And POOF, it was gone....

[elektra]

Well, why don't you and Kookie loon show me a more recent poll supporting your POV?

Polls are science and fact? You found 650 people who answered your questions that are poised to give specific answers and you think that is fact?

Our recent poll showing our point of view? That would be the election of Donald Trump as president!

 

[westwall]

Show us some quantifiable science then. Not a computer model, mind you, but a real piece of empirical data.

It is all done on modelling. That is how they work it out. You know that. Empirical data? Arctic ice shelf is melting. Fact.

Do you understand that modelling isn't science, but science fiction? Do YOU understand that?

Sure..

You want to know what's truly funny, I can teach any level of climatology class all the way up to graduate level. A PhD climatologist, on the other hand, is totally lost at the graduate level and unless they are really, really good, there are third and fourth year geology classes that will be beyond them. That's how a PhD in climatology stacks up against my field.

 

[Dr Grump]

Show us some quantifiable science then. Not a computer model, mind you, but a real piece of empirical data.

It is all done on modelling. That is how they work it out. You know that. Empirical data? Arctic ice shelf is melting. Fact.

Do you understand that modelling isn't science, but science fiction? Do YOU understand that?

Sure..

You want to know what's truly funny, I can teach any level of climatology class all the way up to graduate level. A PhD climatologist, on the other hand, is totally lost at the graduate level and unless they are really, really good, there are third and fourth year geology classes that will be beyond them. That's how a PhD in climatology stacks up against my field.

What's even funnier is i dont believe you.

 

[westwall]

Show us some quantifiable science then. Not a computer model, mind you, but a real piece of empirical data.

It is all done on modelling. That is how they work it out. You know that. Empirical data? Arctic ice shelf is melting. Fact.

Do you understand that modelling isn't science, but science fiction? Do YOU understand that?

Sure..

You want to know what's truly funny, I can teach any level of climatology class all the way up to graduate level. A PhD climatologist, on the other hand, is totally lost at the graduate level and unless they are really, really good, there are third and fourth year geology classes that will be beyond them. That's how a PhD in climatology stacks up against my field.

What's even funnier is i dont believe you.

And it doesn't matter in the slightest. What I stated is a fact. Geologists are far more capable than a climatologist. Ours is an exact science, and climatology isn't. It is a "soft" science, in the same vein as sociology. In other words it is all about opinion, and not hard, measurable, facts and observations.

Some day you might be clever enough to understand the difference.

 

[SSDD]

It is all done on modelling. That is how they work it out. You know that. Empirical data? Arctic ice shelf is melting. Fact.

Do you understand that modelling isn't science, but science fiction? Do YOU understand that?

Sure..

You want to know what's truly funny, I can teach any level of climatology class all the way up to graduate level. A PhD climatologist, on the other hand, is totally lost at the graduate level and unless they are really, really good, there are third and fourth year geology classes that will be beyond them. That's how a PhD in climatology stacks up against my field.

What's even funnier is i dont believe you.

And it doesn't matter in the slightest. What I stated is a fact. Geologists are far more capable than a climatologist. Ours is an exact science, and climatology isn't. It is a "soft" science, in the same vein as sociology. In other words it is all about opinion, and not hard, measurable, facts and observations.

Some day you might be clever enough to understand the difference.

Meteorologists are better educated in the sciences than climate "scientists"....and they certainly aren't on board the AGW crazy train.

 

[Old Rocks]

Nope. That's what people heavily invested in the fraud claim. Their membership don't.

Totally untrue. The science is in and you're wrong. And I wouldn't get too excited about the Nimrods supporting your POV on this thread. None of them have a clue.

Hey Dr Grump....still waiting on that single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting AGW that you claimed existed in abundance....seems that you have been running away from acknowledging that you can't find any.

You have been shown the evidence repeatedly. Like the orange clown, you cannot see what is in front of you.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/howhuman.pdf

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[Old Rocks]

It is all done on modelling. That is how they work it out. You know that. Empirical data? Arctic ice shelf is melting. Fact.

Do you understand that modelling isn't science, but science fiction? Do YOU understand that?

Sure..

You want to know what's truly funny, I can teach any level of climatology class all the way up to graduate level. A PhD climatologist, on the other hand, is totally lost at the graduate level and unless they are really, really good, there are third and fourth year geology classes that will be beyond them. That's how a PhD in climatology stacks up against my field.

