Dear NASA, do scientists agree on climate change?

Let's review: Chinese scientists demonstrated that the AGWCult models are 100% wrong, the AGWCult been caught fudging the data so many times that all their reported data must be suspect, they intimidate, harass and threaten any scientists who dares to questions their "Consensus" and they've never once demonstrated how their absurd theory is supposed to work. Nevertheless, they are paid to soldier on
Thanks for the link backing up your assertions. What's that you say? There is no link?

Well who'd have thought.

GCM MODELS FAIL - Chinese Scientists show the errors US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

huh?

Wha....?
 
Ahem.

"James Taylor

I write about energy and environment issues. Full Bio «

I am senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute."

This is the best you can do? Really?

Naa, I much prefer DR. Roy Spencer and all his friend that say the 97 or 98% claim by you goreist is total bullshit...

2014 as the Mildest Year Why You are Being Misled on Global Temperatures Roy Spencer PhD

This one ain't bad either...

http://www.drroyspencer.com/my-global-warming-skepticism-for-dummies/

Spencer is much worse because he should know better.
 
Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. That pretty well covers 97% of scientists.
 
So, we are supposed to take the word of Walter Cunningham, a fine astronaut, for sure, but someone who doesn't know diddly about climatology? Same for the rest of your former NASA schmucks. Probably why none of them have taken Dr. Waleed Abdalati up on his challenge.

Well OK...let me think about this for a second. OK, I'm done thinking about it. I figure Walter Cunningham has more scientific training than I ever had. And I (that would be me, myself, Porker) have been more correct than any of those 97% of the scientific community THAT TOLD US HOW WE ARE GOING TO BURN THE HELL UP in the next 20 years back in 1984. We didn't and I was correct. And algore WAS WRONG.

And we all know what an expert algore is/was.
OK, you lying fuck, how about a link to where a serious scientist ever said anything like that?
 
AGU Statement on Climate Change Climate Etc.

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.

A lot more at this site.
 
Last edited:
The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Climate Change

Given the knowledge gained from paleoclimatic studies, several long-term causes of the current warming trend can be eliminated. Changes in Earth’s tectonism and its orbit are far too slow to have played a significant role in a rapidly changing 150-year trend. At the other extreme, large volcanic eruptions have cooled global climate for a year or two, and El Niño episodes have warmed it for about a year, but neither factor dominates longer-term trends. Extensive efforts to find any other natural explanation of the recent trend have similarly failed.

As a result, greenhouse gas concentrations, which can be influenced by human activities, and solar fluctuations are the principal remaining factors that could have changed rapidly enough and lasted long enough to explain the observed changes in global temperature. Although the 3rd (2001) IPCC report allowed that solar fluctuations might have contributed as much as 30% of the warming since 1850, subsequent observations of Sun-like stars (Foukal et al., 2004) and new simulations of the evolution of solar sources of irradiance variations (Wang et al., 2005) have reduced these estimates. The 4th (2007) IPCC report concluded that changes in solar irradiance, continuously measured by satellites since 1979, account for less than 10% of the last 150 years of warming. Throughout the era of satellite observation, during periods of strong warming, the data show little evidence of increased solar influence (Foster and Rahmstorf, 2011; Lean and Rind, 2008).

Greenhouse gases remain as the major explanation for the warming. Observations and climate model assessments of the natural and anthropogenic factors responsible for this warming conclude that rising anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases have been an increasingly important contributor since the mid-1800s and the major factor since the mid-1900s (Meehl et al., 2004). The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is now ~30% higher than peak levels that have been measured in ice cores spanning 800,000 years of age, and the methane concentration is 2.5 times higher. About half of Earth’s warming has occurred through the basic heat-trapping effect of the gases in the absence of any feedback processes. This “clear-sky” response to climate is known with high certainty. The other half of the estimated warming results from the net effect of feedbacks in the climate system: a large positive feedback from water vapor; a smaller positive feedback from snow and ice albedo; a negative feedback from aerosols, and still uncertain,feedbacks from clouds. The vertical structure of observed changes in temperature and water vapor in the troposphere is consistent with the anthropogenic greenhouse-gas “fingerprint” simulated by climate models (Santer et al., 2008). Considered in isolation, the greenhouse-gas increases during the last 150 years would have caused a warming larger than that actually measured, but negative feedback from aerosols and possibly clouds has offset part of the warming. In addition, because the oceans take decades to centuries to respond fully to climatic forcing, the climate system has yet to register the full effect of gas increases in recent decades.

