Scientific Consensus

StarMan wrote:
A lion does not turn his head when a small dog barks. - Nigerian Proverb

drm wrote:
These 5 people do not all disagree with the statement that manmade CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming. They may disagree with other aspects of the consensus, especially the magnitude of the impacts. But most of them agree that manmade CO2 causes global warming.

RenaissanceMan wrote:

drm wrote:
These 5 people do not all disagree with the statement that manmade CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming. They may disagree with other aspects of the consensus, especially the magnitude of the impacts. But most of them agree that manmade CO2 causes global warming.

They do nothing of the sort.

Humans account for ~3.7% of carbon dioxide produced. The rest is naturally occurring. And CO2 represents 400 ppmv compared to 15,000 ppmv for water vapor, so 400 divided by 15,400 = 2.59%. So human CO2 is .037 x .0259 or .000958 of greenhouse gases, and climate change sharia priests pretend that that infinitesimal proportion drives the climate? Please, get serious.

China and India are building thousands of coal fired power plants. Anything we do in the United States will be eclipsed by the poor people of the world.

After the ecohypocrites start practicing what they preach, then some might listen. Until then, let's watch them take their limousines, and private jets around the world while they tell us what to do and when.

drm wrote:
These 5 people do not all disagree with the statement that manmade CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming. They may disagree with other aspects of the consensus, especially the magnitude of the impacts. But most of them agree that manmade CO2 causes global warming.

James___ wrote:

..When you say gasses can not warm our planet the Boltzmann constant says otherwise. That's why he used the expression KE = 3/2KT or (3/2KT)Na.

RenaissanceMan wrote:

James___ wrote:

..When you say gasses can not warm our planet the Boltzmann constant says otherwise. That's why he used the expression KE = 3/2KT or (3/2KT)Na.

Gases don't "warm our planet," but rather act as insulation retaining heat absorbed by the sun and radiated outward. If not for our atmosphere, profound amounts of heat would be lost, and there would be little if any life on earth.
But there's nothing magic about CO2 no matter what Al Gore the flunkee from Vanderbilt Divinity School says.

"I took the initiative in inventing the internet." -

"We all know a zebra doesn't change its spots." -

RenaissanceMan wrote:

James___ wrote:

..When you say gasses can not warm our planet the Boltzmann constant says otherwise. That's why he used the expression KE = 3/2KT or (3/2KT)Na.

Gases don't "warm our planet," but rather act as insulation retaining heat absorbed by the sun and radiated outward. If not for our atmosphere, profound amounts of heat would be lost, and there would be little if any life on earth.
But there's nothing magic about CO2 no matter what Al Gore the flunkee from Vanderbilt Divinity School says.

"I took the initiative in inventing the internet." -

"We all know a zebra doesn't change its spots." -

James___ wrote:
You 3 are sad.

James___ wrote:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-16797075

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/climateChange/general/causes.html

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-16797075

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/climateChange/general/causes.html

What is really funny is that throughout history geology shows us that we have had warm periods interspersed with cold periods. While aerosols definitely can have an effect these are almost never world wide. And there is clear geological evidence of the little ice age in New Zealand and northern Australia. There is some evidence of it in Brazil.

Since sunspots have been studied since the time of Galileo there are records of the cycles that cause deep cold periods in inter-glacial periods and we know for certain that at the time of the little ice age there was a very sharp reduction in sunspots which is the probable cause of the little ice age and that is why its real name is The Maunder Minimum followed shortly thereafter by the Dalton Minimum.

But feel free to invent anything you like since you aren't bright enough to actually study it and need your articles from the news section of the BBC.

If you are unwilling to study anything that has large words in it and instead use reference materials designed for children you aren't getting very far.

James___ wrote:

Wake wrote:
[quote]James___ wrote:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-16797075

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/climateChange/general/causes.html

What is really funny is that throughout history geology shows us that we have had warm periods interspersed with cold periods. While aerosols definitely can have an effect these are almost never world wide. And there is clear geological evidence of the little ice age in New Zealand and northern Australia. There is some evidence of it in Brazil.

Since sunspots have been studied since the time of Galileo there are records of the cycles that cause deep cold periods in inter-glacial periods and we know for certain that at the time of the little ice age there was a very sharp reduction in sunspots which is the probable cause of the little ice age and that is why its real name is The Maunder Minimum followed shortly thereafter by the Dalton Minimum.

