Re: 'Climate science' is an oxymoron.
hal
wrote:
>http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100021526/climate-science-is-an-oxymoron-time-for-zero-tolerance-of-green-agendas/
>
> Time for Zero Tolerance of Green agendas
>
>Wow! That Copenhagen package really worked. Global warming has been
>dramatically reversed. In fact, if Al Gore could see his way to
>turning the heat back up just a little, most of us would be deeply
>appreciative...
>
>"Climate science" is the oxymoron of the century.
How ironic coming from the very people who gave us Creationism
and Intelligent Design.
snicker
Frank
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100021526/climate-science-is-an-oxymoron-time-for-zero-tolerance-of-green-agendas/
>
> Time for Zero Tolerance of Green agendas
>
> Wow! That Copenhagen package really worked. Global warming has been
> dramatically reversed. In fact, if Al Gore could see his way to
> turning the heat back up just a little, most of us would be deeply
> appreciative...
>
> town or hamlet in the country that has had its weather conditions
> correctly forecast, over periods as short as 12 hours, during the past
> week. This is the "exceptionally mild winter" that the climate change
> buffoons warned us would occur as a consequence of global warming.
> Their credibility is 20 degrees below zero.
>
> Yet nothing shames them, nothing persuades them to come out of the
> bunker with their hands high and "fess up". Patronisingly fobbing off
> the public with fabricated excuses has become second nature to them.
> Latterly they have been concocting alibis about the Gulf Stream to
> explain Britain�s Arctic conditions. Uh-huh? Is it the Gulf Stream
> that has frozen the Vistula and given Poland a temperature of �25C? Is
> it the Gulf Stream that has caused the worst blizzards in Beijing
> since 1951?
>
> The entire Northern Hemisphere is frozen. The world looks like a
> Christmas pudding with icing on the top. That is completely normal,
> part of the random climate fluctuations with which our ancestors were
> familiar. Yet fraudulent scientists have gained millions of pounds by
> taking selective samples of natural climate change, whipping up a
> Grande Peur and using it to advance the cause of world government,
> state control and fiscal despoliation of citizens.
>
> ...snip
They will give you the climate/weather argument where they can predict
long term but not short term. We are now finding this is flawed by
cherry picking data and flaws in basic data.
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> On 1/7/2010 9:51 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
>> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100021526/climate-
science-is-an-oxymoron-time-for-zero-tolerance-of-green-agendas/
>>
>> Time for Zero Tolerance of Green agendas
>>
>> Wow! That Copenhagen package really worked. Global warming has been
>> dramatically reversed. In fact, if Al Gore could see his way to turning
>> the heat back up just a little, most of us would be deeply
>> appreciative...
>>
>> "Climate science" is the oxymoron of the century. There is not a city,
>> town or hamlet in the country that has had its weather conditions
>> correctly forecast, over periods as short as 12 hours, during the past
>> week. This is the "exceptionally mild winter" that the climate change
>> buffoons warned us would occur as a consequence of global warming.
>> Their credibility is 20 degrees below zero.
>>
>> Yet nothing shames them, nothing persuades them to come out of the
>> bunker with their hands high and "fess up". Patronisingly fobbing off
>> the public with fabricated excuses has become second nature to them.
>> Latterly they have been concocting alibis about the Gulf Stream to
>> explain Britain’s Arctic conditions. Uh-huh? Is it the Gulf Stream that
>> has frozen the Vistula and given Poland a temperature of –25C? Is it
>> the Gulf Stream that has caused the worst blizzards in Beijing since
>> 1951?
>>
>> The entire Northern Hemisphere is frozen. The world looks like a
>> Christmas pudding with icing on the top. That is completely normal,
>> part of the random climate fluctuations with which our ancestors were
>> familiar. Yet fraudulent scientists have gained millions of pounds by
>> taking selective samples of natural climate change, whipping up a
>> Grande Peur and using it to advance the cause of world government,
>> state control and fiscal despoliation of citizens.
>>
>> ...snip
>
> They will give you the climate/weather argument where they can predict
> long term but not short term. We are now finding this is flawed by
> cherry picking data and flaws in basic data.
You have found nothing but assert a lot of opinion.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Republican Values: Torture, Rape and Lies
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan
We being people who deny AGCC...
Dan
HH&C
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100021526/climate-scie...
>
> Time for Zero Tolerance of Green agendas
>
> Wow! That Copenhagen package really worked. Global warming has been
> dramatically reversed. In fact, if Al Gore could see his way to
> turning the heat back up just a little, most of us would be deeply
> appreciative...
>
> "Climate science" is the oxymoron of the century. There is not a city,
> town or hamlet in the country that has had its weather conditions
> correctly forecast, over periods as short as 12 hours, during the past
> week. This is the "exceptionally mild winter" that the climate change
> buffoons warned us would occur as a consequence of global warming.
> Their credibility is 20 degrees below zero.
>
> Yet nothing shames them, nothing persuades them to come out of the
> bunker with their hands high and "fess up". Patronisingly fobbing off
> the public with fabricated excuses has become second nature to them.
> Latterly they have been concocting alibis about the Gulf Stream to
> that has frozen the Vistula and given Poland a temperature of –25C? Is
> it the Gulf Stream that has caused the worst blizzards in Beijing
> since 1951?
>
> The entire Northern Hemisphere is frozen. The world looks like a
> Christmas pudding with icing on the top. That is completely normal,
> part of the random climate fluctuations with which our ancestors were
> familiar. Yet fraudulent scientists have gained millions of pounds by
> taking selective samples of natural climate change, whipping up a
> Grande Peur and using it to advance the cause of world government,
> state control and fiscal despoliation of citizens.
>
> ...snip
Environmentalism is a belief system.
HH&C
> On 1/7/2010 9:51 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Time for Zero Tolerance of Green agendas
>
> > Wow! That Copenhagen package really worked. Global warming has been
> > dramatically reversed. In fact, if Al Gore could see his way to
> > turning the heat back up just a little, most of us would be deeply
> > appreciative...
>
> > "Climate science" is the oxymoron of the century. There is not a city,
> > town or hamlet in the country that has had its weather conditions
> > correctly forecast, over periods as short as 12 hours, during the past
> > week. This is the "exceptionally mild winter" that the climate change
> > buffoons warned us would occur as a consequence of global warming.
> > Their credibility is 20 degrees below zero.
>
> > Yet nothing shames them, nothing persuades them to come out of the
> > bunker with their hands high and "fess up". Patronisingly fobbing off
> > the public with fabricated excuses has become second nature to them.
> > Latterly they have been concocting alibis about the Gulf Stream to
> > that has frozen the Vistula and given Poland a temperature of –25C? Is
> > it the Gulf Stream that has caused the worst blizzards in Beijing
> > since 1951?
>
> > The entire Northern Hemisphere is frozen. The world looks like a
> > Christmas pudding with icing on the top. That is completely normal,
> > part of the random climate fluctuations with which our ancestors were
> > familiar. Yet fraudulent scientists have gained millions of pounds by
> > taking selective samples of natural climate change, whipping up a
> > Grande Peur and using it to advance the cause of world government,
> > state control and fiscal despoliation of citizens.
>
> > ...snip
>
> They will give you the climate/weather argument where they can predict
> long term but not short term. We are now finding this is flawed by
> cherry picking data and flaws in basic data.
Junk science. Unfortunately two generations have been brainwashed
with it in public schools.
HH&C
> On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 08:56:21 -0500, Frank <frankperiodlogu...@comcast.net>
Global warming is an opinion. Anthropogenic global warming is a wild
guess.
Dan
> On Jan 7, 9:51 pm, Winston_Smith <not_r...@bogus.net> wrote:
>> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100021526/climate-scie...
>>
>> Time for Zero Tolerance of Green agendas
>>
>> Wow! That Copenhagen package really worked. Global warming has been
>> dramatically reversed. In fact, if Al Gore could see his way to
>> turning the heat back up just a little, most of us would be deeply
>> appreciative...
>>
>> "Climate science" is the oxymoron of the century. There is not a city,
>> town or hamlet in the country that has had its weather conditions
>> correctly forecast, over periods as short as 12 hours, during the past
>> week. This is the "exceptionally mild winter" that the climate change
>> buffoons warned us would occur as a consequence of global warming.
>> Their credibility is 20 degrees below zero.
>>
>> Yet nothing shames them, nothing persuades them to come out of the
>> bunker with their hands high and "fess up". Patronisingly fobbing off
>> the public with fabricated excuses has become second nature to them.
>> Latterly they have been concocting alibis about the Gulf Stream to
>> that has frozen the Vistula and given Poland a temperature of �25C? Is
>> it the Gulf Stream that has caused the worst blizzards in Beijing
>> since 1951?
>>
>> The entire Northern Hemisphere is frozen. The world looks like a
>> Christmas pudding with icing on the top. That is completely normal,
>> part of the random climate fluctuations with which our ancestors were
>> familiar. Yet fraudulent scientists have gained millions of pounds by
>> taking selective samples of natural climate change, whipping up a
>> Grande Peur and using it to advance the cause of world government,
>> state control and fiscal despoliation of citizens.
>>
>> ...snip
>
> Environmentalism is a belief system.
EVERYTHING you can think of is a "belief system." Duh.
Try reading up on Descartes sometime.
In your case, a minor adjustment is needed: "I don't think, therefore I
am not."
Dan
Dan
> On Jan 8, 8:56 am, Frank <frankperiodlogu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 1/7/2010 9:51 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100021526/climate-scie...
>>> Time for Zero Tolerance of Green agendas
>>> Wow! That Copenhagen package really worked. Global warming has been
>>> dramatically reversed. In fact, if Al Gore could see his way to
>>> turning the heat back up just a little, most of us would be deeply
>>> appreciative...
>>> "Climate science" is the oxymoron of the century. There is not a city,
>>> town or hamlet in the country that has had its weather conditions
>>> correctly forecast, over periods as short as 12 hours, during the past
>>> week. This is the "exceptionally mild winter" that the climate change
>>> buffoons warned us would occur as a consequence of global warming.
>>> Their credibility is 20 degrees below zero.
>>> Yet nothing shames them, nothing persuades them to come out of the
>>> bunker with their hands high and "fess up". Patronisingly fobbing off
>>> the public with fabricated excuses has become second nature to them.
>>> Latterly they have been concocting alibis about the Gulf Stream to
>>> that has frozen the Vistula and given Poland a temperature of �25C? Is
>>> it the Gulf Stream that has caused the worst blizzards in Beijing
>>> since 1951?
>>> The entire Northern Hemisphere is frozen. The world looks like a
>>> Christmas pudding with icing on the top. That is completely normal,
>>> part of the random climate fluctuations with which our ancestors were
>>> familiar. Yet fraudulent scientists have gained millions of pounds by
>>> taking selective samples of natural climate change, whipping up a
>>> Grande Peur and using it to advance the cause of world government,
>>> state control and fiscal despoliation of citizens.
>>> ...snip
>> They will give you the climate/weather argument where they can predict
>> long term but not short term. We are now finding this is flawed by
>> cherry picking data and flaws in basic data.
>
> Junk science. Unfortunately two generations have been brainwashed
> with it in public schools.
Not to mention most private schools...
Of course, one side (ours) has science to back them up, the other side
(deniers) rely on word of mouth and fabricated materials.
Oh well. Believe as you will. It is probably too late, anyway.
Dan
Dan
> On Jan 8, 5:47 pm, Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudg...@live.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 08:56:21 -0500, Frank <frankperiodlogu...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/7/2010 9:51 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100021526/climate-
>> science-is-an-oxymoron-time-for-zero-tolerance-of-green-agendas/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Time for Zero Tolerance of Green agendas
>>>> Wow! That Copenhagen package really worked. Global warming has been
>>>> dramatically reversed. In fact, if Al Gore could see his way to turning
>>>> the heat back up just a little, most of us would be deeply
>>>> appreciative...
>>>> "Climate science" is the oxymoron of the century. There is not a city,
>>>> town or hamlet in the country that has had its weather conditions
>>>> correctly forecast, over periods as short as 12 hours, during the past
>>>> week. This is the "exceptionally mild winter" that the climate change
>>>> buffoons warned us would occur as a consequence of global warming.
>>>> Their credibility is 20 degrees below zero.
>>>> Yet nothing shames them, nothing persuades them to come out of the
>>>> bunker with their hands high and "fess up". Patronisingly fobbing off
>>>> the public with fabricated excuses has become second nature to them.
>>>> Latterly they have been concocting alibis about the Gulf Stream to
>>>> has frozen the Vistula and given Poland a temperature of �25C? Is it
>>>> the Gulf Stream that has caused the worst blizzards in Beijing since
>>>> 1951?
>>>> The entire Northern Hemisphere is frozen. The world looks like a
>>>> Christmas pudding with icing on the top. That is completely normal,
>>>> part of the random climate fluctuations with which our ancestors were
>>>> familiar. Yet fraudulent scientists have gained millions of pounds by
>>>> taking selective samples of natural climate change, whipping up a
>>>> Grande Peur and using it to advance the cause of world government,
>>>> state control and fiscal despoliation of citizens.
>>>> ...snip
>>> They will give you the climate/weather argument where they can predict
>>> long term but not short term. We are now finding this is flawed by
>>> cherry picking data and flaws in basic data.
>> You have found nothing but assert a lot of opinion.
>
> Global warming is an opinion. Anthropogenic global warming is a wild
> guess.
And AGCC denial is a fantasy world.
Of course, by your definition, your refrigerator doesn't work, either (a
favorite of mine ever since the antidarwinians made that claim, without
knowing it, in defense of Darwin-denial).
Dan
So?
Dan
HH&C
> HH&C wrote:
> > On Jan 8, 8:56 am, Frank <frankperiodlogu...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 1/7/2010 9:51 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
>
> >>>http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100021526/climate-scie...
> >>> Time for Zero Tolerance of Green agendas
> >>> Wow! That Copenhagen package really worked. Global warming has been
> >>> dramatically reversed. In fact, if Al Gore could see his way to
> >>> turning the heat back up just a little, most of us would be deeply
> >>> appreciative...
> >>> "Climate science" is the oxymoron of the century. There is not a city,
> >>> town or hamlet in the country that has had its weather conditions
> >>> correctly forecast, over periods as short as 12 hours, during the past
> >>> week. This is the "exceptionally mild winter" that the climate change
> >>> buffoons warned us would occur as a consequence of global warming.
> >>> Their credibility is 20 degrees below zero.
> >>> Yet nothing shames them, nothing persuades them to come out of the
> >>> bunker with their hands high and "fess up". Patronisingly fobbing off
> >>> the public with fabricated excuses has become second nature to them.
> >>> Latterly they have been concocting alibis about the Gulf Stream to
> >>> that has frozen the Vistula and given Poland a temperature of –25C? Is
> >>> it the Gulf Stream that has caused the worst blizzards in Beijing
> >>> since 1951?
