the Piwd Pipers of Denialism

[Saigon]

You know all those are are opinions, not science, right?

The state of the science does not allow for any conclusion about the significance or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

Ha! That doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?

There are around 50 major international scientific organisations, of which the American Physical Society is one. EVERY ONE of them confirm that human acitivity is causing climate.

So at the moment, no, I don't think it is in any way logical to assert that no conclusion could be made.

 

[Saigon]

Bripat -

They are a bunch of government butt kissing sycophants

And given their first statement was released during the Bush adminsitration, your point is what, exactly?

It really is time you guys started stepping back from the politics of this, looking at what these very old, very conservative, very scientific societies like the American Physical Society are saying, and asking yourself why you believe they are wrong.

 

[Old Rocks]

Too bad the state of the science does not allow for any conclusion.

That was true 10-15 years ago, but it's a bit of a reach these days.

This is the position of the American Physical Society:

"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring."

Climate Change

That's the opinion of the leaders of the American Physical Society, not the rank and file. They are a bunch of government butt kissing sycophants. Their opinion is their opinion. It's not science. It's propaganda.

LOL. And lie that the denialists like to bray out. There is only one scientific society in which the membership forced a change on the leadership, and that was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. They originally took a position that there was no global warming, and if there was, CO2 had nothing to do with it. Then the membership forced them to change their position.


Is it true that over 90% of scientists believe in global warming? - Yahoo! Answers


Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

It would be very hard to come up with an exact number of scientists who agree or disagree with global warming but clearly the vast majority of them agree that humans are contributing to global warming.

Amongst climate scientists themselves there is an almost unanimous agreement, certainly in excess of 97% and probably in excess of 99%.

A few years ago the American Association of Petroleum Geologists accepted the reality of manmade global warming, in doing so they joined every other scientific organisation in the world in sharing this view.

Obviously this doesn’t mean that every scientist within such organisations agrees with the theory of global warming but it does indicate that, without exception, the majority of scientists across the entire spectrum of scientific disciplines do accept the theory.

It’s often pointed out by the skeptics and deniers of climate change, that there are 31,000 scientists who have signed a petition opposing the current consensus, this document is known as the Oregon Petition. If this were true it would represent 0.05% of the global scientific community (the claim is actually based on a fraudulent petition and has no validity). There is a genuine petition known as the Leipzig Declaration that has been circulating for a few years now which scientists can sign. It has about 30 genuine names on it, roughly one in two million people who are eligible to sign it have done so.

The reasons people disagree with the professionals are varied. The politicisation of climate change in the 1990’s hasn’t helped matters and neither did the oil and power companies spending in excess of $100 million on propaganda (mainly Exxon, Chevron, Koch, Scaife and Western Fuels – it’s all there in the annual accounts).

Source(s):

 

[mamooth]

Watch that lawsuit carefully mamooth...it is for show. mann will withdraw the charges as soon as he gets a list of the materials he must produce during the discovery phase.

That new conspiracy there would only work if your old idiot conspiracy wasn't just a load of crazy BS about Mann.

The idiot denialists won't even be allowed to do discovery on their own, being that they pre-announced their intent to go on a fishing expedition for propaganda points. Judges, no matter what their political affiliation, take an extremely dim view of their court being used for media publicity. The denialist defendents will have to do all their discovery through a third party appointed by the judge, and pre-justify everything they ask for. And they'll have to pay for it, and it's not cheap. That would be one of the reasons why, if you're involved in a lawsuit, the only thing you publicly say about the lawsuit is "No comment". Under no circumstance do you brag about how you're going to use discovery to humiliate someone.

One thing I've noticed from all this -- the denialists cheering Mann's political persecution and approving of him being compared to a child molester -- is how similar it is to old Soviet practices. Lysenkoism was junk genetic science, but it was embraced by the Communist party, as it matched their ideology. Thus, the Soviet scientist who worked on non-state-approved things like DNA and genes was at risk for the gulag, since TheParty would happily create a list of phony crimes to justify it. That's the same system the denialists are trying to put in place now.

 

[westwall]

Too bad the state of the science does not allow for any conclusion.

That was true 10-15 years ago, but it's a bit of a reach these days.

This is the position of the American Physical Society:

"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring."