What's even funnier is i dont believe you.

And it doesn't matter in the slightest. What I stated is a fact. Geologists are far more capable than a climatologist. Ours is an exact science, and climatology isn't. It is a "soft" science, in the same vein as sociology. In other words it is all about opinion, and not hard, measurable, facts and observations.

Some day you might be clever enough to understand the difference.

So let us discuss what the geologists state concerning man's effect on the climate;

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.

Climate models predict that global temperatures will continue to rise, with the amount of warming primarily determined by the level of emissions. Higher emissions of greenhouse gases will lead to larger warming, and greater risks to society and ecosystems. Some additional warming is unavoidable due to past emissions

. Climate change is not expected to be uniform over space or time. Deforestation, urbanization, and particulate pollution can have complex geographical, seasonal, and longer‐term effects on temperature, precipitation, and cloud properties. In addition, human‐induced climate change may alter atmospheric circulation, dislocating historical patterns of natural variability and storminess.

You can read the rest of the statement at the link. The American Geophysical Union is one of the largest scientific associations of geologists and physicists on Earth. They meet every years in December for their annual convention in San Francisco and present lectures on the present state of the science. These lectures are available to the public on Youtube. Here is just one of them from one of the world's premier glaciaologists, Dr. Richard Alley;

 

[Old Rocks]

And here is the policy statement from the other main scientific society of geologists in the US, the Geological Society of America;

position10

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), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013) and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (Melillo et al., 2014) that global climate has warmed in response to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases. The concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are now higher than they have been for many thousands of years. Human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s (IPCC, 2013). If the upward trend in greenhouse-gas concentrations continues, the projected global climate change by the end of the twenty-first century will result in significant impacts on humans and other species. The tangible effects of climate change are already occurring. 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 scientific basis for the conclusion that human activities are the primary cause of 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 current and future impacts of anthropogenic warming.

Rationale
Scientific advances have greatly reduced previous uncertainties about recent global warming. Ground-station measurements have shown a warming trend of ~0.85 °C since 1880, a trend consistent with (1) retreat of northern hemisphere snow and Arctic sea ice; (2) greater heat storage in the ocean; (3) retreat of most mountain glaciers; (4) an ongoing rise in global sea level; and (5) proxy reconstructions of temperature change over past centuries from archives that include ice cores, tree rings, lake sediments, boreholes, cave deposits, and corals. Both instrumental records and proxy indices from geologic sources show that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries (National Research Council, 2006). Earth’s surface has been successively warmer in each of the last three decades and each of those has been warmer than any decade since 1850. The period from 1983 to 2012 is likely the warmest 30 years in the northern hemisphere during the last 1,400 years (IPCC, 2013). This recent warming of Earth’s surface is now consistently supported by a wide range of measurements and proxies, including land- and satellite-based measurements.

The geologic record contains unequivocal evidence of former climate change, including periods of greater warmth with limited polar ice, and colder intervals with more widespread glaciation. These and other changes were accompanied by major shifts in species and ecosystems. Paleoclimatic research has demonstrated that these major changes in climate and biota are associated with significant changes in climate forcing, such as continental positions and topography, patterns of ocean circulation, the greenhouse gas composition of the atmosphere, and the distribution and amount of solar energy at the top of the atmosphere caused by changes in Earth’s orbit and the evolution of the sun as a main sequence star. Cyclic changes in ice volume during glacial periods over the last three million years have been correlated to orbital cycles and changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, but may also reflect internal responses generated by large ice sheets. This rich history of Earth’s climate has been used as one of several key sources of information for assessing the predictive capabilities of modern climate models. The testing of increasingly sophisticated climate models by comparison to geologic proxies is continuing, leading to refinement of hypotheses and improved understanding of the drivers of past and current climate change. Climate models have improved continuously and now reproduce observed continental-scale warming patterns over multiple decades (IPCC, 2013).

 

[Old Rocks]

Nope. That's what people heavily invested in the fraud claim. Their membership don't.

Totally untrue. The science is in and you're wrong. And I wouldn't get too excited about the Nimrods supporting your POV on this thread. None of them have a clue.

Show us some quantifiable science then. Not a computer model, mind you, but a real piece of empirical data.

http://jvarekamp.web.wesleyan.edu/CO2/FP-1.pdf

Hardly a challenge.

