AGW Meets the Bologna Detection Test

[CrusaderFrank]

Carl Sagan offered the following 9 checks on "facts" or "Consensus".

"Through their training, scientists are equipped with what Sagan calls a “baloney detection kit” — a set of cognitive tools and techniques that fortify the mind against penetration by falsehoods

1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”
2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
3. Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.
4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
5. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.
6. Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.
7. If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.
8. Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.
9. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

The Baloney Detection Kit: Carl Sagan’s Rules for Bullshit-Busting and Critical Thinking

How does the AGW "theory" fare?

 

[LaDexter]

"This isn't about truth, it is about plausible deniability" = Dr. Michael Mann

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Carl Sagan offered the following 9 checks on "facts" or "Consensus".

"Through their training, scientists are equipped with what Sagan calls a “baloney detection kit” — a set of cognitive tools and techniques that fortify the mind against penetration by falsehoods

1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”
2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
3. Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.
4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
5. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.
6. Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.
7. If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.
8. Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.
9. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

The Baloney Detection Kit: Carl Sagan’s Rules for Bullshit-Busting and Critical Thinking

How does the AGW "theory" fare?

Number 9 alone makes the warmers look silly.

 

[RollingThunder]

*********
How does the AGW "theory" fare?

Really well. Passes every one of those.

Too bad you half-witted, anti-science denier cult dingbats are too stupid, ignorant and brainwashed to understand that. Too bad you are such gullible idiots that you can be bamboozled into imagining that all the rest of the scientists are somehow corrupt or stupid.

In the real world of actual science.....

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, adopted by the society in 2003, revised in 2007,[59] and revised and expanded in 2013,[60] affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:

“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.

While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic changes than anticipated."
******

In 2006, the Geological Society of America adopted a position statement on global climate change. It amended this position on April 20, 2010 with more explicit comments on need for CO2 reduction.

"Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twentyfirst century will result in large impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources."[66]
*****

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2012 concluded:

"There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate. To inform decisions on adaptation and mitigation, it is critical that we improve our understanding of the global climate system and our ability to project future climate through continued and improved monitoring and research. This is especially true for smaller (seasonal and regional) scales and weather and climate extremes, and for important hydroclimatic variables such as precipitation and water availability.

Technological, economic, and policy choices in the near future will determine the extent of future impacts of climate change. Science-based decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. National and international policy discussions should include consideration of the best ways to both adapt to and mitigate climate change. Mitigation will reduce the amount of future climate change and the risk of impacts that are potentially large and dangerous. At the same time, some continued climate change is inevitable, and policy responses should include adaptation to climate change. Prudence dictates extreme care in accounting for our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life."[71]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

*********
How does the AGW "theory" fare?

Really well. Passes every one of those.

Too bad you half-witted, anti-science denier cult dingbats are too stupid, ignorant and brainwashed to understand that. Too bad you are such gullible idiots that you can be bamboozled into imagining that all the rest of the scientists are somehow corrupt or stupid.

In the real world of actual science.....

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, adopted by the society in 2003, revised in 2007,[59] and revised and expanded in 2013,[60] affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:

“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.

While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic changes than anticipated."
******

In 2006, the Geological Society of America adopted a position statement on global climate change. It amended this position on April 20, 2010 with more explicit comments on need for CO2 reduction.

"Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twentyfirst century will result in large impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources."[66]
*****

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2012 concluded:

"There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate. To inform decisions on adaptation and mitigation, it is critical that we improve our understanding of the global climate system and our ability to project future climate through continued and improved monitoring and research. This is especially true for smaller (seasonal and regional) scales and weather and climate extremes, and for important hydroclimatic variables such as precipitation and water availability.

Technological, economic, and policy choices in the near future will determine the extent of future impacts of climate change. Science-based decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. National and international policy discussions should include consideration of the best ways to both adapt to and mitigate climate change. Mitigation will reduce the amount of future climate change and the risk of impacts that are potentially large and dangerous. At the same time, some continued climate change is inevitable, and policy responses should include adaptation to climate change. Prudence dictates extreme care in accounting for our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life."[71]

Ask the nurse on your Psych Ward to read number 3 to you

 

[TheOldSchool]

http://io9.gizmodo.com/heres-carl-sagans-original-essay-on-the-dangers-of-cl-1481304135

 

[Wuwei]

http://io9.gizmodo.com/heres-carl-sagans-original-essay-on-the-dangers-of-cl-1481304135

Interesting point. Here is an excerpt from the site you quoted from Sagan's book "Cosmos."