But feel free to invent anything you like since you aren't bright enough to actually study it and need your articles from the news section of the BBC.

If you are unwilling to study anything that has large words in it and instead use reference materials designed for children you aren't getting very far.

Wake wrote: If you are unwilling to study anything that has large words in it and instead use reference materials designed for children you aren't getting very far.[/b]
..That just tells me that's all you have.

James___ wrote:

Wake wrote:
[quote]James___ wrote:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-16797075

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/climateChange/general/causes.html

What is really funny is that throughout history geology shows us that we have had warm periods interspersed with cold periods. While aerosols definitely can have an effect these are almost never world wide. And there is clear geological evidence of the little ice age in New Zealand and northern Australia. There is some evidence of it in Brazil.

Since sunspots have been studied since the time of Galileo there are records of the cycles that cause deep cold periods in inter-glacial periods and we know for certain that at the time of the little ice age there was a very sharp reduction in sunspots which is the probable cause of the little ice age and that is why its real name is The Maunder Minimum followed shortly thereafter by the Dalton Minimum.

But feel free to invent anything you like since you aren't bright enough to actually study it and need your articles from the news section of the BBC.

If you are unwilling to study anything that has large words in it and instead use reference materials designed for children you aren't getting very far.

Wake wrote: If you are unwilling to study anything that has large words in it and instead use reference materials designed for children you aren't getting very far.[/b]
..That just tells me that's all you have.

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:

Wake wrote:
[quote]James___ wrote:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-16797075

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/climateChange/general/causes.html

What is really funny is that throughout history geology shows us that we have had warm periods interspersed with cold periods. While aerosols definitely can have an effect these are almost never world wide. And there is clear geological evidence of the little ice age in New Zealand and northern Australia. There is some evidence of it in Brazil.

Since sunspots have been studied since the time of Galileo there are records of the cycles that cause deep cold periods in inter-glacial periods and we know for certain that at the time of the little ice age there was a very sharp reduction in sunspots which is the probable cause of the little ice age and that is why its real name is The Maunder Minimum followed shortly thereafter by the Dalton Minimum.

But feel free to invent anything you like since you aren't bright enough to actually study it and need your articles from the news section of the BBC.

If you are unwilling to study anything that has large words in it and instead use reference materials designed for children you aren't getting very far.

...Back to the insults already ?

Wake wrote: If you are unwilling to study anything that has large words in it and instead use reference materials designed for children you aren't getting very far.[/b]
..That just tells me that's all you have.

But weren't you just telling us that according to your deep research into a child's article that the little ice age was caused by some volcano somewhere that no one knows?

Gee willikers you certainly are back on the bandwagon of hating being corrected on anything.

Wake wrote:
But weren't you just telling us that according to your deep research into a child's article that the little ice age was caused by some volcano somewhere that no one knows?

James___ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:

Wake wrote:
[quote]James___ wrote:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-16797075

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/climateChange/general/causes.html

What is really funny is that throughout history geology shows us that we have had warm periods interspersed with cold periods. While aerosols definitely can have an effect these are almost never world wide. And there is clear geological evidence of the little ice age in New Zealand and northern Australia. There is some evidence of it in Brazil.

Since sunspots have been studied since the time of Galileo there are records of the cycles that cause deep cold periods in inter-glacial periods and we know for certain that at the time of the little ice age there was a very sharp reduction in sunspots which is the probable cause of the little ice age and that is why its real name is The Maunder Minimum followed shortly thereafter by the Dalton Minimum.

But feel free to invent anything you like since you aren't bright enough to actually study it and need your articles from the news section of the BBC.

If you are unwilling to study anything that has large words in it and instead use reference materials designed for children you aren't getting very far.

...Back to the insults already ?

Wake wrote: If you are unwilling to study anything that has large words in it and instead use reference materials designed for children you aren't getting very far.[/b]
..That just tells me that's all you have.

But weren't you just telling us that according to your deep research into a child's article that the little ice age was caused by some volcano somewhere that no one knows?

Gee willikers you certainly are back on the bandwagon of hating being corrected on anything.

Wake wrote:
But weren't you just telling us that according to your deep research into a child's article that the little ice age was caused by some volcano somewhere that no one knows?