> >>> The entire Northern Hemisphere is frozen. The world looks like a
> >>> Christmas pudding with icing on the top. That is completely normal,
> >>> part of the random climate fluctuations with which our ancestors were
> >>> familiar. Yet fraudulent scientists have gained millions of pounds by
> >>> taking selective samples of natural climate change, whipping up a
> >>> Grande Peur and using it to advance the cause of world government,
> >>> state control and fiscal despoliation of citizens.
> >>> ...snip
> >> They will give you the climate/weather argument where they can predict
> >> long term but not short term. We are now finding this is flawed by
> >> cherry picking data and flaws in basic data.
>
> > Junk science. Unfortunately two generations have been brainwashed
> > with it in public schools.
>
> Not to mention most private schools...
>
> Of course, one side (ours) has science to back them up, the other side
> (deniers) rely on word of mouth and fabricated materials.
>
> Oh well. Believe as you will. It is probably too late, anyway.
>
> Dan
Too late for what? A new TAX??? It's never too late for a new tax.
HH&C
> HH&C wrote:
> > On Jan 7, 9:51 pm, Winston_Smith <not_r...@bogus.net> wrote:
> >>http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100021526/climate-scie...
>
> >> Time for Zero Tolerance of Green agendas
>
> >> Wow! That Copenhagen package really worked. Global warming has been
> >> dramatically reversed. In fact, if Al Gore could see his way to
> >> turning the heat back up just a little, most of us would be deeply
> >> appreciative...
>
> >> "Climate science" is the oxymoron of the century. There is not a city,
> >> town or hamlet in the country that has had its weather conditions
> >> correctly forecast, over periods as short as 12 hours, during the past
> >> week. This is the "exceptionally mild winter" that the climate change
> >> buffoons warned us would occur as a consequence of global warming.
> >> Their credibility is 20 degrees below zero.
>
> >> Yet nothing shames them, nothing persuades them to come out of the
> >> bunker with their hands high and "fess up". Patronisingly fobbing off
> >> the public with fabricated excuses has become second nature to them.
> >> Latterly they have been concocting alibis about the Gulf Stream to
> >> that has frozen the Vistula and given Poland a temperature of 25C? Is
> >> it the Gulf Stream that has caused the worst blizzards in Beijing
> >> since 1951?
>
> >> The entire Northern Hemisphere is frozen. The world looks like a
> >> Christmas pudding with icing on the top. That is completely normal,
> >> part of the random climate fluctuations with which our ancestors were
> >> familiar. Yet fraudulent scientists have gained millions of pounds by
> >> taking selective samples of natural climate change, whipping up a
> >> Grande Peur and using it to advance the cause of world government,
> >> state control and fiscal despoliation of citizens.
>
> >> ...snip
>
> > Environmentalism is a belief system.
>
> EVERYTHING you can think of is a "belief system." Duh.
>
> Try reading up on Descartes sometime.
Rene?
I deal with his works every day... the cartesian coordinate system.
And Curly doubted that I work in science every day. Such a fool.
> In your case, a minor adjustment is needed: "I don't think, therefore I
> am not."
>
> Dan-
Also, didn't Rene prove the existence of God?
Observer
Gullible folks might believe that.
__
The last official act of any government is the looting of the nation.
HH&C
Would Curly reject the Cartesian Coordinate System because a
"CrazyMotherFucker" designed it?
How do you guys reconcile the fact that some of the very best science
has been accomplished by what you call "CrazyMorthFuckers???"
hal
wrote:
>hal wrote:
>>On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 19:51:26 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>
>>>http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100021526/climate-science-is-an-oxymoron-time-for-zero-tolerance-of-green-agendas/
>>> Time for Zero Tolerance of Green agendas
>>>
>>>Wow! That Copenhagen package really worked. Global warming has been
>>>dramatically reversed. In fact, if Al Gore could see his way to
>>>turning the heat back up just a little, most of us would be deeply
>>>appreciative...
>>>
>>>"Climate science" is the oxymoron of the century.
>>
>>How ironic coming from the very people who gave us Creationism
>>and Intelligent Design.
>
>Once again, you are completely wrong. In fact you are introducing a
>complete red herring about another unrelated subject addressed by
>different people.
Nonsense. It's just more anti-science from the right wing, who denies
all reality if it's good for business.
Observer
You'd have to ask him.
>How do you guys reconcile the fact that some of the very best science
>has been accomplished by what you call "CrazyMorthFuckers???"
You guys?
Observer
>HH&C wrote:
>> On Jan 7, 9:51 pm, Winston_Smith <not_r...@bogus.net> wrote:
>>> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100021526/climate-scie...
>>>
>>> Time for Zero Tolerance of Green agendas
>>>
>>> Wow! That Copenhagen package really worked. Global warming has been
>>> dramatically reversed. In fact, if Al Gore could see his way to
>>> turning the heat back up just a little, most of us would be deeply
>>> appreciative...
>>>
>>> "Climate science" is the oxymoron of the century. There is not a city,
>>> town or hamlet in the country that has had its weather conditions
>>> correctly forecast, over periods as short as 12 hours, during the past
>>> week. This is the "exceptionally mild winter" that the climate change
>>> buffoons warned us would occur as a consequence of global warming.
>>> Their credibility is 20 degrees below zero.
>>>
>>> Yet nothing shames them, nothing persuades them to come out of the
>>> bunker with their hands high and "fess up". Patronisingly fobbing off
>>> the public with fabricated excuses has become second nature to them.
>>> Latterly they have been concocting alibis about the Gulf Stream to
>>> explain Britain’s Arctic conditions. Uh-huh? Is it the Gulf Stream
>>> that has frozen the Vistula and given Poland a temperature of –25C? Is
>>> it the Gulf Stream that has caused the worst blizzards in Beijing
>>> since 1951?
>>>
>>> The entire Northern Hemisphere is frozen. The world looks like a
>>> Christmas pudding with icing on the top. That is completely normal,
>>> part of the random climate fluctuations with which our ancestors were
>>> familiar. Yet fraudulent scientists have gained millions of pounds by
>>> taking selective samples of natural climate change, whipping up a
>>> Grande Peur and using it to advance the cause of world government,
>>> state control and fiscal despoliation of citizens.
>>>
>>> ...snip
>>
>> Environmentalism is a belief system.
>
>EVERYTHING you can think of is a "belief system." Duh.
>
>Try reading up on Descartes sometime.
Gee, try not to mention him around the NeoCons, as that is simply
putting Descartes before the whores.
>In your case, a minor adjustment is needed: "I don't think, therefore I
>am not."
>
>Dan
__
HH&C
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 15:20:43 -0800 (PST), "HH&C"
>
>
>
>
>
But you always jump in and reply for him.
> >How do you guys reconcile the fact that some of the very best science
> >has been accomplished by what you call "CrazyMorthFuckers???"
>
> You guys?
So you don't think that people who believe in God are
"CrazyMotherFuckers?"
HH&C
Heh. I like that.
Observer
Wow. ANOTHER lie. Who'd have thunk it, coming from you.
>> >How do you guys reconcile the fact that some of the very best science
>> >has been accomplished by what you call "CrazyMorthFuckers???"
>>
>> You guys?
>
>So you don't think that people who believe in God are
>"CrazyMotherFuckers?"
I believe YOU are.
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> Dan <dnad...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Of course, one side (ours) has science to back them up, the other side
>>(deniers) rely on word of mouth and fabricated materials.
>
> Snicker, guffaw. Your "side" is the ones caught fudging the data.
Accusations that _some_ data, a trivially small amount, _might_ have been
twisted. If that happened then it is intolerable and those scientists
will be routed out of their positions.
Even if some single study were corrupted, intentionally or intentionally,
it does not negate the vast compilation of world wide data and 90%+ of
scientists and climatologists who stand by the massive data.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who's God Do You Kill For?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> "HH&C" <hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Jan 9, 5:15 pm, Observer <noone@nowhere> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 12:28:24 -0800 (PST), "HH&C"
>
>>> >Also, didn't Rene prove the existence of God?
>>>
>>> Gullible folks might believe that.
>>
>>Would Curly reject the Cartesian Coordinate System because a
>>"CrazyMotherFucker" designed it?
>
> What until he finds out about Maxwell's demon, the God particle, and the
> God mode recently discovered in Windows 7.
Am I still stalking the cockroach?
-- Curly
Retief
<CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>Even if some single study were corrupted, intentionally or intentionally,
>it does not negate the vast compilation of world wide data and 90%+ of
>scientists and climatologists who stand by the massive data.
If you address this statement honestly, you not be able to support the
claim of "90%+" -- you are likely to be hard pressed to even produce a
majority who stand behind it.
Retief
Curly Surmudgeon
First link googled, read and weep:
updated 1:02 a.m. EST, Tue January 20, 2009
Surveyed scientists agree global warming is real
(CNN) -- Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S.
survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists. However there remains
divisions between climatologists and scientists from other areas of earth
sciences as to the extent of human responsibility.
Against a backdrop of harsh winter weather across much of North America
and Europe, the concept of rising global temperatures might seem
incongruous.
However the results of the investigation conducted at the end of 2008
reveal that vast majority of the Earth scientists surveyed agree that in
the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising and
that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean
global temperatures.
The study released today was conducted by academics from the University
of Illinois, who used an online questionnaire of nine questions. The
scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American
Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.
Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to
pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in
changing mean global temperatures?
About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82
percent the second.
The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from
climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent
agreeing humans play a role.
Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters,
with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human
involvement.
"The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the
meteorologists' is very interesting," said Peter Doran associate
professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of
Illinois at Chicago, and one of the survey's authors.
"Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most
of them actually study very short-term phenomenon."
However, Doran was not surprised by the near-unanimous agreement by
climatologists.
"They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess
the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate
science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and
humankind's contribution to it.
"The debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by
human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the
nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes," said Doran.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/
index.html
--
Curly
Curly Surmudgeon
AGain:
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes*
Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States,
frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have
used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change,
then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went
through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions
on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be
adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also
alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest
that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community
about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.
The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the
World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental
Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as
a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-
reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent
assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific
opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities:
"Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric
constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the
observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the
increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].
IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major
scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears
directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the
National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis
of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in
Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air
temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)].
The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary
of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's
conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is
likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations
accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on
this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American
Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement
of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding
that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities
for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they
would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members.
Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That
hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed
scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database
with the keywords "climate change" (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of
the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals,
methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position.
Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either
explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with
methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic
climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the
consensus position.
Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying
paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is
natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.
This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed
literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the
public statements of their professional societies. Politicians,
economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion,
disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is
incorrect.
The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of
science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for
failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely
blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic
climate change and failed to do anything about it.
Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and
there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis
for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about
climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on
the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have
repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to
listen.
References and Notes
1. A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, New York Times, 19 June 2003, A1.
2. S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies, Climate
Policy 2 (1), 3 (2003).
3. See www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm.
4. J. J. McCarthy et al., Eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts,
Adaptation, and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).
5. National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate
Change, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions
(National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001).
6. American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508
(2003).
7. American Geophysical Union, Eos 84 (51), 574 (2003).
8. See www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html.
9. The first year for which the database consistently published
abstracts was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis
because, although the authors had put "climate change" in their key
words, the paper was not about climate change.
10. This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial
Lecture, "Consensus in science: How do we know we're not wrong,"
presented at the AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS
and the History of Science Society for their support of this lectureship;
to my research assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K.
Belitz, J. R. Fleming, M. T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville
for helpful discussions.
10.1126/science.1103618
The author is in the Department of History and Science Studies Program,
University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA. E-mail:
nore...@ucsd.edu
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
--
Curly
Curly Surmudgeon
It's a bitch when reality disagrees with preconceived opinion:
Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust
the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change
S. Robert Lichter, Ph.D, April 24, 2008
STATS survey of experts reveals changing scientific opinion on global
warming, extent of pressure to play up or down threat.
Over eight out of ten American climate scientists believe that human
activity contributes to global warming, according to a new survey
released by the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason
University. The researchers also report that belief in human-induced
warming has more than doubled since the last major survey of American
climate scientists in 1991. However, the survey finds that scientists are
still debating the dynamics and dangers of global warming, and only three
percent trust newspaper or television coverage of climate change.
The survey, which was conducted for STATS by Harris Interactive®, also
found increased concern among climate scientists since the Gallup
organization asked them many of the same questions in 1991.
Between March 19 through May 28, 2007 Harris Interactive conducted a mail
survey of a random sample of 489 self-identified members of either the
American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union who are
listed in the current edition of American Men and Women of Science. A
random sample of this size carries a theoretical sampling error of +/-
four percentage points. A detailed description of the study’s methodology
as well as that of the earlier Gallup survey is available on request.
Major Findings
Scientists agree that humans cause global warming
Ninety-seven percent of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global
average temperatures have increased” during the past century.
Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is
occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence”
substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity
does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest are unsure.
Scientists still debate the dangers
A slight majority (54%) believe the warming measured over the last 100
years is not “within the range of natural temperature fluctuation.”
A slight majority (56%) see at least a 50-50 chance that global
temperatures will rise two degrees Celsius or more during the next 50 to
100 years. (The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
cites this increase as the point beyond which additional warming would
produce major environmental disruptions.)
Based on current trends, 41% of scientists believe global climate change
will pose a very great danger to the earth in the next 50 to 100 years,
compared to 13% who see relatively little danger. Another 44% rate
climate change as moderately dangerous.
Seventy percent see climate change as very difficult to manage over the
next 50 to 100 years, compared to only 5% who see it as not very
difficult to manage. Another 23% see moderate difficulty in managing
these changes.
A need to know more
Overall, only 5% describe the study of global climate change as a “fully
mature” science, but 51% describe it as “fairly mature,” while 40% see it
as still an “emerging” science. However, over two out of three (69%)
believe there is at least a 50-50 chance that the debate over the role of
human activity in global warming will be settled in the next 10 to 20
years.
Only 29% express a “great deal of confidence” that scientists understand
the size and extent of anthropogenic [human] sources of greenhouse
gases,” and only 32% are confident about our understanding of the
archeological climate evidence.
Climate scientists are skeptical of the media
Only 1% of climate scientists rate either broadcast or cable television
news about climate change as “very reliable.” Another 31% say broadcast
news is “somewhat reliable,” compared to 25% for cable news. (The
remainder rate TV news as “not very” or “not at all” reliable.) Local
newspapers are rated as very reliable by 3% and somewhat reliable by 33%
of scientists. Even the national press (New York Times, Wall St. Journal
etc) is rated as very reliable by only 11%, although another 56% say it
is at least somewhat reliable.