... the carbon dioxide content of the Earth's atmosphere is increasing dramatically. The possibility of a runaway greenhouse effect suggests that we have to be careful: Even a one- or two- degree rise in the global temperature can have catastrophic consequences. ...​

Sagan believed in the possibility of CAGW in 1980. Al Gore came to that conclusion over 25 years later in his documentary, "An inconvenient truth". Why are people jumping on Al Gore, they should be jumping on Sagan. If deniers are going to use Sagan as an authority they are going to have to cherry pick Sagan's writings. However, it seems that Sagan probably applied his own Bologna Kit to his CAGW belief and all nine points fared well.

 

[RollingThunder]

http://io9.gizmodo.com/heres-carl-sagans-original-essay-on-the-dangers-of-cl-1481304135

Good post, good info, blows the demented OP out of the water...but you have to make it much clearer for the brain-damaged denier cult nitwits who are never going to follow a link to any factual info that upsets their gullible belief in their braindead denier cult myths...

Here's Carl Sagan's original essay on the dangers of climate change
Gizmodo.com
Annalee Newitz
12/11/13

Ballantine has issued a shiny new edition of Sagan's book Cosmos, with a foreword from Cosmos reboot host Neil deGrasse Tyson. We've got an excerpt, which reveals how deeply Sagan was concerned about climate change in 1980 when the book was originally published.

With an introduction by original Cosmos series writer and producer Ann Druyan, the reissue of Cosmos is now available in stores. It's incredible how much this chapter from the book, excerpted below, sounds like it could have been written yesterday. It's as if we forgot everything we knew about the environment in 1980, and only remembered it again in 2010.

Excerpt from Cosmos:
The Sphinx, half human, half lion, was constructed more than 5,500 years ago. Its face was once crisp and cleanly rendered. It is now softened and blurred by thousands of years of Egyptian desert sandblasting and by occasional rains. In New York City there is an obelisk called Cleopatra's Needle, which came from Egypt. In only about a hundred years in that city's Central Park, its inscriptions have been almost totally obliterated, because of smog and industrial pollution—chemical erosion like that in the atmosphere of Venus. Erosion on Earth slowly wipes out information, but because they are gradual—the patter of a raindrop, the sting of a sand grain—those processes can be missed. Big structures, such as mountain ranges, survive tens of millions of years; smaller impact craters, perhaps a hundred thousand1; and largescale human artifacts only some thousands. In addition to such slow and uniform erosion, destruction also occurs through catastrophes large and small. The Sphinx is missing a nose. Someone shot it off in a moment of idle desecration—some say it was Mameluke Turks, others, Napoleonic soldiers.

On Venus, on Earth and elsewhere in the solar system, there is evidence for catastrophic destruction, tempered or overwhelmed by slower, more uniform processes: on the Earth, for example, rainfall, coursing into rivulets, streams and rivers of running water, creating huge alluvial basins; on Mars, the remnants of ancient rivers, perhaps arising from beneath the ground; on Io, a moon of Jupiter, what seem to be broad channels made by flowing liquid sulfur. There are mighty weather systems on the Earth—and in the high atmosphere of Venus and on Jupiter. There are sandstorms on the Earth and on Mars; lightning on Jupiter and Venus and Earth. Volcanoes inject debris into the atmospheres of the Earth and Io. Internal geological processes slowly deform the surfaces of Venus, Mars, Ganymede and Europa, as well as Earth. Glaciers, proverbial for their slowness, produce major reworkings of landscapes on the Earth and probably also on Mars. These processes need not be constant in time. Most of Europe was once covered with ice. A few million years ago, the present site of the city of Chicago was buried under three kilometers of frost. On Mars, and elsewhere in the solar system, we see features that could not be produced today, landscapes carved hundreds of millions or billions of years ago when the planetary climate was probably very different.