Climate Change

All of this ignoring the simple fact of flatlined temps for the last 16 years Amazing how you can have all of these things happening in a "warming world" that's not warming!

What a bunch of imbeciles....

 

[westwall]

Watch that lawsuit carefully mamooth...it is for show. mann will withdraw the charges as soon as he gets a list of the materials he must produce during the discovery phase.

That new conspiracy there would only work if your old idiot conspiracy wasn't just a load of crazy BS about Mann.

The idiot denialists won't even be allowed to do discovery on their own, being that they pre-announced their intent to go on a fishing expedition for propaganda points. Judges, no matter what their political affiliation, take an extremely dim view of their court being used for media publicity. The denialist defendents will have to do all their discovery through a third party appointed by the judge, and pre-justify everything they ask for. And they'll have to pay for it, and it's not cheap. That would be one of the reasons why, if you're involved in a lawsuit, the only thing you publicly say about the lawsuit is "No comment". Under no circumstance do you brag about how you're going to use discovery to humiliate someone.

One thing I've noticed from all this -- the denialists cheering Mann's political persecution and approving of him being compared to a child molester -- is how similar it is to old Soviet practices. Lysenkoism was junk genetic science, but it was embraced by the Communist party, as it matched their ideology. Thus, the Soviet scientist who worked on non-state-approved things like DNA and genes was at risk for the gulag, since TheParty would happily create a list of phony crimes to justify it. That's the same system the denialists are trying to put in place now.

What's funny is your last paragraph describes AGW cultism to a T. You're just too stupid to figure it out.

 

[Saigon]

All of this ignoring the simple fact of flatlined temps for the last 16 years Amazing how you can have all of these things happening in a "warming world" that's not warming!

What a bunch of imbeciles....

The numbers are in: 2012, the year of a surreal March heat wave, a severe drought in the Corn Belt and a huge storm that caused broad devastation in the Middle Atlantic States, turns out to have been the hottest year ever recorded in the contiguous United States.

An unusually warm March left the soil dried out in much of the country, helping to set the stage for a drought that peaked during what became the warmest July on record. Parched corn in Paola, Kan.

How hot was it? The temperature differences between years are usually measured in fractions of a degree, but last year’s 55.3 degree average demolished the previous record, set in 1998, by a full degree Fahrenheit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/09/science/earth/2012-was-hottest-year-ever-in-us.html?_r=0


Again, Westwall, I can only suggest that you step back from the politics of the debate and start to accept a few realities. What do you gain from posting these wild claims day after day, in most cases knowing that they are false even as you post them?

 

[Si modo]

You know all those are are opinions, not science, right?

The state of the science does not allow for any conclusion about the significance or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

Ha! That doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?

There are around 50 major international scientific organisations, of which the American Physical Society is one. EVERY ONE of them confirm that human acitivity is causing climate.

So at the moment, no, I don't think it is in any way logical to assert that no conclusion could be made.

It's unfortunate that you are so scientifically illiterate that you cannot even distinguish between opinion and science.

 

[Saigon]

Si Modo -

I understand the difference perfectly well, obviously. What we are talking about here are conclusions from scientific research. They are not the thoughts of one person, nor even a small group of people. These conclusions are based on literally hundreds of pieces of research, and from an organisation with thousands of members.

Again, please consider the position of the American Physical Society:

Greenhouse gas emissions are changing the Earth's energy balance on a planetary scale in ways that affect the climate over long periods of time (~100 years). Historical records indicate that the Earth’s climate is sensitive to energy changes, both external (the sun’s radiative output, changes in Earth’s orbit, etc.) and internal. Internal to our global system, it is not just the atmosphere, but also the oceans and land that are involved in the complex dynamics that result in global climate. Aerosols and particulates resulting from human and natural sources also play roles that can either offset or reinforce greenhouse gas effects. While there are factors driving the natural variability of climate (e.g., volcanoes, solar variability, oceanic oscillations), no known natural mechanisms have been proposed that explain all of the observed warming in the past century.

Climate Change

As mentioned - this is one of only 50 such statements from various scientific organisations, spread right around the world. These scientists work in geography, biology, physics, chemisty, meterology and climatology.

 

[westwall]

All of this ignoring the simple fact of flatlined temps for the last 16 years Amazing how you can have all of these things happening in a "warming world" that's not warming!

