MTP: Climate Change Discussion - no Deniers

[JBvM]

[

What precisely is the ideal temperature for life on planet earth? If you can't answer that, then you have no idea whether it is a big deal or not...we do know that most of the past 10,000 years, has been warmer than the present...and we know that civilization rose during a warmer time than the present.

There are lots of things I don't know much about, but that I trust the experts on. I do due diligence. I look into an expert's credentials and experience/work. As I've been saying on this message board -- I trust NASA over people like you because NASA sent men to the moon and brought them back. The experts at NASA had to form a consensus on how they believed the science could be used, but they could never be 100% certain.

You appear to set up straw men and unrealistic goals. It does appear that way. I would love to see you give a lecture to a crowd of scientists trained in specialized fields that deal with the temperatures of planets and more. I believe you would flop around like a fish out of water. And that is not to denigrate your attempts at portraying what little you know as being expertise.

 

[SSDD]

And for all of that appeal to authority...

1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burning of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.

Since there is no actual observed, measured evidence to support the consensus, exactly what is that consensus built upon? I can think of only two things that will bring natural born skeptics together...an overwhelming body of undeniable evidence, or a very large bucket full of money...

Since any overwhelming body of undeniable evidence would easily provide enough actual observed, measured evidence to completely crush the 3 statements above.....and there isn't any observed, measured evidence to even begin challenging them....it must be money.

This is not a debate where a mention of an 'appeal to authority' scores points, or works to challenge an argument.

If you want to claim you know better than experts in a filed, go right ahead. Most people seek out expert advice and most people haven't the time, patience, or mindset to think they can out and debunk the scientific community because they've read a few things on a handful of websites

The three statements above are straight forward, no nonsense challenges to the "evidence" in support of man made clime change....if such evidence existed...it would be quite easy to produce...in fact, us skeptics could't possibly avoid it...and yet, neither you, nor all of climate science can produce the first scrap of actual evidence to challenge any of the 3 statements above.

 

[MisterBeale]

Watching Meet the Press. They have dedicated the whole hour to climate change. They have no deniers on the panel and as Chuck Todd correctly stated the science is long since settled. Now it is time to discuss solutions.

A recent poll shows even a majority of Republicans do not dispute anthropogenic climate change.
Opinion | More Republicans Than You Think Support Action on Climate Change

I applaud Meet the Press. Time to push deniers and their pseudo science to the curb or back into closet. Choose your metaphor. They are just standing in the way and are no more than obstructionists.

We need to discuss only solutions and adaptations.

 

[SSDD]

'Actually skeptics criticize any group that makes claims that aren't supported by observed, measured evidence..

I believe you may be confusing cynics, and misanthropes with skeptics. Would you keep an open mind and consider that a possibility?

I have followed what some call professional skeptics, and few if any argue against the scientific community's consensus on the climate science data

Nope...I know precisely the difference....maybe you don't... Here, let me help.

skeptic - a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.

cynic - a person who believes that only selfishness motivates human actions and who disbelieves in or minimizesselfless acts or disinterested points of view.

misanthrope - a hater of humankind.

Actually, only someone who is quite dense would confuse either of those for a skeptic...glad to help...maybe you will actually learn something today.

 

[SSDD]

There are lots of things I don't know much about, but that I trust the experts on.

So you have no informed opinion of your own...you are just telling us the opinion that someone gave you...someone with a political agenda...

Tell me, do you have any idea how often the "consensus" has been wrong on any given scientific topic through out history...including the present? Any idea at all?

Are you aware that the consensus has been wrong so often, that the odds are stacked very heavily in your favor that you will be right, even if you know nothing about the subject simply by taking he opposite side of the consensus?

 

[JBvM]

And for all of that appeal to authority...

1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burning of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.

Since there is no actual observed, measured evidence to support the consensus, exactly what is that consensus built upon? I can think of only two things that will bring natural born skeptics together...an overwhelming body of undeniable evidence, or a very large bucket full of money...

Since any overwhelming body of undeniable evidence would easily provide enough actual observed, measured evidence to completely crush the 3 statements above.....and there isn't any observed, measured evidence to even begin challenging them....it must be money.