..I was trying to keep it simple for you and itn since neither one of you understand science.
...What we grown ups read;
..The cause appears to have been massive tropical volcanic eruptions, which spewed tiny particles called aerosols into the atmosphere. While suspended in the air, the aerosols reflect solar radiation back into space, cooling the planet below.
..The cooling was sustained after the aerosols had left the atmosphere by a sea-ice feedback in the North Atlantic Ocean, the researchers believe.
https://www.livescience.com/18205-ice-age-volcanoes-sea-ice.html


..I have my own theory but will go with what is accepted for now. This means that I am right

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:

Wake wrote:
[quote]James___ wrote:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-16797075

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/climateChange/general/causes.html

What is really funny is that throughout history geology shows us that we have had warm periods interspersed with cold periods. While aerosols definitely can have an effect these are almost never world wide. And there is clear geological evidence of the little ice age in New Zealand and northern Australia. There is some evidence of it in Brazil.

Since sunspots have been studied since the time of Galileo there are records of the cycles that cause deep cold periods in inter-glacial periods and we know for certain that at the time of the little ice age there was a very sharp reduction in sunspots which is the probable cause of the little ice age and that is why its real name is The Maunder Minimum followed shortly thereafter by the Dalton Minimum.

But feel free to invent anything you like since you aren't bright enough to actually study it and need your articles from the news section of the BBC.

If you are unwilling to study anything that has large words in it and instead use reference materials designed for children you aren't getting very far.

...Back to the insults already ?

Wake wrote: If you are unwilling to study anything that has large words in it and instead use reference materials designed for children you aren't getting very far.[/b]
..That just tells me that's all you have.

But weren't you just telling us that according to your deep research into a child's article that the little ice age was caused by some volcano somewhere that no one knows?

Gee willikers you certainly are back on the bandwagon of hating being corrected on anything.

Wake wrote:
But weren't you just telling us that according to your deep research into a child's article that the little ice age was caused by some volcano somewhere that no one knows?

..I was trying to keep it simple for you and itn since neither one of you understand science.
...What we grown ups read;
..The cause appears to have been massive tropical volcanic eruptions, which spewed tiny particles called aerosols into the atmosphere. While suspended in the air, the aerosols reflect solar radiation back into space, cooling the planet below.
..The cooling was sustained after the aerosols had left the atmosphere by a sea-ice feedback in the North Atlantic Ocean, the researchers believe.
https://www.livescience.com/18205-ice-age-volcanoes-sea-ice.html


..I have my own theory but will go with what is accepted for now. This means that I am right

OK, where were these volcanoes? These things don't disappear you know? Or are you going to rush out and find another comic book on global warming to quote since that's the level of your thought processes if they can be called that.

66 Million years ago it is theorized that the Chicxulub meteorite hit the Yucatan Peninsula. This was in the worse place possible and covered the entire Earth with aerosol ashes for perhaps as much as 5 years. This was one of the largest events in the history of the Earth and traces of it are still showing after 66 million years. It killed off the entire Dinosaur species. It caused the evolution of the Mammal.

But somehow you have either a giant volcano or a string of big volcanoes covering the Earth with ash and no trace of them after 250 years. I must say your thinking processes leave a lot to be desired.

James___ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:

Wake wrote:
[quote]James___ wrote:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-16797075

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/climateChange/general/causes.html

What is really funny is that throughout history geology shows us that we have had warm periods interspersed with cold periods. While aerosols definitely can have an effect these are almost never world wide. And there is clear geological evidence of the little ice age in New Zealand and northern Australia. There is some evidence of it in Brazil.

Since sunspots have been studied since the time of Galileo there are records of the cycles that cause deep cold periods in inter-glacial periods and we know for certain that at the time of the little ice age there was a very sharp reduction in sunspots which is the probable cause of the little ice age and that is why its real name is The Maunder Minimum followed shortly thereafter by the Dalton Minimum.

But feel free to invent anything you like since you aren't bright enough to actually study it and need your articles from the news section of the BBC.

If you are unwilling to study anything that has large words in it and instead use reference materials designed for children you aren't getting very far.

...Back to the insults already ?

Wake wrote: If you are unwilling to study anything that has large words in it and instead use reference materials designed for children you aren't getting very far.[/b]
..That just tells me that's all you have.

But weren't you just telling us that according to your deep research into a child's article that the little ice age was caused by some volcano somewhere that no one knows?

Gee willikers you certainly are back on the bandwagon of hating being corrected on anything.

Wake wrote:
But weren't you just telling us that according to your deep research into a child's article that the little ice age was caused by some volcano somewhere that no one knows?