Geological Society of America, a lot more at the site.
 
2012 AMS Information Statement on Climate Change

Climate Change

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

pdf version

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.

There seems no doubt here.
 
trying to pin down people on so simple a question is like trying to get the right wing to admit that President Obama is not a Muslim
Of course it's bullshit. I remember Bammy's first year in office...
We're talking about NASA. Is it your position that NASA's science on climate change and global warming is bunk?
Tom Sweetnam
We're talking about NASA. Is it your position that NASA's science on climate change and global warming is bunk?
We're talking about NASA. Is it your position that NASA's science on climate change and global warming is bunk?
 
trying to pin down people on so simple a question is like trying to get the right wing to admit that President Obama is not a Muslim
38%? Well academics had a better batting average in the 70's & 80's when they were 100% sure the planet was going to freeze its ass off for the next 1000 years. Brrrrrrr...brrrrrrr.
Yet the overwhelming majority of scientific papers that took a position at that time predicted warming rather than cooling. That you may have swallowed a media beatup of a few scientists' positions is neither here nor there.
RetiredGySgt Porker
Tom Sweetnam

hello? and do the other two of you (Porker already took the dive), take the position that NASA's climate science and global warming science is all bunk?
RetiredGySgt Porker
Tom Sweetnam

hello? and do the other two of you (Porker already took the dive), take the position that NASA's climate science and global warming science is all bunk?
CrusaderFrank

Do you take the position that NASA's climate science and global warming science is all bunk?
 
Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. That pretty well covers 97% of scientists.

All chock full of politically liberal types that have absolutely NO qualms (or scruples) about lying and making up shit for a profit at all. Here is a list of Obola's Top Contributors to his 2012 pres. campaign...to provide you an example, the TOP DONOR to the BO presidential campaign of 2012 was the University of California System professors and administrator.

Top Contributors to Barack Obama OpenSecrets

Obamastopcontributors_zps2fb1bbfa.jpg
 
Do scientists agree on climate change?

Yes, the vast majority of climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world). The number of peer-reviewed scientific papers that reject the consensus on human-caused global warming is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research. The small amount of dissent tends to come from a few vocal scientists who are not experts in the climate field or do not understand the scientific basis of long-term climate processes.

Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Questions FAQ

News | January 16, 2015

2014 warmest year in modern record

Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet 2014 warmest year in modern record

By Steve Cole, NASA Headquarters,
and Leslie McCarthy, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies

In an independent analysis of the raw data, also released Friday, NOAA scientists also found 2014 to be the warmest on record.
 
Do scientists agree on climate change?

Yes, the vast majority of climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world). The number of peer-reviewed scientific papers that reject the consensus on human-caused global warming is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research. The small amount of dissent tends to come from a few vocal scientists who are not experts in the climate field or do not understand the scientific basis of long-term climate processes.

Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Questions FAQ

News | January 16, 2015

2014 warmest year in modern record

Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet 2014 warmest year in modern record

By Steve Cole, NASA Headquarters,
and Leslie McCarthy, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies

In an independent analysis of the raw data, also released Friday, NOAA scientists also found 2014 to be the warmest on record.
Let's take a closer look at where this bullshit claim originated...

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring 97-Percent Consensus Claims - Forbes

Excerpt: the entire article is at the link above...