This is not a debate where a mention of an 'appeal to authority' scores points, or works to challenge an argument.

If you want to claim you know better than experts in a filed, go right ahead. Most people seek out expert advice and most people haven't the time, patience, or mindset to think they can out and debunk the scientific community because they've read a few things on a handful of websites

The three statements above are straight forward, no nonsense challenges to the "evidence" in support of man made clime change....if such evidence existed...it would be quite easy to produce...in fact, us skeptics could't possibly avoid it...and yet, neither you, nor all of climate science can produce the first scrap of actual evidence to challenge any of the 3 statements above.

Evidence is not always 'quite easy to produce' - go ask the folks over at the collider in France

always seeking simple and easy answers?

NASA and others present evidence. Some people just seem to be against recognizing facts

 

[JBvM]

Actually, only someone who is quite dense would confuse either of those for a skeptic...glad to help...maybe you will actually learn something today.

and the evidence is that much of human kind is dense.

Claiming you are a skeptic, and not something else is not proof you are

can you produce irrefutable evidence that you are a skeptic and not something else? It should be easy, as you keep insisting evidence is always easy to produce

consider this:

 

[JBvM]

Are you aware that the consensus has been wrong so often...

Did anyone tell the scientific community? This is huge news

 

[skookerasbil]

Are you aware that the consensus has been wrong so often...

Did anyone tell the scientific community? This is huge news

Where is there any evidence that anybody is caring about the scientific community?

Provide links please!

You're like the meathead who spikes the football after a touchdown making the score 54-6 not in your favor.

Ghey

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Sure Wiz.. Just spit it out. What "every climate scientist agrees on".. As THO, they are as Borg-like droidal beings as rabid party partisans..

We're all breathlessly awaiting "the Enlightenment" here. Make it quick..

Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Do you distrust NASA?

Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming

AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES
Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2

• 
  
  American Association for the Advancement of Science
  "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3
• 
  
  American Chemical Society
  "Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4
• 
  
  American Geophysical Union
  "Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5
• 
  
  American Medical Association
  "Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6
• 
  
  American Meteorological Society
  "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7
• 
  
  American Physical Society
  "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8
• 
  
  The Geological Society of America
  "The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9

SCIENCE ACADEMIES
International academies: Joint statement
"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10

• 
  
  U.S. National Academy of Sciences
  "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11

U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

• 
  
  U.S. Global Change Research Program
  "The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12

INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”13

NONE of those professional societies ever polled their members. It's a front office political act to write statements like those. My professional org has one.. Never contacted a single member for an opinion.
Furthermore, most all of those statements are old and stale. Published BEFORE all the various projections and predictions started to dramatically fail in the early 2000s.

And the IPCC??? LOL... Go read their "mission statement".. They don't study anything. They hire cherry-picked opinion, and 2/3 of the panel is not science at all. They are socio -- econ -- political..

Furthermore -- I agree with statements like

"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6

But the pant crapping "Earth is dying" CATASTROPHIC predictions are never gonna materialize. It was all greatly over-hyped and premature. At 0.14DegC per decade as measured by the satellites for the past 35 years is it FAR from being a pressing societal or public policy emergency...

And by the time you spend $20 trillion on sacrificing virgins into volcanoes, the technology will have advanced past any difficulties with finding CO2 free power..

always attacking any international group - it's a sure trigger with you people

I know you criticize NASA. They sent a man to the man and brought him back (multiple times).

I'll side with NASA scientists over you - even if the rumors are true that you were in line for an appointment to a committee of the Trump Admin: Committee to Keep Americans Safe from Science

No, you stupid chump.

He's pointing out that your post is bullshit.

Just try complaining about what your org has posted as a "position" and find out how long you last.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

And for all of that appeal to authority...

1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burning of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.

Since there is no actual observed, measured evidence to support the consensus, exactly what is that consensus built upon? I can think of only two things that will bring natural born skeptics together...an overwhelming body of undeniable evidence, or a very large bucket full of money...

Since any overwhelming body of undeniable evidence would easily provide enough actual observed, measured evidence to completely crush the 3 statements above.....and there isn't any observed, measured evidence to even begin challenging them....it must be money.