Former Vice President Al Gore’s documentary film “An Inconvenient Truth”
rates better than any traditional news source, with 26% finding it “very
reliable” and 38% as somewhat reliable. Other non-traditional information
sources fare poorly: No more than 1% of climate experts rate the doomsday
movie “The Day After Tomorrow” or Michael Crichton’s novel “State of
Fear” as very reliable.
Are climate scientists being pressured to deny or advance global warming?
Five percent of climate scientists say they have been pressured by public
officials or government agencies to “deny, minimize or discount evidence
of human-induced global warming,” Three percent say they have been
pressured by funders, and two percent perceived pressure from supervisors
at work.
Three percent report that they were pressured by public officials or
government agencies to “embellish, play up or overstate” evidence of
global warming: Two percent report such pressure from funders, and two
percent from supervisors.
Changing scientific opinion
In 1991 the Gallup organization conducted a telephone survey on global
climate change among 400 scientists drawn from membership lists of the
American Meteorological Association and the American Geophysical Union.
We repeated several of their questions verbatim, in order to measure
changes in scientific opinion over time. On a variety of questions,
opinion has consistently shifted toward increased belief in and concern
about global warming. Among the changes:
* In 1991 only 60% of climate scientists believed that average global
temperatures were up, compared to 97% today.
* In 1991 only a minority (41%) of climate scientists agreed that
then-current scientific evidence “substantiates the occurrence of human-
induced warming,” compared to three out of four (74%) today.
* The proportion of those who see at least a 50-50 chance that global
temperatures will rise two degrees Celsius has increased from 47% to 56%
since 1991.
* The proportion of scientists who have a great deal of confidence in
our understanding of the human-induced sources of global climate change
rose from 22% in 1991 to 29% in 2007. Similarly, the proportion voicing
confidence in our understanding of the archeological climate evidence
rose from 20% to 32%.
* Despite these expressions of uncertainty, however, the proportion
which rating the chances at 50-50 or better that the role of human
behavior will be settled in the near future rose from 47% in 1991 to 69%
in 2007.
Methodology
The 2007 study was conducted by mail within the United States by Harris
Interactive on behalf of Statistical Assessment Service between March 19
and May 28, 2007 among 489 professional scientists who were either a
member of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) or the American
Geophysical Union (AGU). Weighting was done to correct for the fact that
a respondent with dual membership in the organizations had a greater
chance of being included in the sample.
All sample surveys and polls, whether or not they use probability
sampling, are subject to multiple sources of error which are most often
not possible to quantify or estimate, including sampling error, coverage
error, error associated with non-response, error associated with question
wording and response options, and post-survey weighting and adjustments.
Therefore, Harris Interactive avoids the words “margin of error” as they
are misleading. All that can be calculated are different possible
sampling errors with different probabilities for pure, unweighted, random
samples with 100% response rates. These are only theoretical because no
published polls come close to this ideal.
http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html
--
Curly
Curly Surmudgeon
Ignorance is no excuse. Nor is denial:
Scientific opinion on climate change
This article is about scientific opinion on climate change. For recent
climate change generally, see Global warming. For debate on scientific
consensus, see Climate change consensus. For opinions of dissenting
individual climate scientists, see List of scientists opposing the
mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.
Scientific opinion on climate change is given by synthesis reports,
scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of
opinion among climate scientists. This does not include the views of
individual scientists, individual universities, or laboratories, nor self-
selected lists of individuals such as petitions.
National and international science academies and scientific societies
have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent
global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001
that states:
An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a
warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and
stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50
years is attributable to human activities.[1]
Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has
maintained a dissenting opinion. Some organisations hold non-committal
positions.
Statements by concurring organizations
[edit] Academies of Science
[edit] Joint science academies' statements
Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue
joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging
the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The
signatories of these statements have been the national science academies:
* of Australia,
* of Belgium,
* of Brazil,
* of Cameroon,
* Royal Society of Canada,
* of the Caribbean,
* of China,
* Institut de France,
* of Ghana,
* Leopoldina of Germany,
* of Indonesia,
* of Ireland,
* Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy,
* of India,
* of Japan,
* of Kenya,
* of Madagascar,
* of Malaysia,
* of Mexico,
* of Nigeria,
* Royal Society of New Zealand,
* Russian Academy of Sciences,
* of Senegal,
* of South Africa,
* of Sudan,
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences,
* of Tanzania,
* of Uganda,
* The Royal Society of the United Kingdom,
* of the United States,
* of Zambia,
* and of Zimbabwe.
* 2001-Following the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report,
sixteen national science academies issued a joint statement explicitly
acknowledging the IPCC position as representing the scientific consensus
on climate change science. The sixteen science academies that issued the
statement were those of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the
Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy,
Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.[10]
* 2005-The national science academies of the G8 nations, plus Brazil,
China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the
developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate
change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of
climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt
action[11], and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus. The eleven
signatories were the science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France,
Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United
States.
* 2007-In preparation for the 33rd G8 summit, the national science
academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration referencing the
position of the 2005 joint science academies' statement, and
acknowledging the confirmation of their previous conclusion by recent
research. Following the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the declaration
states, "It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very
likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human
interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the
environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken."[12]
The thirteen signatories were the national science academies of Brazil,
Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia,
South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
* 2008-In preparation for the 34th G8 summit, the national science
academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration reiterating the
position of the 2005 joint science academies’ statement, and reaffirming
“that climate change is happening and that anthropogenic warming is
influencing many physical and biological systems.” Among other actions,
the declaration urges all nations to “(t)ake appropriate economic and
policy measures to accelerate transition to a low carbon society and to
encourage and effect changes in individual and national behaviour.”[13]
The thirteen signatories were the same national science academies that
issued the 2007 joint statement.
* 2009-In advance of the UNFCCC negotiations to be held in Copenhagen
in December 2009, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations
issued a joint statement declaring, "Climate change and sustainable
energy supply are crucial challenges for the future of humanity. It is
essential that world leaders agree on the emission reductions needed to
combat negative consequences of anthropogenic climate change". The
statement references the IPCC's Fourth Assessment of 2007, and asserts
that "climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated;
global CO2 emissions since 2000 have been higher than even the highest
predictions, Arctic sea ice has been melting at rates much faster than
predicted, and the rise in the sea level has become more rapid."[14] The
thirteen signatories were the same national science academies that issued
the 2007 and 2008 joint statements.
[edit] InterAcademy Council
As the representative of the world’s scientific and engineering academies,
[15][16] the InterAcademy Council (IAC) issued a report in 2007 titled
Lighting the Way: Toward a Sustainable Energy Future.
Current patterns of energy resources and energy usage are proving
detrimental to the long-term welfare of humanity. The integrity of
essential natural systems is already at risk from climate change caused
by the atmospheric emissions of greenhouse gases.[17]
Concerted efforts should be mounted for improving energy efficiency
and reducing the carbon intensity of the world economy.[18]
[edit] European Academy of Sciences and Arts
In 2007, the European Academy of Sciences and Arts issued a formal
declaration on climate change titled Let's Be Honest:
Human activity is most likely responsible for climate warming. Most
of the climatic warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been
caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Documented long-term climate changes include changes in Arctic
temperatures and ice, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean
salinity, wind patterns and extreme weather including droughts, heavy
precipitation, heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones. The
above development potentially has dramatic consequences for mankind’s
future.[19]
[edit] International Council of Academies of Engineering and
Technological Sciences
In 2007, the International Council of Academies of Engineering and
Technological Sciences (CAETS) issued a Statement on Environment and
Sustainable Growth[20]:
As reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
most of the observed global warming since the mid-20th century is very
likely due to human-produced emission of greenhouse gases and this
warming will continue unabated if present anthropogenic emissions
continue or, worse, expand without control.
CAETS, therefore, endorses the many recent calls to decrease and
control greenhouse gas emissions to an acceptable level as quickly as
possible.
[edit] Network of African Science Academies
In 2007, the Network of African Science Academies submitted a joint
“statement on sustainability, energy efficiency, and climate change” to
the leaders meeting at the G8 Summit in Heiligendamm, Germany:
A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global
scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate
change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for
driving this change.
The IPCC should be congratulated for the contribution it has made to
public understanding of the nexus that exists between energy, climate and
sustainability.[21]
The thirteen signatories were the science academies of Cameroon, Ghana,
Kenya, Madagascar, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania,
Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, as well as the African Academy of Sciences.
[edit] Royal Society of New Zealand
Having signed onto the first joint science academies' statement in 2001,
the Royal Society of New Zealand released a separate statement in 2008 in
order to clear up "the controversy over climate change and its causes,
and possible confusion among the public":
The globe is warming because of increasing greenhouse gas emissions.
Measurements show that greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere
are well above levels seen for many thousands of years. Further global
climate changes are predicted, with impacts expected to become more
costly as time progresses. Reducing future impacts of climate change will
require substantial reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.[22]
[edit] Polish Academy of Sciences
In December 2007, the General Assembly of the Polish Academy of Sciences
(PAN) issued a statement endorsing the IPCC conclusions, and states:
it is the duty of Polish science and the national government to, in a
thoughtful, organized and active manner, become involved in realisation
of these ideas.
Problems of global warming, climate change, and their various
negative impacts on human life and on the functioning of entire societies
are one of the most dramatic challenges of modern times.
PAS General Assembly calls on the national scientific communities and
the national government to actively support Polish participation in this
important endeavor.[23]
[edit] National Research Council (US)
In 2001, the Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the National
Research Council published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some
Key Questions.[24] This report explicitly endorses the IPCC view of
attribution of recent climate change as representing the view of the
scientific community:
The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly
due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant
part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-
induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue
through the 21st century... The IPCC's conclusion that most of the
observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the
increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current
thinking of the scientific community on this issue[24].
[edit] General science
[edit] American Association for the Advancement of Science
As the world's largest general scientific society, the American
Association for the Advancement of Science adopted an official statement
on climate change in 2006:
The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by
human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to
society....The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased
markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas
emissions is now.[25]
[edit] American Chemical Society
The American Chemical Society stated:
Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly
demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing rapidly in
response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases and absorbing
aerosol particles (IPCC, 2007). There is very little room for doubt that
observed climate trends are due to human activities. The threats are
serious and action is urgently needed to mitigate the risks of climate
change.
The reality of global warming, its current serious and potentially
disastrous impacts on Earth system properties, and the key role emissions
from human activities play in driving these phenomena have been
recognized by earlier versions of this ACS policy statement (ACS, 2004),
by other major scientific societies, including the American Geophysical
Union (AGU, 2003), the American Meteorological Society (AMS, 2007) and
the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, 2007), and
by the U. S. National Academies and ten other leading national academies
of science (NA, 2005).[26]
[edit] American Institute of Physics
The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics endorsed the AGU
statement on human-induced climate change:[27]
The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics has endorsed
a position statement on climate change adopted by the American
Geophysical Union (AGU) Council in December 2003.
[edit] American Physical Society
In November 2007, the American Physical Society (APS) adopted an official
statement on climate change:
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. 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.
Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction
difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of
human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological
options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms.
The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and
its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the
emission of greenhouse gases.[28]
[edit] European Science Foundation
In 2007, the European Science Foundation issued a Position Paper on
climate change:
There is now convincing evidence that since the industrial
revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of
greenhouse gases have become a major agent of climate change. These
greenhouse gases affect the global climate by retaining heat in the
troposphere, thus raising the average temperature of the planet and
altering global atmospheric circulation and precipitation patterns.
While on-going national and international actions to curtail and
reduce greenhouse gas emissions are essential, the levels of greenhouse
gases currently in the atmosphere, and their impact, are likely to
persist for several decades. On-going and increased efforts to mitigate
climate change through reduction in greenhouse gases are therefore
crucial.[29]
[edit] Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
In 2008, the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological
Societies (FASTS) issued a policy statement on climate change:
Global climate change is real and measurable. Since the start of the
20th century, the global mean surface temperature of the Earth has
increased by more than 0.7°C and the rate of warming has been largest in
the last 30 years.
Key vulnerabilities arising from climate change include water
resources, food supply, health, coastal settlements, biodiversity and
some key ecosystems such as coral reefs and alpine regions. As the
atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases increases, impacts become
more severe and widespread. To reduce the global net economic,
environmental and social losses in the face of these impacts, the policy
objective must remain squarely focused on returning greenhouse gas
concentrations to near pre-industrial levels through the reduction of
emissions.
The spatial and temporal fingerprint of warming can be traced to
increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, which are a
direct result of burning fossil fuels, broad-scale deforestation and
other human activity.[30]
[edit] Earth sciences
[edit] American Geophysical Union
The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement,[31] adopted by the
society in 2003 and revised in 2007, affirms that rising levels of
greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global
surface temperature to be warmer:
The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming.
Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the
atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers,
the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of
seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural
and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of
greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th
century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by
about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous
twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid
retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the
disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most
oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to
human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems
are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research
effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve
our scientific understanding of the climate.
[edit] European Federation of Geologists
In 2008, the European Federation of Geologists (EFG) issued the position
paper Carbon Capture and geological Storage :
The EFG recognizes the work of the IPCC and other organizations, and
subscribes to the major findings that climate change is happening, is
predominantly caused by anthropogenic emissions of CO2, and poses a
significant threat to human civilization.
It is clear that major efforts are necessary to quickly and strongly
reduce CO2 emissions. The EFG strongly advocates renewable and
sustainable energy production, including geothermal energy, as well as
the need for increasing energy efficiency.
CCS [Carbon Capture and geological Storage] should also be regarded
as a bridging technology, facilitating the move towards a carbon free
economy.[32]
[edit] European Geosciences Union
In 2005, the Divisions of Atmospheric and Climate Sciences of the
European Geosciences Union (EGU) issued a position statement in support
of the joint science academies’ statement on global response to climate
change. The statement refers to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), as "the main representative of the global scientific
community", and asserts that the IPCC
represents the state-of-the-art of climate science supported by the
major science academies around the world and by the vast majority of
science researchers and investigators as documented by the peer-reviewed
scientific literature.[33]
Additionally, in 2008, the EGU issued a position statement on ocean
acidification which states, "Ocean acidification is already occurring
today and will continue to intensify, closely tracking atmospheric CO2
increase. Given the potential threat to marine ecosystems and its ensuing
impact on human society and economy, especially as it acts in conjunction
with anthropogenic global warming, there is an urgent need for immediate
action." The statement then advocates for strategies "to limit future
release of CO2 to the atmosphere and/or enhance removal of excess CO2
from the atmosphere."[34]
[edit] Geological Society of America
In 2006, the Geological Society of America adopted a position statement
on global climate change:
The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific
conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due
in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate
changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries.
Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate change and the
time scale over which such changes will likely occur require active,
effective, long-term planning.[35]
[edit] Geological Society of Australia
In July 2009, the Geological Society of Australia issued the position
statement Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change:
Human activities have increasing impact on Earth’s environments. Of
particular concern are the well-documented loading of carbon dioxide
(CO2) to the atmosphere, which has been linked unequivocally to burning
of fossil fuels, and the corresponding increase in average global
temperature. Risks associated with these large-scale perturbations of the
Earth’s fundamental life-support systems include rising sea level,
harmful shifts in the acid balance of the oceans and long-term changes in
local and regional climate and extreme weather events.
GSA therefore recommends…strong action be taken at all levels,
including government, industry, and individuals to substantially reduce
the current levels of greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the likely
social and environmental effects of increasing atmospheric CO2.[36]
[edit] International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
In July 2007, the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG)
adopted a resolution titled “The Urgency of Addressing Climate Change”.
In it, the IUGG concurs with the “comprehensive and widely accepted and
endorsed scientific assessments carried out by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change and regional and national bodies, which have
firmly established, on the basis of scientific evidence, that human
activities are the primary cause of recent climate change.” They state
further that the “continuing reliance on combustion of fossil fuels as
the world’s primary source of energy will lead to much higher atmospheric
concentrations of greenhouse gasses, which will, in turn, cause
significant increases in surface temperature, sea level, ocean
acidification, and their related consequences to the environment and
society.” [37]
[edit] National Association of Geoscience Teachers
In July 2009, the National Association of Geoscience Teachers (NAGT)
adopted a position statement on climate change in which they assert that
"Earth's climate is changing [and] "that present warming trends are
largely the result of human activities":
NAGT strongly supports and will work to promote education in the
science of climate change, the causes and effects of current global
warming, and the immediate need for policies and actions that reduce the
emission of greenhouse gases.[38]
[edit] Meteorology and oceanography
[edit] American Meteorological Society
The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their
council in 2003 said:
There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the
Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in
the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In
the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better
understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of
long-term climate change... Human activities have become a major source
of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of
the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because
greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a
global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of
which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as
well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems.[39]
[edit] Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
The Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society has issued a
Statement on Climate Change, wherein they conclude:
Global climate change and global warming are real and observable ...
It is highly likely that those human activities that have increased the
concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have been largely
responsible for the observed warming since 1950. The warming associated
with increases in greenhouse gases originating from human activity is
called the enhanced greenhouse effect. The atmospheric concentration of
carbon dioxide has increased by more than 30% since the start of the
industrial age and is higher now than at any time in at least the past
650,000 years. This increase is a direct result of burning fossil fuels,
broad-scale deforestation and other human activity.”[40]
[edit] Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
In November 2005, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric
Sciences (CFCAS) issued a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada stating
that
We concur with the climate science assessment of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001 ... We endorse
the conclusions of the IPCC assessment that 'There is new and stronger
evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is
attributable to human activities'. ... There is increasingly unambiguous
evidence of changing climate in Canada and around the world. There will
be increasing impacts of climate change on Canada’s natural ecosystems
and on our socio-economic activities. Advances in climate science since
the 2001 IPCC Assessment have provided more evidence supporting the need
for action and development of a strategy for adaptation to projected
changes.[41]
[edit] Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
The Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society 2002 Position
Statement on Climate Change states that the society:
endorses the process of periodic climate science assessment carried
out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and supports the
conclusion, in its Third Assessment Report, which states that the balance
of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.[42]
[edit] Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
In February 2007, after the release of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment
Report, the Royal Meteorological Society issued an endorsement of the
report. In addition to referring to the IPCC as “world’s best climate
scientists”, they stated that climate change is happening as “the result
of emissions since industrialization and we have already set in motion
the next 50 years of global warming – what we do from now on will
determine how worse it will get.” [43]
[edit] World Meteorological Organization
In its Statement at the Twelfth Session of the Conference of the Parties
to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change presented on November
15, 2006, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) confirms the need
to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate
system.” The WMO concurs that “scientific assessments have increasingly
reaffirmed that human activities are indeed changing the composition of
the atmosphere, in particular through the burning of fossil fuels for
energy production and transportation.” The WMO concurs that “the present
atmospheric concentration of CO2 was never exceeded over the past 420,000
years;” and that the IPCC “assessments provide the most authoritative, up-
to-date scientific advice.” [44]
[edit] Paleoclimatology
[edit] American Quaternary Association
The American Quaternary Association (AMQUA) has stated
Few credible Scientists now doubt that humans have influenced the
documented rise of global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution,”
citing “the growing body of evidence that warming of the atmosphere,
especially over the past 50 years, is directly impacted by human activity.
[45]
[edit] International Union for Quaternary Research
The statement on climate change issued by the International Union for
Quaternary Research (INQUA) reiterates the conclusions of the IPCC, and
urges all nations to take prompt action in line with the UNFCCC
principles.
Human activities are now causing atmospheric concentrations of
greenhouse gasses - including carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric
ozone, and nitrous oxide - to rise well above pre-industrial
levels….Increases in greenhouse gasses are causing temperatures to rise…
The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear
to justify nations taking prompt action….Minimizing the amount of this
carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere presents a huge challenge but must
be a global priority.[46]
[edit] Biology and life sciences
[edit] American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
The American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians (AAWV) has issued a
position statement regarding "climate change, wildlife diseases, and
wildlife health":
There is widespread scientific agreement that the world’s climate is
changing and that the weight of evidence demonstrates that anthropogenic
factors have and will continue to contribute significantly to global
warming and climate change. It is anticipated that continuing changes to
the climate will have serious negative impacts on public, animal and
ecosystem health due to extreme weather events, changing disease
transmission dynamics, emerging and re-emerging diseases, and alterations
to habitat and ecological systems that are essential to wildlife
conservation. Furthermore, there is increasing recognition of the inter-
relationships of human, domestic animal, wildlife, and ecosystem health
as illustrated by the fact the majority of recent emerging diseases have
a wildlife origin.[47]
[edit] American Society for Microbiology
In 2003, the American Society for Microbiology issued a public policy
report in which they recommend “reducing net anthropogenic CO2 emissions
to the atmosphere” and “minimizing anthropogenic disturbances of”
atmospheric gases:[48]
Carbon dioxide concentrations were relatively stable for the past
10,000 years but then began to increase rapidly about 150 years ago…as a
result of fossil fuel consumption and land use change.[49]
Of course, changes in atmospheric composition are but one component
of global change, which also includes disturbances in the physical and
chemical conditions of the oceans and land surface. Although global
change has been a natural process throughout Earth’s history, humans are
responsible for substantially accelerating present-day changes. These
changes may adversely affect human health and the biosphere on which we
depend.[50]
Outbreaks of a number of diseases, including Lyme disease, hantavirus
infections, dengue fever, bubonic plague, and cholera, have been linked
to climate change.[51]
[edit] Australian Coral Reef Society
In 2006, the Australian Coral Reef Society issued an official communique
regarding the Great Barrier Reef and the "world-wide decline in coral
reefs through processes such as overfishing, runoff of nutrients from the
land, coral bleaching, global climate change, ocean acidification,
pollution", etc.:
There is almost total consensus among experts that the earth’s
climate is changing as a result of the build-up of greenhouse gases. The
IPCC (involving over 3,000 of the world’s experts) has come out with
clear conclusions as to the reality of this phenomenon. One does not have
to look further than the collective academy of scientists worldwide to
see the string (of) statements on this worrying change to the earth’s
atmosphere.
There is broad scientific consensus that coral reefs are heavily
affected by the activities of man and there are significant global
influences that can make reefs more vulnerable such as global
warming....It is highly likely that coral bleaching has been exacerbated
by global warming.[52]
[edit] Institute of Biology (UK)
The UK's Institute of Biology states “there is scientific agreement that
the rapid global warming that has occurred in recent years is mostly
anthropogenic, ie due to human activity.” As a consequence of global
warming, they warn that a “rise in sea levels due to melting of ice caps
is expected to occur. Rises in temperature will have complex and
frequently localised effects on weather, but an overall increase in
extreme weather conditions and changes in precipitation patterns are
probable, resulting in flooding and drought. The spread of tropical
diseases is also expected.” Subsequently, the Institute of Biology
advocates policies to reduce “greenhouse gas emissions, as we feel that
the consequences of climate change are likely to be severe.”[53]
[edit] Society of American Foresters
In 2008, the Society of American Foresters (SAF) issued two position
statements pertaining to climate change in which they cite the IPCC and
the UNFCCC:
Forests are shaped by climate....Changes in temperature and
precipitation regimes therefore have the potential to dramatically affect
forests nationwide. There is growing evidence that our climate is
changing. The changes in temperature have been associated with increasing
concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and other GHGs in the
atmosphere.[54]
Forests play a significant role in offsetting CO2 emissions, the
primary anthropogenic GHG.[55]
[edit] The Wildlife Society (international)
The Wildlife Society has issued a position statement titled Global
Climate Change and Wildlife:[56]
Scientists throughout the world have concluded that climate research
conducted in the past two decades definitively shows that rapid worldwide
climate change occurred in the 20th century, and will likely continue to
occur for decades to come. Although climates have varied dramatically
since the earth was formed, few scientists question the role of humans in
exacerbating recent climate change through the emission of greenhouse
gases. The critical issue is no longer “if” climate change is occurring,
but rather how to address its effects on wildlife and wildlife habitats.
The statement goes on to assert that “evidence is accumulating that
wildlife and wildlife habitats have been and will continue to be
significantly affected by ongoing large-scale rapid climate change.”
The statement concludes with a call for “reduction in anthropogenic
(human-caused) sources of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas
emissions contributing to global climate change and the conservation of
CO2- consuming photosynthesizers (i.e., plants).”
[edit] Human health
[edit] American Academy of Pediatrics
In 2007, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued the policy statement
Global Climate Change and Children's Health:
There is broad scientific consensus that Earth's climate is warming
rapidly and at an accelerating rate. Human activities, primarily the
burning of fossil fuels, are very likely (>90% probability) to be the
main cause of this warming. Climate-sensitive changes in ecosystems are
already being observed, and fundamental, potentially irreversible,
ecological changes may occur in the coming decades. Conservative
environmental estimates of the impact of climate changes that are already
in process indicate that they will result in numerous health effects to
children.
Anticipated direct health consequences of climate change include
injury and death from extreme weather events and natural disasters,
increases in climate-sensitive infectious diseases, increases in air
pollution–related illness, and more heat-related, potentially fatal,
illness. Within all of these categories, children have increased
vulnerability compared with other groups.[57]
[edit] American College of Preventive Medicine
In 2006, the American College of Preventive Medicine issued a policy
statement on “Abrupt Climate Change and Public Health Implications”:
The American College of Preventive Medicine (ACPM) accept the
position that global warming and climate change is occurring, that there
is potential for abrupt climate change, and that human practices that
increase greenhouse gases exacerbate the problem, and that the public
health consequences may be severe.[58]
[edit] American Medical Association
In 2008, the American Medical Association issued a policy statement on
global climate change declaring that they:
Support the findings of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change report, which states that the Earth is undergoing adverse global
climate change and that these changes will negatively effect public
health.
Support educating the medical community on the potential adverse
public health effects of global climate change, including topics such as
population displacement, flooding, infectious and vector-borne diseases,
and healthy water supplies.[59]
[edit] American Public Health Association
In 2007, the American Public Health Association issued a policy statement
titled ‘’Addressing the Urgent Threat of Global Climate Change to Public
Health and the Environment’’:
The long-term threat of global climate change to global health is
extremely serious and the fourth IPCC report and other scientific
literature demonstrate convincingly that anthropogenic GHG emissions are
primarily responsible for this threat….US policy makers should
immediately take necessary steps to reduce US emissions of GHGs,
including carbon dioxide, to avert dangerous climate change.[60]
[edit] Australian Medical Association
In 2004, the Australian Medical Association issued the position statement
Climate Change and Human Health in which they recommend policies "to
mitigate the possible consequential health effects of climate change
through improved energy efficiency, clean energy production and other
emission reduction steps."[61]
This statement was revised again in 2008:
The world’s climate – our life-support system – is being altered in
ways that are likely to pose significant direct and indirect challenges
to health. While ‘climate change’ can be due to natural forces or human
activity, there is now substantial evidence to indicate that human
activity – and specifically increased greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions –
is a key factor in the pace and extent of global temperature increases.
Health impacts of climate change include the direct impacts of
extreme events such as storms, floods, heatwaves and fires and the
indirect effects of longer-term changes, such as drought, changes to the
food and water supply, resource conflicts and population shifts.
Increases in average temperatures mean that alterations in the
geographic range and seasonality of certain infections and diseases
(including vector-borne diseases such as malaria, dengue fever, Ross
River virus and food-borne infections such as Salmonellosis) may be among
the first detectable impacts of climate change on human health.
Human health is ultimately dependent on the health of the planet and
its ecosystem. The AMA believes that measures which mitigate climate
change will also benefit public health. Reducing GHGs should therefore be
seen as a public health priority.[62]
[edit] World Federation of Public Health Associations
In 2001, the World Federation of Public Health Associations issued a
policy resolution on global climate change:
Noting the conclusions of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) and other climatologists that anthropogenic
greenhouse gases, which contribute to global climate change, have
substantially increased in atmospheric concentration beyond natural
processes and have increased by 28 percent since the industrial
revolution….Realizing that subsequent health effects from such
perturbations in the climate system would likely include an increase in:
heat-related mortality and morbidity; vector-borne infectious diseases,…
water-borne diseases…(and) malnutrition from threatened agriculture….the
World Federation of Public Health Associations…recommends precautionary
primary preventive measures to avert climate change, including reduction
of greenhouse gas emissions and preservation of greenhouse gas sinks
through appropriate energy and land use policies, in view of the scale of
potential health impacts....[63]
[edit] World Health Organization
In 2008, the United Nations' World Health Organization issued their
report Protecting health from climate change:
There is now widespread agreement that the earth is warming, due to
emissions of greenhouse gases caused by human activity. It is also clear
that current trends in energy use, development, and population growth
will lead to continuing – and more severe – climate change.
The changing climate will inevitably affect the basic requirements
for maintaining health: clean air and water, sufficient food and adequate
shelter. Each year, about 800,000 people die from causes attributable to
urban air pollution, 1.8 million from diarrhoea resulting from lack of
access to clean water supply, sanitation, and poor hygiene, 3.5 million
from malnutrition and approximately 60,000 in natural disasters. A warmer
and more variable climate threatens to lead to higher levels of some air
pollutants, increase transmission of diseases through unclean water and
through contaminated food, to compromise agricultural production in some
of the least developed countries, and increase the hazards of extreme
weather.[64]
[edit] Miscellaneous
[edit] American Astronomical Society
The American Astronomical Society has endorsed the AGU statement:[65]
In endorsing the "Human Impacts on Climate" statement [issued by the
American Geophysical Union], the AAS recognizes the collective expertise
of the AGU in scientific subfields central to assessing and understanding
global change, and acknowledges the strength of agreement among our AGU
colleagues that the global climate is changing and human activities are
contributing to that change.