..I was trying to keep it simple for you and itn since neither one of you understand science.
...What we grown ups read;
..The cause appears to have been massive tropical volcanic eruptions, which spewed tiny particles called aerosols into the atmosphere. While suspended in the air, the aerosols reflect solar radiation back into space, cooling the planet below.
..The cooling was sustained after the aerosols had left the atmosphere by a sea-ice feedback in the North Atlantic Ocean, the researchers believe.
https://www.livescience.com/18205-ice-age-volcanoes-sea-ice.html


..I have my own theory but will go with what is accepted for now. This means that I am right

OK, where were these volcanoes? These things don't disappear you know? Or are you going to rush out and find another comic book on global warming to quote since that's the level of your thought processes if they can be called that.

66 Million years ago it is theorized that the Chicxulub meteorite hit the Yucatan Peninsula. This was in the worse place possible and covered the entire Earth with aerosol ashes for perhaps as much as 5 years. This was one of the largest events in the history of the Earth and traces of it are still showing after 66 million years. It killed off the entire Dinosaur species. It caused the evolution of the Mammal.

But somehow you have either a giant volcano or a string of big volcanoes covering the Earth with ash and no trace of them after 250 years. I must say your thinking processes leave a lot to be desired.

...What scientists base that assumption on are sulfur levels. Back in 1300 AD not much history was recorded. There is a report of a comet that caused the ground to shake.

James___ wrote:
Pg. 2 is interesting;
.In 1348
came an earthquake of such frightful violence that many men deemed the end of the world to be presaged. Its devastations were widely spread. Cyprus, Greece, and Italy were terribly visited, and it extended through the Alpine valleys as far as Basle. Mountains sank into the earth.

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:

Wake wrote:
[quote]James___ wrote:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-16797075

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/climateChange/general/causes.html

What is really funny is that throughout history geology shows us that we have had warm periods interspersed with cold periods. While aerosols definitely can have an effect these are almost never world wide. And there is clear geological evidence of the little ice age in New Zealand and northern Australia. There is some evidence of it in Brazil.

Since sunspots have been studied since the time of Galileo there are records of the cycles that cause deep cold periods in inter-glacial periods and we know for certain that at the time of the little ice age there was a very sharp reduction in sunspots which is the probable cause of the little ice age and that is why its real name is The Maunder Minimum followed shortly thereafter by the Dalton Minimum.

But feel free to invent anything you like since you aren't bright enough to actually study it and need your articles from the news section of the BBC.

If you are unwilling to study anything that has large words in it and instead use reference materials designed for children you aren't getting very far.

...Back to the insults already ?

Wake wrote: If you are unwilling to study anything that has large words in it and instead use reference materials designed for children you aren't getting very far.[/b]
..That just tells me that's all you have.

But weren't you just telling us that according to your deep research into a child's article that the little ice age was caused by some volcano somewhere that no one knows?

Gee willikers you certainly are back on the bandwagon of hating being corrected on anything.

Wake wrote:
But weren't you just telling us that according to your deep research into a child's article that the little ice age was caused by some volcano somewhere that no one knows?

..I was trying to keep it simple for you and itn since neither one of you understand science.
...What we grown ups read;
..The cause appears to have been massive tropical volcanic eruptions, which spewed tiny particles called aerosols into the atmosphere. While suspended in the air, the aerosols reflect solar radiation back into space, cooling the planet below.
..The cooling was sustained after the aerosols had left the atmosphere by a sea-ice feedback in the North Atlantic Ocean, the researchers believe.
https://www.livescience.com/18205-ice-age-volcanoes-sea-ice.html


..I have my own theory but will go with what is accepted for now. This means that I am right

OK, where were these volcanoes? These things don't disappear you know? Or are you going to rush out and find another comic book on global warming to quote since that's the level of your thought processes if they can be called that.

66 Million years ago it is theorized that the Chicxulub meteorite hit the Yucatan Peninsula. This was in the worse place possible and covered the entire Earth with aerosol ashes for perhaps as much as 5 years. This was one of the largest events in the history of the Earth and traces of it are still showing after 66 million years. It killed off the entire Dinosaur species. It caused the evolution of the Mammal.

But somehow you have either a giant volcano or a string of big volcanoes covering the Earth with ash and no trace of them after 250 years. I must say your thinking processes leave a lot to be desired.

...What scientists base that assumption on are sulfur levels. Back in 1300 AD not much history was recorded. There is a report of a comet that caused the ground to shake.