There is an additional factor that can alter the landscape and the climate of Earth: intelligent life, able to make major environmental changes. Like Venus, the Earth also has a greenhouse effect due to its carbon dioxide and water vapor. The global temperature of the Earth would be below the freezing point of water if not for the greenhouse effect. It keeps the oceans liquid and life possible. A little greenhouse is a good thing. Like Venus, the Earth also has about 90 atmospheres of carbon dioxide; but it resides in the crust as limestone and other carbonates, not in the atmosphere. If the Earth were moved only a little closer to the Sun, the temperature would increase slightly. This would drive some of the CO2 out of the surface rocks, generating a stronger greenhouse effect, which would in turn incrementally heat the surface further. A hotter surface would vaporize still more carbonates into CO2, and there would be the possibility of a runaway greenhouse effect to very high temperatures. This is just what we think happened in the early history of Venus, because of Venus' proximity to the Sun. The surface environment of Venus is a warning: something disastrous can happen to a planet rather like our own.

The principal energy sources of our present industrial civilization are the so-called fossil fuels. We burn wood and oil, coal and natural gas, and, in the process, release waste gases, principally CO2, into the air. Consequently, the carbon dioxide content of the Earth's atmosphere is increasing dramatically. The possibility of a runaway greenhouse effect suggests that we have to be careful: Even a one- or two- degree rise in the global temperature can have catastrophic consequences. In the burning of coal and oil and gasoline, we are also putting sulfuric acid into the atmosphere. Like Venus, our stratosphere even now has a substantial mist of tiny sulfuric acid droplets. Our major cities are polluted with noxious molecules. We do not understand the long- term effects of our course of action.

But we have also been perturbing the climate in the opposite sense. For hundreds of thousands of years human beings have been burning and cutting down forests and encouraging domestic animals to graze on and destroy grasslands. Slash-and-burn agriculture, industrial tropical deforestation and overgrazing are rampant today. But forests are darker than grasslands, and grasslands are darker than deserts. As a consequence, the amount of sunlight that is absorbed by the ground has been declining, and by changes in the land use we are lowering the surface temperature of our planet. Might this cooling increase the size of the polar ice cap, which, because it is bright, will reflect still more sunlight from the Earth, further cooling the planet, driving a runaway albedo2 effect?

Our lovely blue planet, the Earth, is the only home we know. Venus is too hot. Mars is too cold. But the Earth is just right, a heaven for humans. After all, we evolved here. But our congenial climate may be unstable. We are perturbing our poor planet in serious and contradictory ways. Is there any danger of driving the environment of the Earth toward the planetary Hell of Venus or the global ice age of Mars? The simple answer is that nobody knows. The study of the global climate, the comparison of the Earth with other worlds, are subjects in their earliest stages of development. They are fields that are poorly and grudgingly funded. In our ignorance, we continue to push and pull, to pollute the atmosphere and brighten the land, oblivious of the fact that the long-term consequences are largely unknown. A few million years ago, when human beings first evolved on Earth, it was already a middle-aged world, 4.6 billion years along from the catastrophes and impetuosities of its youth. But we humans now represent a new and perhaps decisive factor. Our intelligence and our technology have given us the power to affect the climate. How will we use this power? Are we willing to tolerate ignorance and complacency in matters that affect the entire human family? Do we value short-term advantages above the welfare of the Earth? Or will we think on longer time scales, with concern for our children and our grandchildren, to understand and protect the complex life-support systems of our planet? The Earth is a tiny and fragile world. It needs to be cherished.

1. More precisely, an impact crater 10 kilometers in diameter is produced on the Earth about once every 500,000 years; it would survive erosion for about 300 million years in areas that are geologically stable, such as Europe and North America. Smaller craters are produced more frequently and destroyed more rapidly, especially in geologically active regions.

2. The albedo is the fraction of the sunlight striking a planet that is reflected back to space. The albedo of the Earth is some 30 to 35 percent. The rest of the sunlight is absorbed by the ground and is responsible for the average surface temperature.

 

[boedicca]

*********
How does the AGW "theory" fare?

Really well. Passes every one of those.

Too bad you half-witted, anti-science denier cult dingbats are too stupid, ignorant and brainwashed to understand that. Too bad you are such gullible idiots that you can be bamboozled into imagining that all the rest of the scientists are somehow corrupt or stupid.

In the real world of actual science.....