[edit] American Statistical Association
On November 30, 2007, the American Statistical Association Board of
Directors adopted a statement on climate change:
The ASA endorses the IPCC conclusions.... Over the course of four
assessment reports, a small number of statisticians have served as
authors or reviewers. Although this involvement is encouraging, it does
not represent the full range of statistical expertise available. ASA
recommends that more statisticians should become part of the IPCC
process. Such participation would be mutually beneficial to the
assessment of climate change and its impacts and also to the statistical
community.[66]
[edit] Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
"Engineers Australia believes that Australia must act swiftly and
proactively in line with global expectations to address climate change as
an economic, social and environmental risk... We believe that addressing
the costs of atmospheric emissions will lead to increasing our
competitive advantage by minimising risks and creating new economic
opportunities. Engineers Australia believes the Australian Government
should ratify the Kyoto Protocol."[67]
[edit] International Association for Great Lakes Research
In February 2009, the International Association for Great Lakes Research
(IAGLR) issued a Fact Sheet on climate change:
While the Earth’s climate has changed many times during the planet’s
history because of natural factors, including volcanic eruptions and
changes in the Earth’s orbit, never before have we observed the present
rapid rise in temperature and carbon dioxide (CO2).
Human activities resulting from the industrial revolution have
changed the chemical composition of the atmosphere....Deforestation is
now the second largest contributor to global warming, after the burning
of fossil fuels. These human activities have significantly increased the
concentration of “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere.
As the Earth’s climate warms, we are seeing many changes: stronger,
more destructive hurricanes; heavier rainfall; more disastrous flooding;
more areas of the world experiencing severe drought; and more heat waves.
[68]
[edit] Non-committal statements
[edit] American Association of Petroleum Geologists
The American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) Position
Statement on climate change states that
the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that
anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature
increases ... Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming
trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS and AMS. AAPG
respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current
climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural
variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do
not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some
models.[69]
Prior to the adoption of this statement in June 2007, the AAPG was the
only major scientific organization that rejected the finding of
significant human influence on recent climate, according to a statement
by the Council of the American Quaternary Association.[70] Explaining the
plan for a revision, AAPG president Lee Billingsly wrote in March 2007
that
Members have threatened to not renew their memberships... if AAPG
does not alter its position on global climate change.... And I have been
told of members who already have resigned in previous years because of
our current global climate change position.... The current policy
statement is not supported by a significant number of our members and
prospective members.[71]
[edit] American Association of State Climatologists
The Association has no current statement. The previous statement,
discussed below, became inoperative in 2008.[72]
The 2001 statement from the American Association of State Climatologists
noted the difficulties with predicting impacts due to climate change,
while acknowledging that human activities are having an effect on climate:
Climate prediction is difficult because it involves complex,
nonlinear interactions among all components of the earth’s environmental
system.... The AASC recognizes that human activities have an influence on
the climate system. Such activities, however, are not limited to
greenhouse gas forcing and include changing land use and sulfate
emissions, which further complicates the issue of climate prediction.
Furthermore, climate predictions have not demonstrated skill in
projecting future variability and changes in such important climate
conditions as growing season, drought, flood-producing rainfall, heat
waves, tropical cyclones and winter storms. These are the type of events
that have a more significant impact on society than annual average global
temperature trends. Policy responses to climate variability and change
should be flexible and sensible – The difficulty of prediction and the
impossibility of verification of predictions decades into the future are
important factors that allow for competing views of the long-term climate
future. Therefore, the AASC recommends that policies related to long-term
climate not be based on particular predictions, but instead should focus
on policy alternatives that make sense for a wide range of plausible
climatic conditions regardless of future climate... Finally, ongoing
political debate about global energy policy should not stand in the way
of common sense action to reduce societal and environmental
vulnerabilities to climate variability and change. Considerable potential
exists to improve policies related to climate.[73]
[edit] American Geological Institute
In 1999, the American Geological Institute (AGI) issued the position
statement ‘’Global Climate Change’’:
The American Geological Institute (AGI) strongly supports education
concerning the scientific evidence of past climate change, the potential
for future climate change due to the current building of carbon dioxide
and other greenhouse gases, and the policy options available.
Understanding the interactions between the solid Earth, the oceans,
the biosphere, and the atmosphere both in the present and over time is
critical for accurately analyzing and predicting global climate change
due to natural processes and possible human influences.[74]
[edit] American Institute of Professional Geologists
In 2009, the American Institute of Professional Geologists (AIPG) sent a
statement to President Barack Obama and other US government officials:
The geological professionals in AIPG recognize that climate change is
occurring and has the potential to yield catastrophic impacts if humanity
is not prepared to address those impacts. It is also recognized that
climate change will occur regardless of the cause. The sooner a
defensible scientific understanding can be developed, the better equipped
humanity will be to develop economically viable and technically effective
methods to support the needs of society.[75]
[edit] Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
In 2001, the Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences issued the position
paper Mitigating climate change: Putting our carbon dioxide back into the
ground:
We contribute to the global problem of changing climate by our
emissions of greenhouse gases - especially carbon dioxide – from
industrial processes. A warming Earth has significant problems for Canada
– instability in agricultural productivity, sinking of northern
infrastructrure into melting permafrost, greater vulnerability of low-
lying coastlines to storms.
While the Canadian Geoscience Council is not at this time taking a
particular position specifically on the issue of global warming, the
Council is establishing a position on the use of geological sinks to
mitigate emissions of greenhouse gases, particularly CO2.[76]
[edit] Statements by dissenting organizations
With the release of the revised statement[77] by the American Association
of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national
or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human
influence on recent climate change.[70]
Statements by individual scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of
global warming do include opinions that the observed warming is likely to
be attributable to natural causes.
[edit] Surveys of scientists and scientific literature
Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientfic opinion on
global warming.
[edit] Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009
A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and
Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received
replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were
analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who
"listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have
published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the
subject of climate change" believe that mean global temperatures have
risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human
activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.
Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared
to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence
the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among
the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively,
believing in significant human involvement. A summary from the survey
states that:
It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and
the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who
understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate
processes.[78]
[edit] STATS, 2007
In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of
either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical
Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason
University. The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have
increased during the past 100 years; 84% say they personally believe
human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently
available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5%
believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse
warming; and 84% believe global climate change poses a moderate to very
great danger.[79][80]
[edit] Oreskes, 2004
A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes
summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[81]
The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality
of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of
papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed
with the keywords "global climate change". Oreskes divided the abstracts
into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position,
evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate
analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts
were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or
implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or
paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate
change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position,
which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report,
"authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying
paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is
natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."
[edit] Survey of U.S. state climatologists, 1997
In 1997, the conservative think tank Citizens for a Sound Economy
surveyed America's 48 state climatologists on questions related to
climate change.[82] Of the 36 respondents, 44% considered global warming
to be a largely natural phenomenon, compared to 17% who considered
warming to be largely man-made. The survey further found that 58%
disagreed or somewhat disagreed with then-President Clinton's assertion
that "the overwhelming balance of evidence and scientific opinion is that
it is no longer a theory, but now fact, that global warming is for real".
89% agreed that "current science is unable to isolate and measure
variations in global temperatures caused ONLY by man-made factors," and
61% said that historical data do not indicate "that fluctuations in
global temperatures are attributable to human influences such as burning
fossil fuels."
60% of the respondents said that reducing man-made CO2 emissions in the
US by 15% below 1990 levels would not prevent global temperatures from
rising, and 86% said that reducing emissions in the US to 1990 levels
would not prevent rising temperatures. 39% agreed and 33% disagreed that
"evidence exists to suggest that the earth is headed for another glacial
period,"[83] though the time scale for the next glacial period was not
specified.
[edit] Bray and von Storch, 1996
In 1996, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch undertook a survey of climate
scientists on attitudes towards global warming and related matters. The
results were subsequently published in the Bulletin of the American
Meteorological Society.[84] The paper addressed the views of climate
scientists, with a response rate of 40% from a mail survey questionnaire
to 1000 scientists in Germany, the USA and Canada. Most of the scientists
believed that global warming was occurring and appropriate policy action
should be taken, but there was wide disagreement about the likely effects
on society and almost all agreed that the predictive ability of currently
existing models was limited.
The abstract says:
The international consensus was, however, apparent regarding the
utility of the knowledge to date: climate science has provided enough
knowledge so that the initiation of abatement measures is warranted.
However, consensus also existed regarding the current inability to
explicitly specify detrimental effects that might result from climate
change. This incompatibility between the state of knowledge and the calls
for action suggests that, to some degree at least, scientific advice is a
product of both scientific knowledge and normative judgment, suggesting a
socioscientific construction of the climate change issue.
The survey was extensive, and asked numerous questions on many aspects of
climate science, model formulation, and utility, and science/public/
policy interactions. To pick out some of the more vital topics, from the
body of the paper:
The resulting questionnaire, consisting of 74 questions, was pre-
tested in a German institution and after revisions, distributed to a
total of 1,000 scientists in North America and Germany... The number of
completed returns was as follows: USA 149, Canada 35, and Germany 228, a
response rate of approximately 40%....
...With a value of 1 indicating the highest level of belief that
predictions are possible and a value of 7 expressing the least faith in
the predictive capabilities of the current state of climate science
knowledge, the mean of the entire sample of 4.6 for the ability to make
reasonable predictions of inter-annual variability tends to indicate that
scientists feel that reasonable prediction is not yet a possibility...
mean of 4.8 for reasonable predictions of 10 years... mean of 5.2 for
periods of 100 years...
...a response of a value of 1 indicates a strong level of agreement
with the statement of certainty that global warming is already underway
or will occur without modification to human behavior... the mean response
for the entire sample was 3.3 indicating a slight tendency towards the
position that global warming has indeed been detected and is underway....
Regarding global warming as being a possible future event, there is a
higher expression of confidence as indicated by the mean of 2.6.
[edit] Older surveys of scientists
* Global Environmental Change Report, 1990: GECR climate survey shows
strong agreement on action, less so on warming. Global Environmental
Change Report 2, No. 9, pp. 1-3
* Stewart, T.R., Mumpower, J.L., and Reagan-Cirincione, P. (1992).
Scientists' opinions about global climate change: Summary of the results
of a survey. NAEP (National Association of Environmental Professionals)
Newsletter, 17(2), 6-7.
* In 1991, the Center for Science, Technology, and Media commissioned
a Gallup poll of 400 members of the American Geophysical Union and the
American Meteorological Society along with an analysis of reporting on
global warming by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, a report on
which was issued in 1992.[85] Accounts of the results of that survey
differ in their interpretation and even in the basic statistical
percentages:
o Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting states that the report
said that 67% of the scientists said that human-induced global warming
was occurring, with 11% disagreeing and the rest undecided.[86]
o George Will reported "53 percent do not believe warming has
occurred, and another 30 percent are uncertain." (Washington Post,
September 3, 1992). In a correction Gallup stated: "Most scientists
involved in research in this area believe that human-induced global
warming is occurring now."[87]
o A 1993 publication by the Heartland Institute reports: "A
Gallup poll conducted on February 13, 1992 of members of the American
Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society-the two
professional societies whose members are most likely to be involved in
climate research-found that 18 percent thought some global warming had
occurred, 33 percent said insufficient information existed to tell, and
49 percent believed no warming had taken place."[88]
[edit] Scientific consensus
For more details on this topic, see Climate change consensus.
A question which frequently arises in popular discussion of climate
change is whether there is a scientific consensus. Several scientific
organizations have explicitly used the term "consensus" in their
statements:
* American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2006: "The
conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus
represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, and the Joint National Academies' statement."[25]
* US National Academy of Sciences: "In the judgment of most climate
scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily
by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in
the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the National Academies’ reports]
have assessed consensus findings on the science..."[89]
* Joint Science Academies' statement, 2005: "We recognise the
international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC)."[90]
* Joint Science Academies' statement, 2001: "The work of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus
of the international scientific community on climate change science. We
recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on
climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving
this consensus."[91]
* American Meteorological Society, 2003: "The nature of science is
such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual
scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to
be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can
leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on
issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus.... IPCC
assessment reports are prepared at approximately five-year intervals by a
large international group of experts who represent the broad range of
expertise and perspectives relevant to the issues. The reports strive to
reflect a consensus evaluation of the results of the full body of peer-
reviewed research.... They provide an analysis of what is known and not
known, the degree of consensus, and some indication of the degree of
confidence that can be placed on the various statements and
conclusions."[92]
* Network of African Science Academies: “A consensus, based on
current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that
human activities are the main source of climate change and that the
burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this
change.” [21]
* International Union for Quaternary Research, 2008: "INQUA
recognizes the international scientific consensus of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."[93]
* Australian Coral Reef Society, 2006: "There is almost total
consensus among experts that the earth’s climate is changing as a result
of the build-up of greenhouse gases.... There is broad scientific
consensus that coral reefs are heavily affected by the activities of man
and there are significant global influences that can make reefs more
vulnerable such as global warming...."[94]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
--
Curly
Curly Surmudgeon
Then there is the fraudulant claim that 31,000 "scientists" claim there
is no convincing evidence... That claim debunked:
(Note the statement "97.5% of climatologists who actively published
research on climate change responded yes.")
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?
Link to this page
The skeptic argument...
The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition
stating "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of
carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating
of the Earth's atmosphere". (Petition Project)
What the science says...
That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies
of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organisations that
study climate science. More specifically, 97% of climate scientists
actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.
Inevitably, there will be scientists who are skeptical about man-made
global warming. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do
you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing
mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants
had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists
answered yes. However, what is most interesting is response rates
compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who
were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In
contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively published research on
climate change responded yes.
As the level of active research and specialization in climate science
increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing
global temperatures. Most striking is the divide between expert climate
scientists (97.4%) and the general public (58%). The paper concludes "It
seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role
played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who
understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate
processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively
communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to
mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."
Scientific organisations endorsing the consensus
The following scientific organisations endorse the consensus position
that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to
human activities":
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
* Environmental Protection Agency
* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies
* American Geophysical Union
* American Institute of Physics
* National Center for Atmospheric Research
* American Meteorological Society
* The Royal Society of the UK
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
* American Association for the Advancement of Science
The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the
consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the
consensus position:
* Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academie des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)
A letter from 18 scientific organisations to US Congress states:
"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.
These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence,
and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of
the vast body of peer-reviewed science."