This is not a debate where a mention of an 'appeal to authority' scores points, or works to challenge an argument.

If you want to claim you know better than experts in a filed, go right ahead. Most people seek out expert advice and most people haven't the time, patience, or mindset to think they can out and debunk the scientific community because they've read a few things on a handful of websites

You just appealed to NASA.

Hypocrite.

And they won't even back you.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

"Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming"

Oh really, gee I didn't know that, but of course no one here is disputing that it has been warming, thus your opening line falls flat. I don't need a "consensus" to know that.

"Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)"

No such rigorous scientific research exist for the simple reason that all those unverified climate model's to year 2100 are untestable/unfalsifiable, thus junk. The Scientific Method REQUIRES that a hypothesis be testable in real time, not far into the future guesses on something not well understood. The fact that YOU fell for this Consensus fallacy means you lack critical thinking skills to know that you just made a fool of yourself here.

Statements like this one below is pure garbage and stupid since they are WRONG!

"The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases..."

Those "gases" don't trap heat at all since they don't absorb heat, they absorb light energy waves.

Need I go on.....?

yet people here at usmb have denied the planet is warming. and then some have claimed it's not a big deal.

I know this might sound pretty powerful and intelligent to your ears "The Scientific Method REQUIRES" - but I'll listen to actual well-respected and accomplished scientists
on this subject.

You like the sound of your own voice having make believe arguments with leading scientists. I wonder how well you'd sound in front of an audience of scientists?

Accomplished ?

At what ?

 

[SSDD]

Evidence is not always 'quite easy to produce' - go ask the folks over at the collider in France

always seeking simple and easy answers?

Climate science says that the science is settled..in order to actually settle science, an overwhelming body of observed, measured evidence must exist....or a very large sum of money.. Clearly, there is no overwhelming body of observed measured evidence...

NASA and others present evidence. Some people just seem to be against recognizing facts

There seems to be a general misunderstanding among alarmists as to the difference between data...and evidence...here....let me help.

Evidence - that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

Data - individual facts, statistics, or items of information

Climate science has a great deal of data...very little of it amounts to anything other than evidence that there is a very wide margin in natural variability..

 

[SSDD]

Actually, only someone who is quite dense would confuse either of those for a skeptic...glad to help...maybe you will actually learn something today.

and the evidence is that much of human kind is dense.

Unfortunately, that is true. All too often placing their faith in people they perceive to be experts.....people they perceive to be far more intelligent than themselves...placing faith in "experts" because they believe the nuts and bolts of whatever topic are out of their intellectual reach. Your observation is evident here in abundance....people like yourself who admit that they have no informed opinion of their own and are content to do nothing more than voice the opinion someone else gave you. Yes, far too much of humanity is content to be the puppets of those they perceive to be their....for lack of a more appropriate word....betters.

Claiming you are a skeptic, and not something else is not proof you are

can you produce irrefutable evidence that you are a skeptic and not something else? It should be easy, as you keep insisting evidence is always easy to produce

It is very easy...All one need do is review my posts...literally thousands of them...were I a cynic, the major leaning of my posts would be regarding WHY climate sceintists do what they do rather than merely pointing out that they don't have evidence to support their claims....and there is nothing within my arguments that might be construed to mean that I hate humanity.

My very words are evidence of my nature and I am a skeptic...You would be hard pressed to find evidence that I am anything other than what I claim to be.

Science is not a religion to me...Neither is politics. It is you who is expressing faith in the words of someone else...it is you who is arguing from a position of belief that they are telling you the honest truth with no other motivation possible. My position is based on a lack of evidence from the very people you put so much faith in.

 

[SSDD]

Are you aware that the consensus has been wrong so often...