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, adopted by the society in 2003, revised in 2007,[59] and revised and expanded in 2013,[60] affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:

“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.

While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic changes than anticipated."
******

In 2006, the Geological Society of America adopted a position statement on global climate change. It amended this position on April 20, 2010 with more explicit comments on need for CO2 reduction.

"Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twentyfirst century will result in large impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources."[66]
*****

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2012 concluded:

"There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate. To inform decisions on adaptation and mitigation, it is critical that we improve our understanding of the global climate system and our ability to project future climate through continued and improved monitoring and research. This is especially true for smaller (seasonal and regional) scales and weather and climate extremes, and for important hydroclimatic variables such as precipitation and water availability.

Technological, economic, and policy choices in the near future will determine the extent of future impacts of climate change. Science-based decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. National and international policy discussions should include consideration of the best ways to both adapt to and mitigate climate change. Mitigation will reduce the amount of future climate change and the risk of impacts that are potentially large and dangerous. At the same time, some continued climate change is inevitable, and policy responses should include adaptation to climate change. Prudence dictates extreme care in accounting for our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life."[71]

Posting long paragraphs in Bold Italicized Large fonts doesn't make your post ignorant post more convincing.

Just sayin'.

 

[RollingThunder]

*********
How does the AGW "theory" fare?

Really well. Passes every one of those.

Too bad you half-witted, anti-science denier cult dingbats are too stupid, ignorant and brainwashed to understand that. Too bad you are such gullible idiots that you can be bamboozled into imagining that all the rest of the scientists are somehow corrupt or stupid.

In the real world of actual science.....

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, adopted by the society in 2003, revised in 2007,[59] and revised and expanded in 2013,[60] affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:

“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.

While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic changes than anticipated."
******

In 2006, the Geological Society of America adopted a position statement on global climate change. It amended this position on April 20, 2010 with more explicit comments on need for CO2 reduction.

"Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twentyfirst century will result in large impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources."[66]
*****

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2012 concluded:

"There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate. To inform decisions on adaptation and mitigation, it is critical that we improve our understanding of the global climate system and our ability to project future climate through continued and improved monitoring and research. This is especially true for smaller (seasonal and regional) scales and weather and climate extremes, and for important hydroclimatic variables such as precipitation and water availability.

Technological, economic, and policy choices in the near future will determine the extent of future impacts of climate change. Science-based decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. National and international policy discussions should include consideration of the best ways to both adapt to and mitigate climate change. Mitigation will reduce the amount of future climate change and the risk of impacts that are potentially large and dangerous. At the same time, some continued climate change is inevitable, and policy responses should include adaptation to climate change. Prudence dictates extreme care in accounting for our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life."[71]

Posting long paragraphs in Bold Italicized Large fonts doesn't make your post ignorant post more convincing.

LOLOLOLOLOL.....Posting factual position statements from some of the leading scientific organizations in the world, affirming the reality and dangers of human caused global warming, DOES, IN FACT make my post very convincing to anyone who isn't, like you, a braindead, anti-science, denier cult nutjob, bowleggeddicksucker.

 

[Treeshepherd]

As you know, the scientific method is attributed to Francis Bacon. Bacon used the term 'idols' (figuratively) for fallacies that block or distort our perception of reality in the pursuit of truth about the natural world. He broke it down with descriptions of 4 types of idols.

Idols of the Tribe: these are inherent human tendencies and limitations. We have natural tendencies to exaggerate, to view our own experiences as universal, to confirm our biases, etc..

Idols of the Cave. The cavern which is your mind has its own unique tendencies. Maybe you're great at seeing the details but not so great at seeing the big picture, or visa versa. Different brain chemistries, different fears and aspirations, different beans in different skulls.

Idols of the Marketplace: having to do with communications. Words shape our understanding. We have words for things that do not exist and there are things that exist for which there are no words. How about the internet with all of its polls and trends? Does something exist if it has no webpage? It's easy to think so.

Idols of the Theater: these are pre-made fictions of the State, religion, arts, all the different theaters.

 

[mamooth]

Number 9 alone makes the warmers look silly.

Given that global warming theory can be falsified in many ways, that statement makes you look silly.