A survey of peer reviewed research
It is also worthwhile examining peer reviewed journals - scientists can
have their opinions but they need to back it up with empirical evidence
and research that survives the peer review process. A survey of all peer
reviewed abstracts on the subject "global climate change" published
between 1993 and 2003 show that not a single paper rejected the consensus
position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with
the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (eg - focused
on methods or paleoclimate analysis). More on Naomi Oreskes' survey...
Klaus-Martin Schulte's list of studies rejecting the consensus
That is not to say there are no studies that reject the consensus
position. Klaus-Martin Schulte surveyed peer reviewed abstracts from 2004
to February 2007 and claims 32 studies (6%) reject the consensus
position. In these cases, it's instructive to read the studies to see
whether they actually do refute the consensus and if so, what their
arguments are. You can read a summary of Schulte's skeptic studies here...
--
Curly
Retief
<CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 22:29:49 -0600, Retief <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 03:53:59 +0000 (UTC), Curly Surmudgeon
>> <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Even if some single study were corrupted, intentionally or
>>>intentionally, it does not negate the vast compilation of world wide
>>>data and 90%+ of scientists and climatologists who stand by the massive
>>>data.
>>
>> If you address this statement honestly, you not be able to support the
>> claim of "90%+" -- you are likely to be hard pressed to even produce a
>> majority who stand behind it.
>>
>> Retief
>
>First link googled, read and weep:
Squirrely, remember I suggested you be honest? But nay, you trot out
the same old garbage...
>updated 1:02 a.m. EST, Tue January 20, 2009
>
>Surveyed scientists agree global warming is real
>
>(CNN) -- Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S.
>survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists. However there remains
>divisions between climatologists and scientists from other areas of earth
>sciences as to the extent of human responsibility.
"31,072 American scientists against AGW"
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/05/31072-american-scientists-against-agw.html
Where is that 90%, Curly?
Retief
Retief
<CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 22:29:49 -0600, Retief <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 03:53:59 +0000 (UTC), Curly Surmudgeon
>> <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Even if some single study were corrupted, intentionally or
>>>intentionally, it does not negate the vast compilation of world wide
>>>data and 90%+ of scientists and climatologists who stand by the massive
>>>data.
>>
>> If you address this statement honestly, you not be able to support the
>> claim of "90%+" -- you are likely to be hard pressed to even produce a
>> majority who stand behind it.
>>
>> Retief
>
>AGain:
>
>BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
>The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
>Naomi Oreskes*
Oh My, Squirrely is citing History faculty in reference to to climate
science...
http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/05/oreskes-study-errata.html
Whoops... Naomi got it wrong.
Retief
Dan
Yep, that guy.
> And Curly doubted that I work in science every day. Such a fool.
I doubt it, also. Your posting here does not support the assertion tat
you "work in science" at all. Hell, where I worked, even the glass
washers had BS degrees and knew more than you do.
>> In your case, a minor adjustment is needed: "I don't think, therefore I
>> am not."
>>
>> Dan-
>
> Also, didn't Rene prove the existence of God?
No.
Dan
Dan
>> EVERYTHING you can think of is a "belief system." Duh.
>>
>> Try reading up on Descartes sometime.
>
What he doesn't "believe in" that are true would fill planet-volumes of
electronic storage.
So?
I believe I'll have a drink.
Dan
Curly Surmudgeon
In your snippage. You know, the part you snipped out because it doesn't
conform with your beliefs?
> Retief
Curly Surmudgeon
Wow, snip the pertinent parts then post a non-sequitor. Even the
cockroach can do better than that.
Off to the Bozo Bin with you, too...
Alfred Pennyworth
"Dan" <dnad...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:M6e2n.3080$ZB2....@newsfe13.iad...
I believe you probably had several already.
Retief
<CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 22:29:49 -0600, Retief <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 03:53:59 +0000 (UTC), Curly Surmudgeon
>> <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Even if some single study were corrupted, intentionally or
>>>intentionally, it does not negate the vast compilation of world wide
>>>data and 90%+ of scientists and climatologists who stand by the massive
>>>data.
>>
>> If you address this statement honestly, you not be able to support the
>> claim of "90%+" -- you are likely to be hard pressed to even produce a
>> majority who stand behind it.
>>
>> Retief
>
>Then there is the fraudulant claim that 31,000 "scientists" claim there
>is no convincing evidence... That claim debunked:
Really? Show me your evidence.
>(Note the statement "97.5% of climatologists who actively published
>research on climate change responded yes.")
So how does this popular vote supercede the previous popular vote? Oh,
I understand, it is inconvenient that 31,000 scientists reject the AGW
hypothesis.
BTW, you'll note that only 5% of the 3146 scientists that you cited
were climatologists (the same argument global warmists use against the
31,000 rejecting it) -- that 5% would be about 160.
But either way 31,000 is larger than 3146.
>http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
So who is "skepticalscience"? Where does he practice climatology?
Let's hear from climatologist Roger Pielke Sr.
Or Climatologist Richard Lindzen, "Global Warming: The Origin and
Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus"
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html
"Don't Believe the Hype
Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597
Gee, I wonder if this has anything to do with your "consensus"?
"The release of the e-mails from Phil Jones further confirmed the
attempts to suppress viewpoints of climate change issues, which
conflict with the IPCC viewpoint."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/26/climatgate-pielke-senior-on-the-ncdc-ccsp-report-strong-arm-tactics/
Incidentally, it is also interesting that you believe that "consensus"
is how science is done/
Retief
Retief
<CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
31,000 is larger than 3146. Where is your 90%
Retief
Retief
<CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
Hilarious. Provide a reference to a study that demonstrates that the
cited study is erroneous, and Squirrely claims that it is
non-sequitur.
RESULTS
The results of my analysis contradict Oreskes' findings and
essentially falsify her study:
* Of all 1117 abstracts, only 13 (or 0.1%) explicitly endorse the
'consensus view'.
* 322 abstracts (or 29%) implicitly accept the 'consensus view'
but mainly focus on impact assessments of envisaged global climate
change.
Nope, no 90% there either.
Retief
Curly Surmudgeon
conform with your beliefs? Do this one more time and you're history.
Read the fucking article and stop snipping parts that disagree with your
preconceived opinion.
And before you wallow in the mud arguing 89% isn't 90% recognize that I
don't give a shit about your opinion or distractions. Even if "only" 80%
or 70% of climatologists agreed the point would still be valid.
Here is part of what you snipped. See the "90%"?
"About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82
percent the second."
--
Curly Surmudgeon
> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 05:14:21 +0000 (UTC), Curly Surmudgeon
> <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 22:29:49 -0600, Retief <nos...@invalid.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 03:53:59 +0000 (UTC), Curly Surmudgeon
>>> <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Even if some single study were corrupted, intentionally or
>>>>intentionally, it does not negate the vast compilation of world wide
>>>>data and 90%+ of scientists and climatologists who stand by the
>>>>massive data.
>>>
>>> If you address this statement honestly, you not be able to support the
>>> claim of "90%+" -- you are likely to be hard pressed to even produce a
>>> majority who stand behind it.
>>>
>>> Retief
>>
>>Then there is the fraudulant claim that 31,000 "scientists" claim there
>>is no convincing evidence... That claim debunked:
>
> Really? Show me your evidence.
I warned you not to do that. Snipping data then demanding that data is
not only deceitful but stupid. You're history.
>>(Note the statement "97.5% of climatologists who actively published
>>research on climate change responded yes.")
>
> So how does this popular vote supercede the previous popular vote? Oh, I
> understand, it is inconvenient that 31,000 scientists reject the AGW
> hypothesis.
By reading the data you snipped, fuckhead. Now, go fuck yourself.
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 16:24:13 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Dan <dnad...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Of course, one side (ours) has science to back them up, the other side
>>>>(deniers) rely on word of mouth and fabricated materials.
>>>
>>> Snicker, guffaw. Your "side" is the ones caught fudging the data.
>>
>>Accusations that _some_ data, a trivially small amount, _might_ have
>>been twisted. If that happened then it is intolerable and those
>>scientists will be routed out of their positions.
>>
>>Even if some single study were corrupted, intentionally or
>>intentionally, it does not negate the vast compilation of world wide
>>data and 90%+ of scientists and climatologists who stand by the massive
>>data.
>
> Pure unequivocal bullshit.
>
> You can't support that because the alleged data is kept under lock and
> key. Most of it was paid for by taxpayers of several nations. It's
> public property. They won't give. Courts have ordered them to release
> it. They ignore and defy the courts.
>
> Much of it is supposedly destroyed. All we have is their "models". With
> no way to even test them for credibility. No way to validate - or
> disprove - their methods. Their constantly changing methods. So you
> simple can NOT say anything about the non-existent data except what you
> choose to believe.
>
> They have prevented getting caught in their lies by hiding and
> destroying public property. And you tell us they are honorable folk
> that we can trust.
>
> Pure unequivocal bullshit.
If the data is secret, how do you know it's been fudged?
--
Curly
Alfred Pennyworth
"Winston_Smith" <not_...@bogus.net> wrote in message
news:4s0jk5t2b27qpqij6...@4ax.com...
> Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 16:24:13 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Dan <dnad...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Of course, one side (ours) has science to back them up, the other side
>>>>(deniers) rely on word of mouth and fabricated materials.
>>>
>>> Snicker, guffaw. Your "side" is the ones caught fudging the data.
>>
>>Accusations that _some_ data, a trivially small amount, _might_ have been
>>twisted. If that happened then it is intolerable and those scientists
>>will be routed out of their positions.
>>
>>Even if some single study were corrupted, intentionally or intentionally,
>>it does not negate the vast compilation of world wide data and 90%+ of
>>scientists and climatologists who stand by the massive data.
>
> Pure unequivocal bullshit.
>
> You can't support that because the alleged data is kept under lock and
> key. Most of it was paid for by taxpayers of several nations. It's
> public property. They won't give. Courts have ordered them to
> release it. They ignore and defy the courts.
>
> Much of it is supposedly destroyed. All we have is their "models".
> With no way to even test them for credibility. No way to validate -
> or disprove - their methods. Their constantly changing methods. So
> you simple can NOT say anything about the non-existent data except
> what you choose to believe.
>
> They have prevented getting caught in their lies by hiding and
> destroying public property. And you tell us they are honorable folk
> that we can trust.
>
> Pure unequivocal bullshit.
Lack of supporting data never stopped Curly from lying before.
Observer
<CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
No. It. Can't.
Retief
<CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>Even if some single study were corrupted, intentionally or
>>>>>>>intentionally, it does not negate the vast compilation of world wide
>>>>>>>data and 90%+ of scientists and climatologists who stand by the
>>>>>>>massive data.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you address this statement honestly, you not be able to support
>>>>>> the claim of "90%+" -- you are likely to be hard pressed to even
>>>>>> produce a majority who stand behind it.
>>>>>
>>>>>First link googled, read and weep:
Interestingly, for some time after it hit the news, the Google search
engine supressed searches for "climategate" (i.e. the "helpful" screen
wouldn't help you find the term "climategate" -- Yahoo, on the other
hand, displayed it as a top search).
>>>> "31,072 American scientists against AGW"
>>>>
>>>> http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/05/31072-american-scientists-against-
>>>agw.html
>>>>
>>>> Where is that 90%, Curly?
>>>
>>>In your snippage. You know, the part you snipped out because it doesn't
>>>conform with your beliefs?
>>
>> 31,000 is larger than 3146. Where is your 90%
>
>In your snippage. You know, the part you snipped out because it doesn't
>conform with your beliefs? Do this one more time and you're history.
>Read the fucking article and stop snipping parts that disagree with your
>preconceived opinion.
I snipped parts that are of no relevance.
You claimed that "'90%+ of scientists and climatologists who stand by
the massive data." -- you apparently wish to exclude those 31,000 from
your count. (I even gave you 100% of your 3146 participants)
Go ask those 31,000 if they still stand by their position.
But your desire is to claim "90% of a small, selected subset agree
with me", and not 90% of scientists -- clearly large numbers of
scientists do not agree with you.
>And before you wallow in the mud arguing 89% isn't 90% recognize that I
>don't give a shit about your opinion or distractions. Even if "only" 80%
>or 70% of climatologists agreed the point would still be valid.
31,000 is 10 times larger than 3146. By that measure, 90% diasgree
with you and your crusade.
The best survey I found showed that when asked to rate on a scale of 1
to 7 how strongly they believed the hypothesis -- the distribution was
quite flat. And THAT is the reality (and what I would expect from
scientists).
Note that it is only slightly "bell shaped":
Also note that the number of participants in the above survey is
larger than the approximately 160 climate scientists in the survey you
cited (yes, your cited survey noted that approximately 5% were climate
scientists).
It's also a fair bet that none, or virtually none of the scientists in
your cited survey were found in industry. So we can interpret the
survey as "I'm going to ask you a question that could have negative
consequences on your public funding, as you are all in academia."
You will find that outside academia, the term "fraud" is often used in
reference to the quality of climate "science" (when you call it
"science" but don't do "science", then it isn't science).
>Here is part of what you snipped. See the "90%"?
>
>"About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82
>percent the second."
And 31,000 is STILL larger than 3146. To wit: 3146/31000 = 10%.
Here's a hint Squirrely, when you claim that there is a consensus in
science, it is obvious that you are lying. There isn't even a
consensus on Einstein's Relativity, as well accepted as that is.
When you start promoting computer codes, and projections based on
models that cannot replicate observations, you will find that your
limited support drops of quickly.
Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate:
�It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how
smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong�
You may enjoy reading Roger Pielke, who does believe that man is
screwing things up, but doesn't believe in the highly touted CO2
crisis (and thus is labelled a "denier" by clowns like you).
"This is denial of the obvious. The observed absence of heat
accumulation (of Joules) in the upper ocean (and in the troposphere)
for the last four years means that there has been NO global warming in
these climate metrics during this time period. It is unknown whether
this is a short term aberration but, regardless, it is clear that the
IPCC models have failed to skillfully predict this absence of warming.
That should have been the conclusion stated at the end of the NPR
story."
That is, Squirrely, the ocean is the largest heat sink. If the ocean
temperature is not rising (and indeed, has been measured to be
cooling), that means that energy is not accumulating. "Temperature"
is the macroscopic effect of the stored energy in a system -- by the
metric described above, the temperature of the Earth is dropping.
Let me also note that these models fail to skillfully predict the
water (vapor) cycle, which is the largest driver. Let me know when
your models can finally post-dict the present climate (this should be
easy, as it is little more than curve-fitting), and then we'll test
some of your PRE-dictions (as the previous predictions failed).
Retief
Retief
<CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>>>>Even if some single study were corrupted, intentionally or
>>>>>intentionally, it does not negate the vast compilation of world wide
>>>>>data and 90%+ of scientists and climatologists who stand by the
>>>>>massive data.
