natural equilibrium.

The Earth has gone through many disturbances to equilibrium and shown itself to be resilient. We are not dangling on the precipice, no tipping point is imminent.

The extra warmth and plant food will help us feed the billions of people here now, with more coming. It is much easier to make the case that over population is a clearer problem than AGW. But that would be politically incorrect. There is no moral high ground to be found there. Or massive funding and political power.

 

[baileyn45]

Next time this report comes out it'll be 2 dozen agencies. Maybe more!! But could somebody tell me who is actually caring?

The thing that people in the AGW community just can't seem to understand is that for those of us that love science nothing is more infuriating than listening to people say they "definitively" know something when everyone knows they don't.

The fact is that when a direct question is asked, "what percentage of global warming is due to man and what percentage is due to natural variation", anyone that answers with anything except "we don't know", is lying. You'll usually hear things like "we believe", which is fine as a starting point to learn more. It is not scientifically "definitive". This is supposed to be science not politics.

And your background in science is what? How many 200 level courses have you taken in any discipline in science?

Typical leftist response, attack the speaker not the point being made. By all means find me a credible source that will state the percentage of global warming that is manmade and the percentage that is natural variation. The fact is there aren't any, period.

Happens all the time in here.......the sourcing could be right there in your face when you click on the link but it NEVER matters to these people. IDK.....not the way I operate and anybody who is in a message board isn't going to fall for the fakery. Might work on the dumbass uninformed of society, but not in here. For example, I'll post up an article from Breitbart on peer reviewed science that doesn't fit the narrative and the only response I get is, "Oh well.......good try, its Breitbart!". But anybody who is paying attention in here can see that the skeptics dominate the information landscape! How does one know? Because every regular alarmist in this forum is perpetually angry and miserable in their posts while the skeptics are always laughing their asses off!!

To me science is all about being a skeptic. People just can't seem to comprehend that science is supposed to be held to a higher standard than "I believe" or "that makes sense". I'm listening to scientists who are studying the sun that openly state that they are barely in the infancy of their studies, meanwhile climatologists act as if they know exactly how solar cycles affect the climate. I'm also listening to physicists and planetary scientists that are saying that from what they understand about the properties of CO2, CO2 can't be the primary culprit. And yet this is supposed to be "settled science"?

I always go back to my favorite quote about science, "What do scientists know? More than you do and less than they think".

Ah yes, a skeptic. LOL A skeptic without any knowledge of the subject about which they are expressing skepticism. That is not a skeptic, that is an ignorant blowhard.

If I'm a blowhard, at least I have good company including former IPCC climatologists and nobel laureates.

UN Scientists Who Have Turned on the UN IPCC & Man-Made Climate Fears — A Climate Depot Flashback Report

"Here is a very small sampling of what current and former UN scientists have to say about the UN’s climate claims and its scientific methods.

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions."

Here is a small sampling of what current and former UN scientists have to say about the UN IPCC’s “very open” process.

(Below are excerpts from various U.S. Senate reports which Climate Depot’s Morano authored during his years at the U.S. Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee.)

One former UN IPCC scientist bluntly told the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) committee how the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers “distorted” the scientists work. “I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said,” explained South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

In an August 13, 2007 letter, UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Madhav Khandekar, a retired Environment Canada scientist, lashed out at those who “seem to naively believe that the climate change science espoused in the [UN’s] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) documents represents ‘scientific consensus.’” Khandekar continued: “Nothing could be further than the truth! As one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists in one of my letters. I have also pointed out in my letter that an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of Greenhouse gas induced warming of the earth’s surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed.” “Unfortunately, the IPCC climate change documents do not provide an objective assessment of the earth’s temperature trends and associated climate change,” Khandekar concluded.

Paul Reiter, a malaria expert formerly of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, participated in a past UN IPCC process and now calls the concept of consensus on global warming a “sham.” Reiter, a professor of entomology and tropical disease with the Pasteur Institute in Paris, had to threaten legal action to have his name removed from the IPCC. “That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed,” he said on March 5, 2007. “It’s not true,” he added.