Did anyone tell the scientific community? This is huge news

Only news to someone who has no inkling of the history of science...it is easy to find undeniable evidence that the scientific consensus has been wrong on most topics...but lets look at some very recent developments in which the scientific consensus was very wrong...they had mountains of data, but very little actual evidence to support their beliefs...they misinterpreted the data and achieved consensus, which happened to be quite wrong... Examples:

Cholesterol - the entire scientific community was pretty sure that cholesterol caused heart disease...they recommended drugs...recommended diets...wrote papers, taught medical students, gave lectures and seminars on the "fact" that cholesterol caused heart disease...several major studies had indicated otherwise, but the consensus was sure that they were right.....Turns out that a study that was the largest of its kind ever done finally convinced the consensus that they had misinterpreted the data...there is no link between cholesterol and heart disease...a study spanning decades found that there is no statical difference in the numbers of people who die of heart disease who have "good" cholesterol numbers and the number of people who have "bad" cholesterol numbers...

Other topics in which the modern consensus has been dead wrong range from stress not being the cause of stomach ulcers, to salt not causing high blood pressure, to natural fats being bad for you but hydrogenated fats being good for you and on and on and on and on...pick any scientific topic...research it back a bit and you will find that the consensus was at one time or another quite wrong..

Like I said, if you take the opposite side of a topic in which there is consensus, even if you don't have any knowledge on the topic, the odds are stacked heavily in your favor that you will be on the right side of the argument...the consensus has been wrong that often. The fact that you didn't know this goes to your "faith" and "belief" in "experts" and having no informed opinion of your own.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

"Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming"

Oh really, gee I didn't know that, but of course no one here is disputing that it has been warming, thus your opening line falls flat. I don't need a "consensus" to know that.

"Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)"

No such rigorous scientific research exist for the simple reason that all those unverified climate model's to year 2100 are untestable/unfalsifiable, thus junk. The Scientific Method REQUIRES that a hypothesis be testable in real time, not far into the future guesses on something not well understood. The fact that YOU fell for this Consensus fallacy means you lack critical thinking skills to know that you just made a fool of yourself here.

Statements like this one below is pure garbage and stupid since they are WRONG!

"The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases..."

Those "gases" don't trap heat at all since they don't absorb heat, they absorb light energy waves.

Need I go on.....?

yet people here at usmb have denied the planet is warming. and then some have claimed it's not a big deal.

I know this might sound pretty powerful and intelligent to your ears "The Scientific Method REQUIRES" - but I'll listen to actual well-respected and accomplished scientists
on this subject.

You like the sound of your own voice having make believe arguments with leading scientists. I wonder how well you'd sound in front of an audience of scientists?

BTW: An audience of scientists is like any other group. Their collective I.Q. drops when they get together and they have a herd mentality.

I've seen it on many occasions. They won't step out of line for fear of falling out of favor with their peers and there are certain "opinion leaders" who will go after dissidents if they don't like the direction of the conversation. I've worked with PhD's on several projects and found many of them to be fully practiced drama queens.

I've had many conversations with scientists one-on-one and found no problem arguing with them absent the mob mentality. Most of the time, they are quite contemplative. Often, when they get honest, they'll admit that consensus is often submission.

But if you want to argue, I am open to the bull ring any time.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Are you aware that the consensus has been wrong so often...

Did anyone tell the scientific community? This is huge news

Only news to someone who has no inkling of the history of science...it is easy to find undeniable evidence that the scientific consensus has been wrong on most topics...but lets look at some very recent developments in which the scientific consensus was very wrong...they had mountains of data, but very little actual evidence to support their beliefs...they misinterpreted the data and achieved consensus, which happened to be quite wrong... Examples:

Cholesterol - the entire scientific community was pretty sure that cholesterol caused heart disease...they recommended drugs...recommended diets...wrote papers, taught medical students, gave lectures and seminars on the "fact" that cholesterol caused heart disease...several major studies had indicated otherwise, but the consensus was sure that they were right.....Turns out that a study that was the largest of its kind ever done finally convinced the consensus that they had misinterpreted the data...there is no link between cholesterol and heart disease...a study spanning decades found that there is no statical difference in the numbers of people who die of heart disease who have "good" cholesterol numbers and the number of people who have "bad" cholesterol numbers...

Other topics in which the modern consensus has been dead wrong range from stress not being the cause of stomach ulcers, to salt not causing high blood pressure, to natural fats being bad for you but hydrogenated fats being good for you and on and on and on and on...pick any scientific topic...research it back a bit and you will find that the consensus was at one time or another quite wrong..