 

[Old Rocks]

[


And taking bows s0n........at least I don't have a ghey cat in my avatar!

The crazy guy is watching the political landscape and laughing hysterically while progressive heads explode daily!! The WINNING is almost getting boring at this point.........but the fun hasn't even started.

Tomorrow starts the assault on progressivism that will be epic.........and the size of the already giant bumpy cucumbers in the progressives behinds are going to get even more bulbous. Might as well paint the ENVIRONMENT forum title red s0ns!!

Oh and Mammoth........don't forget to pick up some extra KY this weekend!

That doesn't make his point any less so. I assume you have Kook in your user name because it about sums you up.

What about my avatar? Like it....you getting a woodie just looking at it (after taking your viagra of course)...

Only total morons don't believe humans are causing climate change. Are you a total moron? (rhetorical question. I don't need an answer)

I love the hyperbole... no facts... just lots of unprovable BS..

Silly Billy, you have repeatedly presented 'stinky facts', that you pulled from your ass. Or, as the new admin calls them, 'alternative facts'. Hardly matters the name, they smell the same.

 

[skookerasbil]

Very interesting article here.......and the thinking becoming far more popular in recent years!!

Guy is a climate skeptic who DOES believe in climate change and DOES believe it is carbon driven!

But................

"But when it comes to portending doom and gloom, the tools scientists use -- namely atmosphere and oceanic general circulation models -- are woefully insufficient to render specific predictions about the future.

.................so what does all of this mean? It means that anyone who says they know that climate change will result in (insert apocalyptic scenario here) is not making claims based on solid evidence.

In other situations (most commonly volcanic eruptions) numerous other greenhouse gases also greatly increased the rate of heating. It's really hard to build a model for a situation for which there is little historical precedent."

A Skeptic's View on Climate Models | RealClearScience


Been saying for years the "models" have zero validity for predicting the future yet they are promoted by the alarmists as "science". They know it too but they push the narrative still........and as we've seen, frequently, the models end up being wrong!

Clearly there is an agenda at play here............. and there are a slew of public comments by world leaders in environment positions where they admit they know the positions are bogus but push them anyway!! Agenda?





duh

It is why in the eyes of the public, the alarmist view has lost a ton of credibililty.

 

[Old Rocks]

Show us some quantifiable science then. Not a computer model, mind you, but a real piece of empirical data.

It is all done on modelling. That is how they work it out. You know that. Empirical data? Arctic ice shelf is melting. Fact.

Do you understand that modelling isn't science, but science fiction? Do YOU understand that?

Look, goofus, do you understand that the melting of the arctic sea ice, the Greenland Ice Cap, and the alpine glaciers is not modeling? It is fact. Same for the destabilization of the Antarctic Ice Shelves. That the observed increase in land and ocean temperatures is observed, not modeled? You are like your peer, Silly Billy, you bring nothing but silliness to the debate. A debate long over in the scientific community.

 

[Old Rocks]

I thought you didn't believe in the tyranny of the majority. More people? What does that even mean? I bet most people in Green Bay think the Packers are going to win today. And they might. Then again, they might not. Most people? RAFLMAO...must be true then!

So, when a simpleton study says most scientist believe in man made global warming, you agree, it is tyranny of the majority, and it does not prove a thing.

LOL So you have 20 cancer specialists that state that the blemish on your hide is melanoma, but your mechanic tells you not to worry, consensus doesn't mean a thing, it is just a blemish. LOL Some people are stupid beyond belief.

 

[Geaux4it]

Show us some quantifiable science then. Not a computer model, mind you, but a real piece of empirical data.

It is all done on modelling. That is how they work it out. You know that. Empirical data? Arctic ice shelf is melting. Fact.

Do you understand that modelling isn't science, but science fiction? Do YOU understand that?

Look, goofus, do you understand that the melting of the arctic sea ice, the Greenland Ice Cap, and the alpine glaciers is not modeling? It is fact. Same for the destabilization of the Antarctic Ice Shelves. That the observed increase in land and ocean temperatures is observed, not modeled? You are like your peer, Silly Billy, you bring nothing but silliness to the debate. A debate long over in the scientific community.

 

[Old Rocks]

It is all done on modelling. That is how they work it out. You know that. Empirical data? Arctic ice shelf is melting. Fact.

Do you understand that modelling isn't science, but science fiction? Do YOU understand that?