You're stating the exact opposite of reality. In this forum, there have been several threads on the topic, where I posted a long list of things that could disprove global warming. If someone says the science can't be falsified, they're just crazy wrong. That's not debatable.

And I suggest not digging deeper now by trying the usual deflections. You know, like posting a phony list of "things blamed on global warming", something that has jack to do with the fact that many things can falsify global warming theory.

It's the denier conspiracy theory which can't be falsified, proving denialism is pseudoscience. If you disagree, please tell us what facts could disprove your conspiracy theory that global warming science is all a plot to get money.

Anyways, good of Frank to show us how global warming theory passes all the tests with flying colors, while denialsm fails every test miserably.

For example, let's look at number 8. Occam's Razor.

Global warming theory. CO2 causes warming. Simple. Win.

Denialism. A VastSecretGlobalSocialistPlot composed of millions has been running for decades. Wildly complicated. Fail.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Number 9 alone makes the warmers look silly.

Given that global warming theory can be falsified in many ways, that statement makes you look silly.

You're stating the exact opposite of reality. In this forum, there have been several threads on the topic, where I posted a long list of things that could disprove global warming. If someone says the science can't be falsified, they're just crazy wrong. That's not debatable.

And I suggest not digging deeper now by trying the usual deflections. You know, like posting a phony list of "things blamed on global warming", something that has jack to do with the fact that many things can falsify global warming theory.

It's the denier conspiracy theory which can't be falsified, proving denialism is pseudoscience. If you disagree, please tell us what facts could disprove your conspiracy theory that global warming science is all a plot to get money.

Anyways, good of Frank to show us how global warming theory passes all the tests with flying colors, while denialsm fails every test miserably.

For example, let's look at number 8. Occam's Razor.

Global warming theory. CO2 causes warming. Simple. Win.

Denialism. A VastSecretGlobalSocialistPlot composed of millions has been running for decades. Wildly complicated. Fail.

Given that global warming theory can be falsified in many ways,

More rain, global warming
Less rain, global warming
Floods, global warming
Drought, global warming
More snow, global warming
Less snow, global warming

And I suggest not digging deeper now by trying the usual deflections. You know, like posting a phony list of "things blamed on global warming"

Stop blaming everything on global warming, I'll stop mentioning what you're blaming.

It's the denier conspiracy theory which can't be falsified, proving denialism is pseudoscience.

If you clowns were serious about decarbonizing our energy supply, without harming our economy, you'd be the biggest nuclear energy supporters on the planet. The fact that you're pushing solar and wind is just proof that you don't believe your own story.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

http://io9.gizmodo.com/heres-carl-sagans-original-essay-on-the-dangers-of-cl-1481304135

Interesting point. Here is an excerpt from the site you quoted from Sagan's book "Cosmos."

... the carbon dioxide content of the Earth's atmosphere is increasing dramatically. The possibility of a runaway greenhouse effect suggests that we have to be careful: Even a one- or two- degree rise in the global temperature can have catastrophic consequences. ...​

Sagan believed in the possibility of CAGW in 1980. Al Gore came to that conclusion over 25 years later in his documentary, "An inconvenient truth". Why are people jumping on Al Gore, they should be jumping on Sagan. If deniers are going to use Sagan as an authority they are going to have to cherry pick Sagan's writings. However, it seems that Sagan probably applied his own Bologna Kit to his CAGW belief and all nine points fared well.

No he didn't apply them at all. In fact, the AGW Hypothesis/Theory/Meme fails on all 9

 

[Old Rocks]

Now Todd, if a wind mill loses a blade, maybe, at the very worst, a couple of people killed, and we lose the output of that mill. If a solar plant goes down, especially a PV plant, we lose the output of that plant. If a nuke goes seriously gunnysack, we lose several counties, at the very least. And there is no waste from the mills or the solar plants that we have to worry about for a few tens of thousands of years.

 

[Old Rocks]

Number 9 alone makes the warmers look silly.

Given that global warming theory can be falsified in many ways, that statement makes you look silly.

You're stating the exact opposite of reality. In this forum, there have been several threads on the topic, where I posted a long list of things that could disprove global warming. If someone says the science can't be falsified, they're just crazy wrong. That's not debatable.

And I suggest not digging deeper now by trying the usual deflections. You know, like posting a phony list of "things blamed on global warming", something that has jack to do with the fact that many things can falsify global warming theory.