Like I said, if you take the opposite side of a topic in which there is consensus, even if you don't have any knowledge on the topic, the odds are stacked heavily in your favor that you will be on the right side of the argument...the consensus has been wrong that often. The fact that you didn't know this goes to your "faith" and "belief" in "experts" and having no informed opinion of your own.

This one really cracked me up.

It was brought up in a book entitled "Toxic Terror"...but I was aware of the load of crap it was long before the book.

Another example of science turned to crapp.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are you aware that the consensus has been wrong so often...

Did anyone tell the scientific community? This is huge news

Only news to someone who has no inkling of the history of science...it is easy to find undeniable evidence that the scientific consensus has been wrong on most topics...but lets look at some very recent developments in which the scientific consensus was very wrong...they had mountains of data, but very little actual evidence to support their beliefs...they misinterpreted the data and achieved consensus, which happened to be quite wrong... Examples:

Cholesterol - the entire scientific community was pretty sure that cholesterol caused heart disease...they recommended drugs...recommended diets...wrote papers, taught medical students, gave lectures and seminars on the "fact" that cholesterol caused heart disease...several major studies had indicated otherwise, but the consensus was sure that they were right.....Turns out that a study that was the largest of its kind ever done finally convinced the consensus that they had misinterpreted the data...there is no link between cholesterol and heart disease...a study spanning decades found that there is no statical difference in the numbers of people who die of heart disease who have "good" cholesterol numbers and the number of people who have "bad" cholesterol numbers...

Other topics in which the modern consensus has been dead wrong range from stress not being the cause of stomach ulcers, to salt not causing high blood pressure, to natural fats being bad for you but hydrogenated fats being good for you and on and on and on and on...pick any scientific topic...research it back a bit and you will find that the consensus was at one time or another quite wrong..

Like I said, if you take the opposite side of a topic in which there is consensus, even if you don't have any knowledge on the topic, the odds are stacked heavily in your favor that you will be on the right side of the argument...the consensus has been wrong that often. The fact that you didn't know this goes to your "faith" and "belief" in "experts" and having no informed opinion of your own.

Well, if that isn't proof for smart photons and magic dimmer switches, I don't know what is......

 

[westwall]

Sure Wiz.. Just spit it out. What "every climate scientist agrees on".. As THO, they are as Borg-like droidal beings as rabid party partisans..

We're all breathlessly awaiting "the Enlightenment" here. Make it quick..

Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Do you distrust NASA?

Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming

AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES
Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2

• 
  
  American Association for the Advancement of Science
  "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3
• 
  
  American Chemical Society
  "Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4
• 
  
  American Geophysical Union
  "Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5
• 
  
  American Medical Association
  "Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6
• 
  
  American Meteorological Society
  "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7
• 
  
  American Physical Society
  "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8
• 
  
  The Geological Society of America
  "The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9

SCIENCE ACADEMIES
International academies: Joint statement
"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10

• 
  
  U.S. National Academy of Sciences
  "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11

U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

• 
  
  U.S. Global Change Research Program
  "The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12

INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”13

Consensus is a POLITICAL TERM. Not a scientific one. So long as those agencies are deriving their money from the federal government by the usage of non scientific terms, then yes, anything they produce in this area is suspect.

 

[flacaltenn]

I know you criticize NASA. They sent a man to the man and brought him back (multiple times).

You don't know jack shit about what I criticize... Always supported the space program to some extent. We're talking about a small cadre of people holed up in the "GISS" NASA office headed by political APPOINTEES who are RABID enviro-nauts. Like James Hansen.. The activist in a labcoat that gave CBS news the "excuse and cover" to show a graphic with our oceans BOILING and the graphic 212 degrees on top of it..
+IN FACT, I'm in GREAT company poking at them, since there was a letter signed about 1998 by over 20 top NASA former scientists and astronauts SIMILARLY criticizing their campaign of FEAR and purposely distorting the science of Global Warming.. Those folks you admire for GETTING us to the moon and back.
Kinda arrogant about attacking me when there's so much you DON'T know..