Comets do not cause the ground to shake.

James___ wrote:
Pg. 2 is interesting;
.In 1348
came an earthquake of such frightful violence that many men deemed the end of the world to be presaged. Its devastations were widely spread. Cyprus, Greece, and Italy were terribly visited, and it extended through the Alpine valleys as far as Basle. Mountains sank into the earth.

Comets do not cause the ground to shake.

StarMan wrote:
A lion does not turn his head when a small dog barks. - Nigerian Proverb

Desertphile wrote:

Hayduke wrote: This statement is absolutely and unequivocally false.

No. Over 550 science organizations in 85 countries, and they all agree humans have caused and are causing global warming.

Hayduke wrote: Many climate scientists disagree that human produced CO2 is the cause of climate change.

Name five. (This ought to be good for a laugh.)

Hayduke wrote: Anthropogenic Global Warming is a politically loaded, unscientific phrase that does not describe the complexity of global climate variation.

It is an observed fact, no less than evolution and gravity. If you insist upon seeing it as "politically loaded" and "unscientific," that's your own special emotional illness and you should probably talk to a mental health care professional about it.

Davros wrote:
I only know this CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we are thickening the blanket around the earth and the vast majority of our brightest and best have told us this will be bad for both us and those who come after us, so I'm off to seek a solution so my grandkids won't think to badly of me, I really can't be bothered with those who deny the science.

climate scientist wrote:
Hi arthur18

I have responded on WUWT, also copied here:

Well.... I say, this is an absolutely terrific work of fiction, particularly regarding point 3 by JoNova. The way that the original data release has been re-written and mis-represented here is really quite astounding.

If you refer to the original document, then it is clear that the results of the survey have been mis-reported here. In fact, Bart Verheggen, who happens to be the second author on the original document, has written a post on his blog, describing the actual results of the survey:

https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2015/08/04/pbl-survey-shows-strong-scientific-consensus-that-global-warming-is-largely-driven-by-greenhouse-gases/

In Bart's words:

"...our survey results show a strong scientific consensus that global warming is predominantly caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases".

"This consensus strengthens with increased expertise, as defined by the number of self-reported articles in the peer-reviewed literature."

And why on earth are the results of the survey, which was conducted in 2012, being compared to a statement from AR5, which was not published until 2013?

JoNova is trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes and it would seem as though she is being quite successful. I encourage everyone to not read this article blindly, but to refer to the source document and draw your own conclusions from the data.

Davros wrote:
I only know this CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we are thickening the blanket around the earth and the vast majority of our brightest and best have told us this will be bad for both us and those who come after us, so I'm off to seek a solution so my grandkids won't think to badly of me, I really can't be bothered with those who deny the science.

Abraham3 wrote:

Hayduke wrote:

Name five. (This ought to be good for a laugh.)


It is an observed fact, no less than evolution and gravity. If you insist upon seeing it as "politically loaded" and "unscientific," that's your own special emotional illness and you should probably talk to a mental health care professional about it.

I do not respond to personal attacks.

I agree that there are respectable climatologists out there that do not accept AGW (which is a perfectly good term). But for every one you can name, I can find 97 that do accept it. If you have some information indicating that is not the case, I'd very much like to see it.

climate scientist wrote:
Climate science is a very broad field. My field within climate science is on greenhouse gases and the carbon cycle. I know the basics of what the observed changes in sea level rise are, but if you asked me exactly how much sea level rise there will be in 2100, I would have to do a lot of reading and research to answer this question. Scientists are naturally skeptical people, and I would probably answer 'don't know' about a question on future sea level rise, simply because I do not have enough in depth knowledge or research topic on the background to be able to provide a more reasonable answer than ' based on trends in observed sea level rise, I think sea level in 2100 might be higher than today, but I'm not really sure'.

However, I still agree with the IPCC position on climate change - that it is extremely likely that humans are causing climate change via greenhouse gas emissions - because I know that there are multiple lines of independent evidence that demonstrate this, including those from my own research specialism.

Even if you disagree with Bart's interpretation of his results, it is completely inappropriate for WUWT to write an article stating explicitly that only 43% of climate scientists agree with the IPCC position on climate change. This is *not* what the results of the survey show.