What a bunch of imbeciles....

The numbers are in: 2012, the year of a surreal March heat wave, a severe drought in the Corn Belt and a huge storm that caused broad devastation in the Middle Atlantic States, turns out to have been the hottest year ever recorded in the contiguous United States.

An unusually warm March left the soil dried out in much of the country, helping to set the stage for a drought that peaked during what became the warmest July on record. Parched corn in Paola, Kan.

How hot was it? The temperature differences between years are usually measured in fractions of a degree, but last year’s 55.3 degree average demolished the previous record, set in 1998, by a full degree Fahrenheit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/09/science/earth/2012-was-hottest-year-ever-in-us.html?_r=0


Again, Westwall, I can only suggest that you step back from the politics of the debate and start to accept a few realities. What do you gain from posting these wild claims day after day, in most cases knowing that they are false even as you post them?

And not one of those things is abnormal. Not one. I find it amusing that you accuse me of being political when it is you and your side that pushes the concept of "weather events" in an effort to pass political legislation.

The mind boggles at the contortions your brain must go through to rationalise such a silly belief system.

And here is some peer reviewed science for you that deals with your little anecdotes....

Little change in global drought over the past 60 years
Justin Sheffield1, Eric F.Wood1 & Michael L. Roderick2

ABSTRACT

Drought is expected to increase in frequency and severity in the future as a result of climate change, mainly as a consequence of decreases in regional precipitation but also because of increasing evaporation driven by global warming1–3. Previous assessments of historic changes in drought over the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries indicate that this may already be happening globally. In particular, calculations of the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) show a decrease in moisture globally since the 1970s with a commensurate increase in the area in drought that is attributed, in part, to global warming4,5. The simplicity of the PDSI, which is calculated from a simple water-balance model forced by monthly precipitation and temperature data, makes it an attractive tool in large-scale drought assessments, but may give biased results in the context of climate change6. Here we show that the previously reported increase in global drought is overestimated because the PDSI uses a simplified model of potential evaporation7 that responds only to changes in temperature and thus responds incorrectly to global warming in recent decades. More realistic calculations, based on the underlying physical principles8 that take into account changes in available energy, humidity and wind speed, suggest that there has been little change in drought over the past 60 years. The results have implications for how we interpret the impact of global warming on the hydrological cycle and its extremes, and may help to explain why palaeoclimate drought reconstructions based on tree-ring data diverge from the PDSI based drought record in recent years9,10.

REFERENCE
Sheffield, Wood & Roderick (2012) Little change in global drought over the past 60 years, Letter Nature, vol 491, 437

H/t John Coochey, Willie Soon.

And let's not forget this little gem...from your very own high priest hisself!

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf

Sandy wasn't even a Class One hurricane when she made landfall, she was big, and she was loaded with rain, but she wasn't all that powerful. It was a combination of storm surge and extreme high tides that caused the flooding, flooding that was predicted and the government did nothing about.

And the March heat wave was not unprecedented. The record was set WAY BACK IN 1872!
It took 130 years to break a record that was set...wait for it....when the CO2 levels....... were "safe".

So you see dear silly person....the only political operative is you...

 

[Si modo]

Si Modo -

I understand the difference perfectly well, obviously. What we are talking about here are conclusions from scientific research. They are not the thoughts of one person, nor even a small group of people. These conclusions are based on literally hundreds of pieces of research, and from an organisation with thousands of members.

Again, please consider the position of the American Physical Society:

Greenhouse gas emissions are changing the Earth's energy balance on a planetary scale in ways that affect the climate over long periods of time (~100 years). Historical records indicate that the Earth’s climate is sensitive to energy changes, both external (the sun’s radiative output, changes in Earth’s orbit, etc.) and internal. Internal to our global system, it is not just the atmosphere, but also the oceans and land that are involved in the complex dynamics that result in global climate. Aerosols and particulates resulting from human and natural sources also play roles that can either offset or reinforce greenhouse gas effects. While there are factors driving the natural variability of climate (e.g., volcanoes, solar variability, oceanic oscillations), no known natural mechanisms have been proposed that explain all of the observed warming in the past century.