>>>>
>>>> If you address this statement honestly, you not be able to support the
>>>> claim of "90%+" -- you are likely to be hard pressed to even produce a
>>>> majority who stand behind it.
>>>
>>>Then there is the fraudulant claim that 31,000 "scientists" claim there
>>>is no convincing evidence... That claim debunked:
>>
>> Really? Show me your evidence.
>
>I warned you not to do that. Snipping data then demanding that data is
>not only deceitful but stupid. You're history.
OK Curly, I just re-read the document you cited. Where did it debunk
that 31,000 scientists disagree?
Perhaps you can cite relevant part of the relevant text so I can find
where the document refutes that 31,000 scientists rejected the
"consensus view".
I did notice (as I did the first time) that the document selectively
picks its "proof" -- citing History professor Naomi Oreskes, but
ignoring Benny Peiser's study that refutes Oreskes's study.
Since you missed that, here it is again:
RESULTS
The results of my analysis contradict Oreskes' findings and
essentially falsify her study:
* Of all 1117 abstracts, only 13 (or 0.1%) explicitly endorse the
'consensus view'.
* 322 abstracts (or 29%) implicitly accept the 'consensus view'
but mainly focus on impact assessments of envisaged global climate
change.
>>>(Note the statement "97.5% of climatologists who actively published
>>>research on climate change responded yes.")
>>
>> So how does this popular vote supercede the previous popular vote? Oh, I
>> understand, it is inconvenient that 31,000 scientists reject the AGW
>> hypothesis.
>
>By reading the data you snipped, fuckhead. Now, go fuck yourself.
The data snipped was irrelevant and non-sequitur.
Retief
Retief
<CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
> You're history.
No Squirrely, I'm a scientist. Naomi Oreskes is history.
Retief
HH&C
> On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 22:29:49 -0600, Retief <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 03:53:59 +0000 (UTC), Curly Surmudgeon
>
> >>Even if some single study were corrupted, intentionally or
> >>intentionally, it does not negate the vast compilation of world wide
> >>data and 90%+ of scientists and climatologists who stand by the massive
> >>data.
>
> > If you address this statement honestly, you not be able to support the
> > claim of "90%+" -- you are likely to be hard pressed to even produce a
> > majority who stand behind it.
>
>
> First link googled, read and weep:
>
>
> Surveyed scientists agree global warming is real
>
> (CNN) -- Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S.
> survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists. However there remains
> divisions between climatologists and scientists from other areas of earth
> sciences as to the extent of human responsibility.
>
> and Europe, the concept of rising global temperatures might seem
> incongruous.
>
> However the results of the investigation conducted at the end of 2008
> reveal that vast majority of the Earth scientists surveyed agree that in
> the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising and
> that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean
> global temperatures.
>
> The study released today was conducted by academics from the University
> of Illinois, who used an online questionnaire of nine questions. The
> scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American
> Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.
>
> Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to
> pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in
> changing mean global temperatures?
>
> About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82
> percent the second.
>
> climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent
> agreeing humans play a role.
>
> Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters,
> with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human
> involvement.
>
> "The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the
> meteorologists' is very interesting," said Peter Doran associate
> professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of
> Illinois at Chicago, and one of the survey's authors.
>
> "Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most
> of them actually study very short-term phenomenon."
>
> However, Doran was not surprised by the near-unanimous agreement by
> climatologists.
Quite similar to the lack of surprise of the petroleum geologists.
> "They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess
> the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate
> science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and
> humankind's contribution to it.
>
> "The debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by
> human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the
> nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes," said Doran.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/
> index.html
>
> --
> Curly
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Who's God Do You Kill For?
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HH&C
> Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudg...@live.com> wrote:
> >On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 00:43:23 -0700, Winston_Smith >wrote:
> >> Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudg...@live.com> wrote:
> it sad that is the only way the public gets the slightest peek at what
> is supposed to be an open process?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The world meteorological organization under the UN has strived for
years to make weather data available real-time for everyone's use.
That these renegade "scientists" wish to lock it away violates
international agreements.
HH&C
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 16:28:11 -0800 (PST), "HH&C"
>
>
>
>
>
> <hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 9, 7:12 pm, Observer <noone@nowhere> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 15:20:43 -0800 (PST), "HH&C"
>
> >> <hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Jan 9, 5:15 pm, Observer <noone@nowhere> wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 12:28:24 -0800 (PST), "HH&C"
>
> >> >> >> EVERYTHING you can think of is a "belief system." Duh.
>
> >> >> >> Try reading up on Descartes sometime.
>
>
> >> >> >I deal with his works every day... the cartesian coordinate system.
>
>
> >> >> >> am not."
>
> >> >> >> Dan-
>
> >> >> >Also, didn't Rene prove the existence of God?
>
>
> >> >Would Curly reject the Cartesian Coordinate System because a
> >> >"CrazyMotherFucker" designed it?
>
> >> You'd have to ask him.
>
> >But you always jump in and reply for him.
>
> Wow. ANOTHER lie. Who'd have thunk it, coming from you.
>
> >> >How do you guys reconcile the fact that some of the very best science
> >> >has been accomplished by what you call "CrazyMorthFuckers???"
>
> >> You guys?
>
> >So you don't think that people who believe in God are
> >"CrazyMotherFuckers?"
>
> I believe YOU are.
Evasive answer. Not to worry. Google provides.
So you're not ready to throw Curly under the bus like Winston has?
HH&C
No?
Dan, in the future kindly refrain from invoking the name of the great
thinkers when it is clear you understand nothing of them but popular
sounds bites... "I think therefore I am."
It just makes you look stoopid.
Retief
wrote:
>>> You're history.
>>
>>No Squirrely, I'm a scientist. Naomi Oreskes is history.
>
>Then you really should use that scientific brain to figure out that,
>after you are filtered, he won't be seeing your posts unless someone
>repost's one of them like I just did.
Well, since Squirrely has continued to reply, it seems that your
analysis is incorrect (this is not the first time he implied that he
had kill-filed me).
As for whether Squirrely sees them, I don't really care.
Retief
Retief
wrote:
>>Well, since Squirrely has continued to reply, it seems that your
>>analysis is incorrect (this is not the first time he implied that he
>>had kill-filed me).
>>
>>As for whether Squirrely sees them, I don't really care.
>
>I've found him to be pretty honest when he says that he kill files
>someone. Replying to the posts already downloaded is to be expected.
Excellent. As I said, I don't care if Squirrely reads or replies.
>I have a question though. Do you think that you may be posting
>something on-topic to either of the newsgroups any time soon?
I have been posting for some time now.
However, this newsgroup seems to be loaded with political crap (and
has been for a very long time), so... BTW, I notice that you post
similarly in this particular newgroup (i.e. political topics), as does
Winston (who stated that he's trying to cut back ;-).
What would you like to discuss that is on topic? we could start a
whole trend in this newsgroup... :-)
Retief
Observer
Why? Was it similar to one of your "answers?"
>Not to worry. Google provides.
Let me know what it says, as I have not opined on the matter.
>So you're not ready to throw Curly under the bus like Winston has?
Which bus was this?
Observer
Yet "stoopid" is at least 8 levels higher in smarts than you could
ever aspire to, Cheese-Blob.
Observer
His inability to carry on conversation without mischaracterization,
misquoting and his inability to admit his errors, suggest he is not of
a scientific bent. No REAL scientist is anywhere near that obtuse.
He also believes is a 3-in-one god.
>>> In your case, a minor adjustment is needed: "I don't think, therefore I
>>> am not."
>>>
>>> Dan-
>>
>> Also, didn't Rene prove the existence of God?
>
>No.
>
>Dan
__
HH&C
> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 16:14:05 -0600, Retief <nos...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 16:53:08 -0500, Deucalion <some...@nowhere.net>
> >wrote:
>
> >>>Well, since Squirrely has continued to reply, it seems that your
> >>>analysis is incorrect (this is not the first time he implied that he
> >>>had kill-filed me).
>
> >>>As for whether Squirrely sees them, I don't really care.
>
> >>I've found him to be pretty honest when he says that he kill files
> >>someone. Replying to the posts already downloaded is to be expected.
>
> >Excellent. As I said, I don't care if Squirrely reads or replies.
>
> >>I have a question though. Do you think that you may be posting
> >>something on-topic to either of the newsgroups any time soon?
>
> >I have been posting for some time now.
>
>
>
>
> >However, this newsgroup seems to be loaded with political crap (and
> >has been for a very long time), so... BTW, I notice that you post
> >similarly in this particular newgroup (i.e. political topics), as does
> >Winston (who stated that he's trying to cut back ;-).
>
> New Years resolution to stop wasting time and start working harder on
> survival related projects and discussing the same with like minded
> people.
>
> I just went back and looked and I've posted 7 times to this ng in the
> past 9 days (excluding the two posts I've made today in this thread).
> All of those were to express my feelings towards those whom I think
> have done the most to screw up this newsgroup and to kill file a
> couple of them globally so I don't see their crap in the other
> newsgroup.
>
> Could you say that same?
>
>
>
> >What would you like to discuss that is on topic? we could start a
> >whole trend in this newsgroup... :-)
>
> >Retief
>
> other newsgroup where I have already started posting completely on
> topic for on topic posts. I'm even ignoring gunner's attempts to
> start flame wars over there. However, I won't cross post to this one
> anything that I consider on-topic. Nor am I going to dual post in an
> effort to bring this one back on topic.
>
> This newsgroup is beyond being worth the effort to try to salvage it.
> It would be nice if cross posts to the other one were eliminated. Do
> you think you can do at least that much to assist in an effort to try
> to keep at least on ng on topic?
>
> No, I'm not talking about this thread. Nor am I accusing you of cross
> posting to the other one since I've not really bothered to check. I'm
> merely asking that, if you decide to post in an off topic thread where
> the other one is included in the cross posts, will you be willing to
> remove the other one from distribution?
>
> I figure that all of us who think that our government is hell bound
> and determined to threaten our individual survival really do need a
> place to vent their fears and here is as good as any. However, I
> would appreciate any help I can find in helping to stop the cross
> posting of it to the other ng.
>
> As far as your refusal to answer whether you will be posting anything
> on topic anytime soon goes. I'll have to think about that one. I
> have known you to post on topic in the other ng sometimes.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bob Brock was an early pioneer of posting political thought on
misc.survivalism.
Now that the group has been ruined by his copy cats, he has become
reformed.
Too late, Bob. Damage done. You suck.
Sufferin sucotash.
Retief
wrote:
>>However, this newsgroup seems to be loaded with political crap (and
>>has been for a very long time), so... BTW, I notice that you post
>>similarly in this particular newgroup (i.e. political topics), as does
>>Winston (who stated that he's trying to cut back ;-).
>
>I'm trying to not post to political subjects at all. It's part of a
>New Years resolution to stop wasting time and start working harder on
>survival related projects and discussing the same with like minded
>people.
Good for you.
>Could you say that same?
Could you say the same over your posting history?
Want me to average my data? I had dumped all posting for quite some
time -- just skimming the groups from time to time.
>>What would you like to discuss that is on topic? we could start a
>>whole trend in this newsgroup... :-)
>
>I'll take that as a "not any time soon."
From whence did you draw that conclusion?
I just suggested that we could start a whole new trend in this
newsgroup -- posting on-topic.
>merely asking that, if you decide to post in an off topic thread where
>the other one is included in the cross posts, will you be willing to
>remove the other one from distribution?
Actually, the correct way to do it is to direct follow-ups out of the
other newsgroup. You don't know from which group the post originates,
and it's considered poor etiquette to eliminate groups like that.
>As far as your refusal to answer whether you will be posting anything
>on topic anytime soon goes.
This is what passes for logic? Oh well...
Retief
Alfred Pennyworth
"Deucalion" <som...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:e0ekk5hp066rbebar...@4ax.com...
> Then you really should use that scientific brain to figure out that,
> after you are filtered, he won't be seeing your posts unless someone
> repost's one of them like I just did.
You add nothing of interest. You're just a fat bald-headed troll with
halitosis
*PLONK!*
Alfred Pennyworth
"Deucalion" <som...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:vtikk51ms72uc4sa6...@4ax.com...
> I've found him to be pretty honest when he says that he kill files
> someone. Replying to the posts already downloaded is to be expected.
>
> I have a question though. Do you think that you may be posting
> something on-topic to either of the newsgroups any time soon?
Please everybody, please! Please join me in filtering that bad Retief?
Please, I'm desperate for someone to notice my filter that I pretend to
have.
Bwahahaha!
*PLONK*
Alfred Pennyworth
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:4tjkk5locno7q3qm0...@4ax.com...
The newsgroup turned political when Curly and the Douchebag showed up. If
you look hard enopugh (not hard at all) you will see where the Douchebag is
having withdrawal symptoms from posting political crap. He claims he won't
do it any longer. Let's see. Maybe from now on all we will see from him is
the usual hate Gunner crap.
Alfred Pennyworth
"Deucalion" <som...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:dkkkk5pkbb75l96vr...@4ax.com...
> This newsgroup is beyond being worth the effort to try to salvage it.
> It would be nice if cross posts to the other one were eliminated. Do
> you think you can do at least that much to assist in an effort to try
> to keep at least on ng on topic?
It was doing just fine before you and Curly decided to stink it up by
shitting all over it. Then your peanut gallery (TMT, Hawke, Cliff) got
attracted to the stink. I blame your insecure feelings toward your political
choices, you had to go spam every group to try to convince us that Obama is
magic.
Well, he isn't. He's a failure like you. You could do the newsgroup a big
favor if you just leave. Don't try fixing anything, just go. It will recover
without your help.
Alfred Pennyworth
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:linkk5dj3nsot4pd0...@4ax.com...
Douchebag is a piece of work. Now we're supposed to feel good about him not
posting political crap after the douche bag brought all of his freaks in
here to destroy what was once a useful place to come for information about
survivalism. I believe it was said that the Douchebag is really Bob Brock. I
propose that we make a declaration that shall be known forever going forth
that he is the official douche bag mascot of m.s.
If somebody could work on the song, I'll try to sketch up a flag.
HH&C
wrote:
> "Deucalion" <some...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
>
> news:dkkkk5pkbb75l96vr...@4ax.com...
>
> > This newsgroup is beyond being worth the effort to try to salvage it.
> > It would be nice if cross posts to the other one were eliminated. Do
> > you think you can do at least that much to assist in an effort to try
> > to keep at least on ng on topic?
>
> It was doing just fine before you and Curly decided to stink it up by
> shitting all over it. Then your peanut gallery (TMT, Hawke, Cliff) got
> attracted to the stink. I blame your insecure feelings toward your political
> choices, you had to go spam every group to try to convince us that Obama is
> magic.
True enough.
> Well, he isn't. He's a failure like you. You could do the newsgroup a big
> favor if you just leave. Don't try fixing anything, just go. It will recover
> without your help.