It is also inappropriate to compare the results of the survey to previous studies (e.g. Cook et al 2013), as these studies looked for papers that stated a position on climate change - there are only 3 outcomes: they supported climate change, they did not support climate change, or they did not state a view on climate change. The survey asked extremely specific questions about specific aspects of climate change. I'm sure that no one who answered the survey could possible be an expert on all the topics covered by the survey.

I therefore disagree with Thomas Fuller's statement. If I had taken part in the survey, there are a few questions that I would have answered 'don't know' to, and yet I agree with the IPCC position on climate change. This is demonstrated in question 1b in the survey, which as about confidence that climate change is due to greenhouse gas emissions. Chapter 10 in AR5 considers it 'very likely' that this is the case. 1091 of the respondents to q1b also thought that the anthropogenic GHG contribution is the dominant cause of climate change (very likely or higher confidence). That is 76% of the total number of respondents to q1b. Conversely, only 7% of the respondents on q1b thought it 'very likely' (or higher confidence) that the anthropogenic GHG contribution was not the dominant cause. If we include the people who didn't respond, the results become 58% who very likely or higher agree >50% GHG contribution, 5% who very likely or higher agree < 50% GHG contribution, and 36% who did not respond to that question.

Either way you look at it, it is either 76% vs 7%, or 58% vs 5%. What the results definitely do not show is 43% agreeing on GHG contribution, and 57% disagreeing, which is what WUWT has published in their article.

DRKTS wrote:

FriendOfOrion wrote:
All scientists support CO2 caused G. Warming? There are 31,487 scientists that don't agree with CO2 caused GW theory. See www.petitionproject.org to see the names.

I did a video on the Petition Project on YouTube entitled "31,000 Scientists Can't All Be Wrong, Can They?": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8NVsmgeFmo

You will find it quite educational

Ceist wrote:

FriendOfOrion wrote:
All scientists support CO2 caused G. Warming? There are 31,487 scientists that don't agree with CO2 caused GW theory. See www.petitionproject.org to see the names.

Who knew Ginger Spice was a physicist and that Charles Darwin is still alive?

Let's have a look at that "Petition"

Seattle Times article about people adding fake names to the "Petition"
Business | Jokers Add Fake Names To Warming Petition | Seattle Times Newspaper

The National Academy of Sciences:
STATEMENT BY THE COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
REGARDING GLOBAL CHANGE PETITION
National-Academies.org

Scientific American:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060823125025/http://www.sciam.com/page.cfm?section=sidebar&articleID=0004F43C-DC1A-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21

University of Wisconsin
A Global Warming Counterfeit

The Sceptics Society:
Skeptic » eSkeptic » Wed., November 12th, 2008

32,000 scientists - Climate Denial Crock of the Week
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py2XVILHUjQ

even Wikipedia

Oregon Petition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

drm wrote:

Kano wrote:
do I believe it would be beneficial warming YES

I find this common meme to be odd. Humans and their civilization have evolved at a relatively cold period in the earth's recent history on a geological scale. We didn't come around 55 million years ago when it was much warmer. Similarly humans seem to thrive the most not in the hottest climates, not in the coldest, but in temperate zones. Not too hot, not too cold. We seem to do best with things about as they are now.

drm wrote:
These 5 people do not all disagree with the statement that manmade CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming. They may disagree with other aspects of the consensus, especially the magnitude of the impacts. But most of them agree that manmade CO2 causes global warming.

James___ wrote:

StarMan wrote:
A lion does not turn his head when a small dog barks. - Nigerian Proverb

Excellent proverb. After all, it's probably wake anyway LMAO !!!!


...@All,
..What wake (what happens when someone dies, you go to wake
hold a vigil beside (someone who has died).
"we waked Jim last night"
https://www.google.com/search?q=wake&oq=wake&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.991j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) doesn't understand is that a near earth asteroid or comet could change the earth's orbit. This is because it would effect it's gravitational field as it passes through it.

James___ wrote:
..In astronomy they can use a Sun's wobble to determine what planets can be expected to be orbiting it, this includes both mass (size) and orbit in some cases.

James___ wrote:
..If astronomers can't see the planets, how do they know that they are there at all? According to astronomers, some stars appear to wobble back and forwards. Yes that's right, wobble! But stars don't move...do they?

James___ wrote:
http://www.planet-science.com/categories/over-11s/space/2010/09/it%E2%80%99s-in-the-shake-and-wobble!-.aspx
..If a planet can cause a star to wobble then why can't an asteroid or comet effect our planet ?

James___ wrote:
Because wake said so, that's why.