Sure..

You want to know what's truly funny, I can teach any level of climatology class all the way up to graduate level. A PhD climatologist, on the other hand, is totally lost at the graduate level and unless they are really, really good, there are third and fourth year geology classes that will be beyond them. That's how a PhD in climatology stacks up against my field.

What's even funnier is i dont believe you.

And it doesn't matter in the slightest. What I stated is a fact. Geologists are far more capable than a climatologist. Ours is an exact science, and climatology isn't. It is a "soft" science, in the same vein as sociology. In other words it is all about opinion, and not hard, measurable, facts and observations.

Some day you might be clever enough to understand the difference.

A degree in geology demands far less math than does a degree in atmospheric physics. And far less physics. Your claim that you can teach on the same level as Dr. Hansen, Dr. Mann, or Dr. Alley is beyond laughable.

 

[Old Rocks]

Do you understand that modelling isn't science, but science fiction? Do YOU understand that?

Sure..

You want to know what's truly funny, I can teach any level of climatology class all the way up to graduate level. A PhD climatologist, on the other hand, is totally lost at the graduate level and unless they are really, really good, there are third and fourth year geology classes that will be beyond them. That's how a PhD in climatology stacks up against my field.

What's even funnier is i dont believe you.

And it doesn't matter in the slightest. What I stated is a fact. Geologists are far more capable than a climatologist. Ours is an exact science, and climatology isn't. It is a "soft" science, in the same vein as sociology. In other words it is all about opinion, and not hard, measurable, facts and observations.

Some day you might be clever enough to understand the difference.

Meteorologists are better educated in the sciences than climate "scientists"....and they certainly aren't on board the AGW crazy train.

LOL

Climate Change - American Meteorological Society

Climate Change
An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society
(Adopted by AMS Council 20 August 2012)


The following is an AMS Information Statement intended to provide a trustworthy, objective, and scientifically up-to-date explanation of scientific issues of concern to the public at large.

Background

This statement provides a brief overview of how and why global climate has changed over the past century and will continue to change in the future. It is based on the peer-reviewed scientific literature and is consistent with the vast weight of current scientific understanding as expressed in assessments and reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the U.S. Global Change Research Program. Although the statement has been drafted in the context of concerns in the United States, the underlying issues are inherently global in nature.

How is climate changing?

Warming of the climate system now is unequivocal, according to many different kinds of evidence. Observations show increases in globally averaged air and ocean temperatures, as well as widespread melting of snow and ice and rising globally averaged sea level. Surface temperature data for Earth as a whole, including readings over both land and ocean, show an increase of about 0.8°C (1.4°F) over the period 1901?2010 and about 0.5°C (0.9°F) over the period 1979–2010 (the era for which satellite-based temperature data are routinely available). Due to natural variability, not every year is warmer than the preceding year globally. Nevertheless, all of the 10 warmest years in the global temperature records up to 2011 have occurred since 1997, with 2005 and 2010 being the warmest two years in more than a century of global records. The warming trend is greatest in northern high latitudes and over land. In the U.S., most of the observed warming has occurred in the West and in Alaska; for the nation as a whole, there have been twice as many record daily high temperatures as record daily low temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century.

The effects of this warming are especially evident in the planet’s polar regions. Arctic sea ice extent and volume have been decreasing for the past several decades. Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have lost significant amounts of ice. Most of the world’s glaciers are in retreat.

Other changes, globally and in the U.S., are also occurring at the same time. The amount of rain falling in very heavy precipitation events (the heaviest 1% of all precipitation events) has increased over the last 50 years throughout the U.S. Freezing levels are rising in elevation, with rain occurring more frequently instead of snow at mid-elevations of western mountains. Spring maximum snowpack is decreasing, snowmelt occurs earlier, and the spring runoff that supplies over two-thirds of western U.S. streamflow is reduced. Evidence for warming is also observed in seasonal changes across many areas, including earlier springs, longer frost-free periods, longer growing seasons, and shifts in natural habitats and in migratory patterns of birds and insects.

Globally averaged sea level has risen by about 17 cm (7 inches) in the 20th century, with the rise accelerating since the early 1990s. Close to half of the sea level rise observed since the 1970s has been caused by water expansion due to increases in ocean temperatures. Sea level is also rising due to melting from continental glaciers and from ice sheets on both Greenland and Antarctica. Locally, sea level changes can depend also on other factors such as slowly rising or falling land, which results in some local sea level changes much larger or smaller than the global average. Even small rises in sea level in coastal zones are expected to lead to potentially severe impacts, especially in small island nations and in other regions that experience storm surges associated with vigorous weather systems.