It's the denier conspiracy theory which can't be falsified, proving denialism is pseudoscience. If you disagree, please tell us what facts could disprove your conspiracy theory that global warming science is all a plot to get money.

Anyways, good of Frank to show us how global warming theory passes all the tests with flying colors, while denialsm fails every test miserably.

For example, let's look at number 8. Occam's Razor.

Global warming theory. CO2 causes warming. Simple. Win.

Denialism. A VastSecretGlobalSocialistPlot composed of millions has been running for decades. Wildly complicated. Fail.

Given that global warming theory can be falsified in many ways,

More rain, global warming
Less rain, global warming
Floods, global warming
Drought, global warming
More snow, global warming
Less snow, global warming

And I suggest not digging deeper now by trying the usual deflections. You know, like posting a phony list of "things blamed on global warming"

Stop blaming everything on global warming, I'll stop mentioning what you're blaming.

It's the denier conspiracy theory which can't be falsified, proving denialism is pseudoscience.

If you clowns were serious about decarbonizing our energy supply, without harming our economy, you'd be the biggest nuclear energy supporters on the planet. The fact that you're pushing solar and wind is just proof that you don't believe your own story.

Well now, if there were less water vapor in the atmosphere at warmer temperatures, it would not be just global warming theories that would be in trouble. Some serious physics that we have taken as solid theory for a long, long time would also be in trouble.

Now as for less rain, areas prone to droughts were predicted to be prone to more serious droughts than in the past. Beginning to look as if that is a valid prediction.

More floods? More water vapor in the atmosphere is going to come out as rain somewhere. And we have been seeing that in increased extreme precipitation events.

 

[RollingThunder]

If you clowns were serious about decarbonizing our energy supply, without harming our economy, you'd be the biggest nuclear energy supporters on the planet.

Insanely delusional bullshit, ToadTheParrot. Don't try to project your bogus dimwitted view of nuclear energy onto people who know better. There are many unsolved problems and dangers associated with nuclear fission energy, that nutbaggers like you want to ignore. If someone develops a workable fusion energy system, everybody will be happy to support that option.

The fact that you're pushing solar and wind is just proof that you don't believe your own story.

More insanely delusional bullshit, Toad. The rational intelligent people support renewable energy sources like solar and wind energy because they work!....and they've become cheaper than oil, coal, and gas, even without looking at the environmental and health costs of those highly polluting, CO2 emitting fossil fuels.....you know, the ones sold by the corporations you stooge for.

In the real world....

Solar and Wind Just Passed Another Big Turning Point
It has never made less sense to build fossil fuel power plants.
Bloomberg
Tom Randall
October 6, 2015
(excerpts)
Wind power is now the cheapest electricity to produce in both Germany and the U.K., even without government subsidies, according to a new analysis by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF). It's the first time that threshold has been crossed by a G7 economy.1

The economic advantages of wind and solar over fossil fuels go beyond price.5 Still, it's remarkable that in every major region of the world, the lifetime cost of new coal and gas projects6 are rising considerably in the second half of 2015, according to BNEF. And in every major region the cost of renewables continues to fall.
*****

Solar Power Now Cheaper Than Coal In India, Says Energy Minister
CleanTechnica
by Giles Parkinson
January 22nd, 2016
*****

Wind and Solar Are Crushing Fossil Fuels
Record clean energy investment outpaces gas and coal 2 to 1.
Bloomberg
By Tom Randall
April 6, 2016
(excerpts)
Wind and solar have grown seemingly unstoppable. While two years of crashing prices for oil, natural gas, and coal triggered dramatic downsizing in those industries, renewables have been thriving. Clean energy investment broke new records in 2015 and is now seeing twice as much global funding as fossil fuels. One reason is that renewable energy is becoming ever cheaper to produce. Recent solar and wind auctions in Mexico and Morocco ended with winning bids from companies that promised to produce electricity at the cheapest rate, from any source, anywhere in the world, said Michael Liebreich, chairman of the advisory board for Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF). "We're in a low-cost-of-oil environment for the foreseeable future," Liebreich said during his keynote address at the BNEF Summit in New York on Tuesday. "Did that stop renewable energy investment? Not at all."