Climate Change

As mentioned - this is one of only 50 such statements from various scientific organisations, spread right around the world. These scientists work in geography, biology, physics, chemisty, meterology and climatology.

Yet again you post an opinion of a group. Opinions, even of groups, are not science.

What is it about science that has you confused?

Also, just so you know, there is nothing democratic about scientific conclusions. We don't vote on them or come to some alleged consensus.

Anything else you need help with? There are a few on this board who do know a bit more about science than you could imagine.

 

[Saigon]

Si Modo -

Given that the conclusions of scientific research are opinions, would you mind telling us what you would NOT consider to be an opinion?

 

[Saigon]

Westwall -

Please try and stay on topic, and please try and focus on what is being posted.

I agree that droughts, storms etc are not unusual in themselves - no one said they were.

You claimed that global temperatures have "flatlined" - apparently ignoring the facts that:

1) 2012 was the hottest year in American history

2) January 2013 recorded the hottest day in Australian history

3) The 10 hottest years on record ALL occur since 1998

 

[mamooth]

What's funny is your last paragraph describes AGW cultism to a T. You're just too stupid to figure it out.

Yet I'm not the ones declaring how enemy scientists are like a child molesters and need to be tossed into prison. That would be you, Westwall. If you want to mimic your Soviet heroes, maybe you could pack up and move to Russia, because that won't fly in the USA.

I tried to find even a single denialist who wasn't proud of playing the goosestepping thug. There weren't any. Every single one of them was overjoyed at the thought of sending scientists to the gulag for the glory of DerParteiRepublikkan. 'Nuff said. Denialism isn't science, it's simply one of the required beliefs of a sick extremist right-wing political cult.

And Westwall? You couldn't pass a middle-school level climate science class, much less teach the topic successfully. In contrast, any climate scientist could cakewalk through your field. It takes a deep knowledge of physics, statistics and logic to be a climate scientist, and you suck hard in all three of those topics. Almost all denialists are walking examples of Dunning-Kruger syndrome, which can be summarized as "stupid people tend to vastly overestimate their own intelligence."

 

[Saigon]

I believe most people looking at this chart will see an upwards trend.

It's not perfectly even, it's not 100% predictable, but there it is.

If you DO see an upward trend, then it might be worth wondering if the scientists might not just be right.

 

[Si modo]

Si Modo -

Given that the conclusions of scientific research are opinions, would you mind telling us what you would NOT consider to be an opinion?

Your premiss has no foundation. That's not a given at all.

 

[Saigon]

Si Modo -

I hav presented the scientific position of the American Physical Society, one of 50 major international scientific bodies to conclude that human acitivity is contributing to climate change.

You have dismissed these as "opinions".

Thus I am asking you what evidence you would not consider "opinions" so that I can present that for you.

 

[skookerasbil]

The environmental nutters remind me so much of alcoholics, particularly recovering ones known as "dry drunks". The establish a firm reality but it is their reality only and does not conform with the relationship landscape around them.............any information not fitting in with the established mindset is vehemently rejected. The correlations are profound.

The committed environmental activists one finds on this board possess a distinct inability to accept the direct linkage between climate science and fiscal/political realities............as if they didnt exist. Its fascinating until you realize that it is eerily similar to the way many recovering alcoholics think, especially ones not involved in ongoing support/treatment.

All the consensus science in the world doesnt matter for dick if a huge majority are unwilling to open up their wallets to embrace a world without fossil fuels...........a firm reality in the real world.

 

[Si modo]

Si Modo -

I hav presented the scientific position of the American Physical Society, one of 50 major international scientific bodies to conclude that human acitivity is contributing to climate change.

You have dismissed these as "opinions".

Thus I am asking you what evidence you would not consider "opinions" so that I can present that for you.

Yes. I have dismissed them as opinions, because they ARE opinions. Opinions are not science, nor are they scientific conclusions. In discussions concerning science, I expect science to support any claims, not opinions.

Anything else I can help you with?

 

[Saigon]

Si Modo -

Well, you could answer the question, for one.

For the third time now - given you will not accept research nor the position of scientific bodies, nor the conclusions of scientists as evidence - what WILL you accept?

There is hardly lack of evidence of any kind - data, observational material that you can go and check yourelf, field trials....you name it and I'll present it for you so that you can understand what the scientific positions are based on.