Why is climate changing?

Climate is always changing. However, many of the observed changes noted above are beyond what can be explained by the natural variability of the climate. 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. The most important of these over the long term is CO2, whose concentration in the atmosphere is rising principally as a result of fossil-fuel combustion and deforestation. While large amounts of CO2 enter and leave the atmosphere through natural processes, these human activities are increasing the total amount in the air and the oceans. Approximately half of the CO2 put into the atmosphere through human activity in the past 250 years has been taken up by the ocean and terrestrial biosphere, with the other half remaining in the atmosphere. Since long-term measurements began in the 1950s, the atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing at a rate much faster than at any time in the last 800,000 years. Having been introduced into the atmosphere it will take a thousand years for the majority of the added atmospheric CO2 to be removed by natural processes, and some will remain for thousands of subsequent years.

SSDD, you are completely full of shit.

 

[skookerasbil]

You see........when you start connecting the dots on this stuff after spending some time taking a good look at it, you suddenly get this "WTF?" moment. You realize that the intellectual honesty just isn't there at all with the predictions. The predictions have nothing to do with science at all.......they are all politically motivated.......

http://green.wikia.com/wiki/Agenda_21


If you don't know the full meaning of the term "sustainable development" and taking the alarmist position in this forum, its like going up to bat against a big league pitcher with a pencil in your hands!!

 

[SSDD]

Things font cast to exist because someone deleted it from their website but I know that historically ignoring science has always had good results.

Whats the science say?

Virtually every Scientific Society, National Academy of Science, and major University has policy statements that say that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. That is what science says.

Same old logical fallacy...it wasn't worth the time you took to type it the first time and it still isn't worth squat 10,000 repeats later.

 

[SSDD]

Nope. That's what people heavily invested in the fraud claim. Their membership don't.

Totally untrue. The science is in and you're wrong. And I wouldn't get too excited about the Nimrods supporting your POV on this thread. None of them have a clue.

Hey Dr Grump....still waiting on that single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting AGW that you claimed existed in abundance....seems that you have been running away from acknowledging that you can't find any.

You have been shown the evidence repeatedly. Like the orange clown, you cannot see what is in front of you.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/howhuman.pdf

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

And there isn't the first piece of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in any of that that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...which is why neither you nor him nor anyone else can provide such evidence...you provide evidence that the climate is changing and then assume that it is due to man...no evidence whatsoever that it is actually due to man...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Do you understand that modelling isn't science, but science fiction? Do YOU understand that?

Sure..

You want to know what's truly funny, I can teach any level of climatology class all the way up to graduate level. A PhD climatologist, on the other hand, is totally lost at the graduate level and unless they are really, really good, there are third and fourth year geology classes that will be beyond them. That's how a PhD in climatology stacks up against my field.

What's even funnier is i dont believe you.

And it doesn't matter in the slightest. What I stated is a fact. Geologists are far more capable than a climatologist. Ours is an exact science, and climatology isn't. It is a "soft" science, in the same vein as sociology. In other words it is all about opinion, and not hard, measurable, facts and observations.

Some day you might be clever enough to understand the difference.

So let us discuss what the geologists state concerning man's effect on the climate;

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.

Climate models predict that global temperatures will continue to rise, with the amount of warming primarily determined by the level of emissions. Higher emissions of greenhouse gases will lead to larger warming, and greater risks to society and ecosystems. Some additional warming is unavoidable due to past emissions

. Climate change is not expected to be uniform over space or time. Deforestation, urbanization, and particulate pollution can have complex geographical, seasonal, and longer‐term effects on temperature, precipitation, and cloud properties. In addition, human‐induced climate change may alter atmospheric circulation, dislocating historical patterns of natural variability and storminess.

You can read the rest of the statement at the link. The American Geophysical Union is one of the largest scientific associations of geologists and physicists on Earth. They meet every years in December for their annual convention in San Francisco and present lectures on the present state of the science. These lectures are available to the public on Youtube. Here is just one of them from one of the world's premier glaciaologists, Dr. Richard Alley;

CO2 is not a "Control knob" what a joke