I think you're way too optimistic. I think this group will not
recover, just like America will not recover if we pass more
entitlements, cap-n-tax, and won't protect our borders.
Alfred Pennyworth
"HH&C" <hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8f40e29c-803e-4c08...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
Ren� Descartes swears in his writings that he never come near Curly's
crazymother and that she's a lying bitch.
Retief
wrote:
>>>>What would you like to discuss that is on topic? we could start a
>>>>whole trend in this newsgroup... :-)
>>>
>>>I'll take that as a "not any time soon."
>>
>>From whence did you draw that conclusion?
>
>Your reluctance to simply say yes.
You asked: "Do you think that you may be posting something on-topic
to either of the newsgroups any time soon?"
Which tells me you that haven't been reading. So why ask?
>Bullshit. We both know which groups these guys post from. God knows
Are you saying that it all comes from the metalworking group?
I've seen several of them posting directly in AS and MS (no other
groups listed).
>another direction then. If I filter you, would I be missing any
>survival related posts?
I guess that you won't know, will you?
Retief
Alfred Pennyworth
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:ddrkk5db87dkct931...@4ax.com...
Brock should just go away, after he apologizes to all of us for the damage
his bald headed ego has created here.
HH&C
> On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 16:42:54 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_r...@bogus.net>
> wrote:
>
> > "HH&C" <hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>On Jan 9, 5:15 pm, Observer <noone@nowhere> wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 12:28:24 -0800 (PST), "HH&C"
>
>
> >>> Gullible folks might believe that.
>
> >>Would Curly reject the Cartesian Coordinate System because a
> >>"CrazyMotherFucker" designed it?
>
> > God mode recently discovered in Windows 7.
>
> Am I still stalking the cockroach?
You still evade uncomfortable questions.
> -- Curly
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Who's God Do You Kill For?
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've Never Considered Killing For God. Perhaps You Should Ask Bob
Dylan. He's A Big Time Lib.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HH&C
> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 13:07:04 -0800 (PST), "HH&C"
>
>
>
>
>
The one Curly was waiting for... the short one.
Man_of_Mind
>
>
> I'm a scientist
*>LOL!<*
--I doubt it, entirely..
HH&C
wrote:
> "HH&C" <hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> crazymother and that she's a lying bitch.
I don't recall that in my readings.
But I do recall that Pascal was a famous gambler... so much so that
they named a wager after him.
HH&C
"Stoopid" was used for emphasis.
You should be careful who you play spelling cop with. You
misunderfailed miserably the last time you attempted it.
Man_of_Mind
> Interestingly, for some time after it hit the news, the Google
> search engine supressed searches for "climategate"
Prove it..
Three cites that confirm it, if you can..
>>>>> "31,072 American scientists against AGW"
Oh, you're referring to that "http://www.petitionproject.org/" site..
Funny how they 'cherry-picked' the definition of 'scientists',
because in that case, that's simply a small fraction of the
'scientists' they were so inclusive of, like about 0.4%..
> I snipped parts that are of no relevance.
Good, then you won't mind if I do that to your posting..
--Simply because your distortions of facts is isn't 'relevant'..
Observer
At least it was when I used it.
>You should be careful who you play spelling cop with. You
>misunderfailed miserably the last time you attempted it.
Those "Bushisms" look good on you. Gives you that special "short-bus"
tard allure. You should keep using them.
Retief
<baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 1/10/2010 1:32 PM, Retief wrote:
>
>> Interestingly, for some time after it hit the news, the Google
>> search engine supressed searches for "climategate"
>
>Prove it..
>
>Three cites that confirm it, if you can..
You poor troll...
Yahoo suggests "climate gate" by the time I get to "climat":
http://bayimg.com/lajakaAcK
Curiously, Google doesn't:
http://bayimg.com/LAJAmaaCK
But let's not stop there -- even if you type all the way to
"climategate", Google still doesn't suggest "climategate":
http://bayimg.com/LAjaOAack
Laughable...
Now run along little boy.
Retief
HH&C
> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 17:15:17 -0800 (PST), "HH&C"
>
>
>
>
>
So you're saying that you rank right up there with Bush in
brilliance? Heh.
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind was again laughing at the fallacy argument presented by:
>>
>> On 1/10/2010 1:32 PM, Retief wrote:
>>
>>> Interestingly, for some time after it hit the news, the Google
>>> search engine supressed searches for "climategate"
>>
>> Prove it..
>>
>> Three cites that confirm it, if you can..
>
> You poor troll...
>
> Yahoo suggests "climate gate" by the time I get to "climat":
You don't understand how the caching works on your own computer,
do you? That's what you "google scholars" are known for, abject
'incompetence' and leaping to hoped-for conclusions..
Go to Google.com, type in "climategate", view results, and then
close your browser. Next, re-open your browser, and re-open
the Google.com web-site and type in climategate, noting where
the suggestions take place..
Just try it, even though I know you don't like to try and
falsify your own dearly held beliefs, which told me that
you clearly are not a "scientist" in any sense of the word..
> But let's not stop there -- even if you type all the way
Yeah, sure..
> Laughable...
Yes, you certainly are..
--But not quite the way you intended..
Retief
<baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yahoo suggests "climate gate" by the time I get to "climat":
>
>You don't understand how the caching works on your own computer,
Sure I do, Troll. The words "climate guatemala" did not exist in my
cache (as I have made no searches for "guatemala", and I purge all
cache and cookies regularly/daily). Yet Google offered "guatemala".
You will notice the Yahoo search occurred first (timestamp is in the
lower right corner). I don't use Yahoo as my default search engine, I
use Google. If the words "climategate" were in my cache, they would
have appeared in Google preferentially over Yahoo (as I had already
searched for the term earlier that day).
>do you? That's what you "google scholars" are known for, abject
>'incompetence' and leaping to hoped-for conclusions..
Poor troll, you demanded proof, and now you're reeling to cover the
political bias that was exposed.
>Go to Google.com, type in "climategate", view results, and then
>close your browser. Next, re-open your browser, and re-open
>the Google.com web-site and type in climategate, noting where
>the suggestions take place..
I had already searched for climategate in Google. A friend pointed
out that Google was not offering that as a suggestion.
Curiously, Google did offer guatemala, despite there never being any
previous searches for such, and thus should not appear in my cache.
For me, this incident occurred on 07-Dec-2009 (which is the datestamp
of the 3 images).
Others also noted this:
http://searchengineland.com/climategate-just-how-popular-is-it-according-to-google-31211
Many other links are easy to find.
>Just try it, even though I know you don't like to try and
>falsify your own dearly held beliefs, which told me that
>you clearly are not a "scientist" in any sense of the word..
Your bias and projection are noted, Troll.
Retief
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 00:43:23 -0700, Winston_Smith >wrote:
>>> Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>>>On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 16:24:13 -0700, Winston_Smith>>>wrote:
>>>>> Dan <dnad...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Of course, one side (ours) has science to back them up, the other
>>>>>>side (deniers) rely on word of mouth and fabricated materials.
>>>>>
>>>>> Snicker, guffaw. Your "side" is the ones caught fudging the data.
>>>>
>>>>Accusations that _some_ data, a trivially small amount, _might_ have
>>>>been twisted. If that happened then it is intolerable and those
>>>>scientists will be routed out of their positions.
>>>>
>>>>Even if some single study were corrupted, intentionally or
>>>>intentionally, it does not negate the vast compilation of world wide
>>>>data and 90%+ of scientists and climatologists who stand by the
>>>>massive data.
>>>
>>> Pure unequivocal bullshit.
>>>
>>> You can't support that because the alleged data is kept under lock and
>>> key. Most of it was paid for by taxpayers of several nations. It's
>>> public property. They won't give. Courts have ordered them to
>>> release it. They ignore and defy the courts.
>>>
>>> Much of it is supposedly destroyed. All we have is their "models".
>>> With no way to even test them for credibility. No way to validate -
>>> or disprove - their methods. Their constantly changing methods. So
>>> you simple can NOT say anything about the non-existent data except
>>> what you choose to believe.
>>>
>>> They have prevented getting caught in their lies by hiding and
>>> destroying public property. And you tell us they are honorable folk
>>> that we can trust.
>>>
>>> Pure unequivocal bullshit.
>>
>>If the data is secret, how do you know it's been fudged?
>
> Oh, good try. Because a small part of the e-mails were hacked. Isn't
> it sad that is the only way the public gets the slightest peek at what
> is supposed to be an open process?
I'm aware that emails from one source were published that indicate fudged
data. There are what, 30,000 highly respected climatologists in the
world. How many were involved in that single, the only, event?
--
Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who's God Do You Kill For?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind restored the previous bitch-slapping bestowed upon:
>>
>> On 1/10/2010 8:12 PM, Belief was whining and opining falsely:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind was again laughing at the fallacy argument presented by:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Interestingly, for some time after it hit the news, the Google
>>>>> search engine supressed searches for "climategate"
>>>>
>>>> Prove it..
>>>>
>>>> Three cites that confirm it, if you can..
>>>
>>> You poor troll...
>>>
>>
>> You don't understand how the caching works on your own computer,
>
> Sure I do
I doubt that entirely..
>> You don't understand how the caching works on your own computer,
>> do you? That's what you "google scholars" are known for, abject
>> 'incompetence' and leaping to hoped-for conclusions..
>
> You will notice the Yahoo search occurred first
So, when I went to Google and got a 'suggested search' of
"climategate" by the time I typed in "clim", your assumption
was falsified..
Anything else you'd like to lie about?
> If the words "climategate" were in my cache
Well, your uploaded image didn't come through on this end,
so as far as I'm concerned, your bogus claims remain debunked..
>> Go to Google.com, type in "climategate", view results, and then
>> close your browser. Next, re-open your browser, and re-open
>> the Google.com web-site and type in climategate, noting where
>> the suggestions take place..
>
> I had already searched for climategate in Google
Okay, and somehow it didn't turn up any search results,
or are you just disappointed that the 'suggested search'
function didn't work like you wanted it to?
That isn't a false dichotomy, either.. It either is or isn't
coming up in your browser, and you're just presuming again..
>> Just try it, even though I know you don't like to try and
>> falsify your own dearly held beliefs, which told me that
>> you clearly are not a "scientist" in any sense of the word..
>
> Your bias and projection are noted
*>LOL!<* You're again using words you clearly do not comprehend..
--But, that's okay for a goober like yourself..
Curly Surmudgeon
> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 06:27:31 +0000 (UTC), Curly Surmudgeon
> <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 23:38:28 -0600, Retief <nos...@invalid.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 04:59:30 +0000 (UTC), Curly Surmudgeon
>>> <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 22:29:49 -0600, Retief <nos...@invalid.invalid>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 03:53:59 +0000 (UTC), Curly Surmudgeon
>>>>> <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Even if some single study were corrupted, intentionally or
>>>>>>intentionally, it does not negate the vast compilation of world wide
>>>>>>data and 90%+ of scientists and climatologists who stand by the
>>>>>>massive data.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you address this statement honestly, you not be able to support
>>>>> the claim of "90%+" -- you are likely to be hard pressed to even
>>>>> produce a majority who stand behind it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Retief
>>>>
>>>>AGain:
>>>>
>>>>BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
>>>>The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change Naomi Oreskes*
>>>
>>> Oh My, Squirrely is citing History faculty in reference to to climate
>>> science...
>>>
>>> http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/05/oreskes-study-errata.html
>>>
>>> Whoops... Naomi got it wrong.
>>>
>>> Retief
>>
>>Wow, snip the pertinent parts then post a non-sequitor. Even the
>>cockroach can do better than that.
>
> No. It. Can't.
Point.
Retief
<baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You will notice the Yahoo search occurred first
>
>So, when I went to Google and got a 'suggested search' of
>"climategate" by the time I typed in "clim", your assumption
>was falsified..
Gosh, you went back in time to 07-Dec-2009, and tried it? I'm really
impressed. What other magical tricks can you do?
You are aware, Troll, that the implicit bias indicated there resulted
in numerous questions to Google staff.
>Anything else you'd like to lie about?
Poor Troll, you demanded proof, and when it is supplied, you try to
rationalize your way out of it. Your political bias is so deep, that
you cannot accept facts.
Others also noted this:
http://searchengineland.com/climategate-just-how-popular-is-it-according-to-google-31211
How did you falsify those observations? Oh, that's right, you didn't.
Now run along, Troll. Go play in the street.
Retief
roger gilbert
Why are you consumed by anger?
roger gilbert
Why can't you get along with folks here?
roger gilbert
Is hate your only emotion?
roger gilbert
Your anger defines you.
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings bestowed upon:
>>
>> On 1/10/2010 9:09 PM, Belief writhed in denials when it was pointed out:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind restored the previous bitch-slapping bestowed upon:
>>>>
>>>> On 1/10/2010 8:12 PM, Belief was whining and opining falsely:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man_of_Mind was again laughing at the fallacy argument presented by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/10/2010 1:32 PM, Belief was sniveling conspiracy:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Interestingly, for some time after it hit the news, the Google
>>>>>>> search engine supressed searches for "climategate"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Prove it..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Three cites that confirm it, if you can..
>>>>>
>>>>> You poor troll...
>>>>>
>>>>> Yahoo suggests "climate gate" by the time I get to "climat":
>>>>
>>>> You don't understand how the caching works on your own computer,
>>>
>>> Sure I do
>>
>> I doubt that entirely..
*>cricket.wav<*
>>>> You don't understand how the caching works on your own computer,
>>>> do you? That's what you "google scholars" are known for, abject
>>>> 'incompetence' and leaping to hoped-for conclusions..
>>>
>>> You will notice the Yahoo search occurred first
>>
>> So, when I went to Google and got a 'suggested search' of
>> "climategate" by the time I typed in "clim", your assumption
>> was falsified..
>>
>> Anything else you'd like to lie about?
>
> Gosh, you went back in time to 07-Dec-2009
Nope, Google has it's own system of caching too..
Too bad your imagined conspiracy of 'censorship' proves
just gullible you really are..
> Poor Troll, you demanded proof
You have yet to provide any, in case you've forgotten that conveniently..
> How did you falsify those observations?
Easily, see below..
>>>> Go to Google.com, type in "climategate", view results, and then
>>>> close your browser. Next, re-open your browser, and re-open
>>>> the Google.com web-site and type in climategate, noting where
>>>> the suggestions take place..
>>>
>>> I had already searched for climategate in Google
>>
>> Okay, and somehow it didn't turn up any search results,
>> or are you just disappointed that the 'suggested search'
>> function didn't work like you wanted it to?
>>
>> That isn't a false dichotomy, either.. It either is or isn't
>> coming up in your browser, and you're just presuming again..
--I accept your lack of critical reasoning.. *>chuckling<*