Global warming alarmist John Cook, founder of the misleadingly named blog site Skeptical Science, published a paper with several other global warming alarmists claiming they reviewed nearly 12,000 abstracts of studies published in the peer-reviewed climate literature. Cook reported that he and his colleagues found that 97 percent of the papers that expressed a position on human-caused global warming “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”

As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused someglobal warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action.

Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both, global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed.

I'll throw another possibility (probability) out for the liberal media reporting this 97% mistake over and over and over. They were INTENTIONALLY LYING FOR ALGORE AND HIS GD CRONIES.
 
trying to pin down people on so simple a question is like trying to get the right wing to admit that President Obama is not a Muslim
38%? Well academics had a better batting average in the 70's & 80's when they were 100% sure the planet was going to freeze its ass off for the next 1000 years. Brrrrrrr...brrrrrrr.
Yet the overwhelming majority of scientific papers that took a position at that time predicted warming rather than cooling. That you may have swallowed a media beatup of a few scientists' positions is neither here nor there.
RetiredGySgt Porker
Tom Sweetnam

hello? and do the other two of you (Porker already took the dive), take the position that NASA's climate science and global warming science is all bunk?
RetiredGySgt Porker
Tom Sweetnam

hello? and do the other two of you (Porker already took the dive), take the position that NASA's climate science and global warming science is all bunk?
CrusaderFrank

Do you take the position that NASA's climate science and global warming science is all bunk?

Global warming science is an odd phrase considering that theres not a shred of real science behind manmade global warming
 
this guy Porker can't be taken seriously

But this guy Dante can be take seriously. As a seriously retarded liberal. The kind of serious liberal described so seriously in my sig line below.

This may be so, but it is wrong to mock the retarded for their affliction.

Greg

I'm not mocking anyone...Dante would be the first to tell you he's not retarded...just, just...well yes he is retarded as are most liberals.


Yes I know, and you are correct of course. Could you not just refer to them as "Beloved of Gaia" or some such euphemism. Yes: I have naughtily referred to them as "dogsh!t" in the past but that was in the badlands. Here mocking is not really "nice", even if based in fact.

Greg
 
trying to pin down people on so simple a question is like trying to get the right wing to admit that President Obama is not a Muslim
38%? Well academics had a better batting average in the 70's & 80's when they were 100% sure the planet was going to freeze its ass off for the next 1000 years. Brrrrrrr...brrrrrrr.
Yet the overwhelming majority of scientific papers that took a position at that time predicted warming rather than cooling. That you may have swallowed a media beatup of a few scientists' positions is neither here nor there.
RetiredGySgt Porker
Tom Sweetnam

hello? and do the other two of you (Porker already took the dive), take the position that NASA's climate science and global warming science is all bunk?
RetiredGySgt Porker
Tom Sweetnam

hello? and do the other two of you (Porker already took the dive), take the position that NASA's climate science and global warming science is all bunk?
CrusaderFrank

Do you take the position that NASA's climate science and global warming science is all bunk?

Global warming science is an odd phrase considering that theres not a shred of real science behind manmade global warming

Dear Frank,

I am quite prepared to say that there is a contribution to GW that is anthropogenic. The Heat Island effect is well established. But I cannot contribute ALL GW to humans. If it is as much as a third then I would be surprised. If nothing at all I would be less surprised.

Greg
 
Ahem.

"James Taylor

I write about energy and environment issues. Full Bio «

I am senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute."

This is the best you can do? Really?

Naa, I much prefer DR. Roy Spencer and all his friend that say the 97 or 98% claim by you goreist is total bullshit...

2014 as the Mildest Year Why You are Being Misled on Global Temperatures Roy Spencer PhD

This one ain't bad either...

http://www.drroyspencer.com/my-global-warming-skepticism-for-dummies/

Spencer is much worse because he should know better.

He does!!

Greg
 
Back
Top Bottom