Government subsidies have helped wind and solar get a foothold in global power markets, but economies of scale are the true driver of falling prices: The cost of solar power has fallen to 1/150th of its level in the 1970s, while the total amount of installed solar has soared 115,000-fold. Just since 2000, the amount of global electricity produced by solar power has doubled seven times over. Even wind power, which was already established, doubled four times over the same period. For the first time, the two forms of renewable energy are beginning to compete head-to-head on price and annual investment.


***

 

[Wuwei]

No he didn't apply them at all. In fact, the AGW Hypothesis/Theory/Meme fails on all 9

I think Sagan knows quite a bit more than you on the scientific method and how he applies it to his own work.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Now Todd, if a wind mill loses a blade, maybe, at the very worst, a couple of people killed, and we lose the output of that mill. If a solar plant goes down, especially a PV plant, we lose the output of that plant. If a nuke goes seriously gunnysack, we lose several counties, at the very least. And there is no waste from the mills or the solar plants that we have to worry about for a few tens of thousands of years.

Several counties versus the planet? Durr.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you clowns were serious about decarbonizing our energy supply, without harming our economy, you'd be the biggest nuclear energy supporters on the planet.

Insanely delusional bullshit, ToadTheParrot. Don't try to project your bogus dimwitted view of nuclear energy onto people who know better. There are many unsolved problems and dangers associated with nuclear fission energy, that nutbaggers like you want to ignore. If someone develops a workable fusion energy system, everybody will be happy to support that option.

The fact that you're pushing solar and wind is just proof that you don't believe your own story.

More insanely delusional bullshit, Toad. The rational intelligent people support renewable energy sources like solar and wind energy because they work!....and they've become cheaper than oil, coal, and gas, even without looking at the environmental and health costs of those highly polluting, CO2 emitting fossil fuels.....you know, the ones sold by the corporations you stooge for.

In the real world....

Solar and Wind Just Passed Another Big Turning Point
It has never made less sense to build fossil fuel power plants.
Bloomberg
Tom Randall
October 6, 2015
(excerpts)
Wind power is now the cheapest electricity to produce in both Germany and the U.K., even without government subsidies, according to a new analysis by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF). It's the first time that threshold has been crossed by a G7 economy.1

The economic advantages of wind and solar over fossil fuels go beyond price.5 Still, it's remarkable that in every major region of the world, the lifetime cost of new coal and gas projects6 are rising considerably in the second half of 2015, according to BNEF. And in every major region the cost of renewables continues to fall.
*****

Solar Power Now Cheaper Than Coal In India, Says Energy Minister
CleanTechnica
by Giles Parkinson
January 22nd, 2016
*****

Wind and Solar Are Crushing Fossil Fuels
Record clean energy investment outpaces gas and coal 2 to 1.
Bloomberg
By Tom Randall
April 6, 2016
(excerpts)
Wind and solar have grown seemingly unstoppable. While two years of crashing prices for oil, natural gas, and coal triggered dramatic downsizing in those industries, renewables have been thriving. Clean energy investment broke new records in 2015 and is now seeing twice as much global funding as fossil fuels. One reason is that renewable energy is becoming ever cheaper to produce. Recent solar and wind auctions in Mexico and Morocco ended with winning bids from companies that promised to produce electricity at the cheapest rate, from any source, anywhere in the world, said Michael Liebreich, chairman of the advisory board for Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF). "We're in a low-cost-of-oil environment for the foreseeable future," Liebreich said during his keynote address at the BNEF Summit in New York on Tuesday. "Did that stop renewable energy investment? Not at all."

Government subsidies have helped wind and solar get a foothold in global power markets, but economies of scale are the true driver of falling prices: The cost of solar power has fallen to 1/150th of its level in the 1970s, while the total amount of installed solar has soared 115,000-fold. Just since 2000, the amount of global electricity produced by solar power has doubled seven times over. Even wind power, which was already established, doubled four times over the same period. For the first time, the two forms of renewable energy are beginning to compete head-to-head on price and annual investment.


***

Recent solar and wind auctions in Mexico and Morocco ended with winning bids from companies that promised to produce electricity at the cheapest rate, from any source, anywhere in the world,

Sounds like unreliable "green energy" doesn't command the same prices as reliable energy.