James___ wrote:
I kind of wonder if itn and wake will ever read actual books on physics.

James___ wrote:
It's not the same as surfing the next,

James___ wrote:
it takes time and you have to consider things from the author's perspective first.
...deleted usual ending insults...

Wake wrote:

Desertphile wrote:

Hayduke wrote: This statement is absolutely and unequivocally false.

No. Over 550 science organizations in 85 countries, and they all agree humans have caused and are causing global warming.

Hayduke wrote: Many climate scientists disagree that human produced CO2 is the cause of climate change.

Name five. (This ought to be good for a laugh.)

Hayduke wrote: Anthropogenic Global Warming is a politically loaded, unscientific phrase that does not describe the complexity of global climate variation.

It is an observed fact, no less than evolution and gravity. If you insist upon seeing it as "politically loaded" and "unscientific," that's your own special emotional illness and you should probably talk to a mental health care professional about it.

How about 30,000? The Oregon Petition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

Of course this is "easily debunked" - the Huffington Post did it with a journalist. After all, journalists are much smarter than scientists on matters of science.

Wake wrote:

Davros wrote:
I only know this CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we are thickening the blanket around the earth and the vast majority of our brightest and best have told us this will be bad for both us and those who come after us, so I'm off to seek a solution so my grandkids won't think to badly of me, I really can't be bothered with those who deny the science.

H2O in it's three phases - gas, liquid and solid is 100 times more common and 1000 times more effective.

Can you explain what effect CO2 could possibly have?

Wake wrote:

climate scientist wrote:
Hi arthur18

I have responded on WUWT, also copied here:

Well.... I say, this is an absolutely terrific work of fiction, particularly regarding point 3 by JoNova. The way that the original data release has been re-written and mis-represented here is really quite astounding.

If you refer to the original document, then it is clear that the results of the survey have been mis-reported here. In fact, Bart Verheggen, who happens to be the second author on the original document, has written a post on his blog, describing the actual results of the survey:

https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2015/08/04/pbl-survey-shows-strong-scientific-consensus-that-global-warming-is-largely-driven-by-greenhouse-gases/

In Bart's words:

"...our survey results show a strong scientific consensus that global warming is predominantly caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases".

"This consensus strengthens with increased expertise, as defined by the number of self-reported articles in the peer-reviewed literature."

And why on earth are the results of the survey, which was conducted in 2012, being compared to a statement from AR5, which was not published until 2013?

JoNova is trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes and it would seem as though she is being quite successful. I encourage everyone to not read this article blindly, but to refer to the source document and draw your own conclusions from the data.

I'm and R&D engineer who has designed chromatographs, both gas and liquid. So I understand spectometry. From the first second I saw these claims of CO2 being a greenhouse gas as comical. Yes a very small amount of CO2 can have a vanishingly small effect but larger amounts have none at all.

By all means show where the energy in the absorption bands of CO2 is supposed to come from.

Wake wrote:

Abraham3 wrote:

Hayduke wrote:

Name five. (This ought to be good for a laugh.)


It is an observed fact, no less than evolution and gravity. If you insist upon seeing it as "politically loaded" and "unscientific," that's your own special emotional illness and you should probably talk to a mental health care professional about it.

I do not respond to personal attacks.

I agree that there are respectable climatologists out there that do not accept AGW (which is a perfectly good term). But for every one you can name, I can find 97 that do accept it. If you have some information indicating that is not the case, I'd very much like to see it.

Firstly - the study of climate composes some 200 different science specialties. There is NO SUCH THING as a climatologist. There are no degrees granted at any university for "climatology". Therefore they are ALL self-identified.

Wake wrote:
The pretense that someone who has nothing better to do than to invent a title for himself and then make claims that man is somehow in control of the climate when he can't even predict the weather a week in advance accurately, and solely to gain government funding for a project would strike most normal people as humor. But to the group of True Believers this is the end of civilization as we know it.

Who are these "respectable climatologists"? Dr. Michael Mann who just lost a court case when other showed that he actually lied in his papers in order to gain more funding?

Wake wrote:

climate scientist wrote:
Climate science is a very broad field. My field within climate science is on greenhouse gases and the carbon cycle. I know the basics of what the observed changes in sea level rise are, but if you asked me exactly how much sea level rise there will be in 2100, I would have to do a lot of reading and research to answer this question. Scientists are naturally skeptical people, and I would probably answer 'don't know' about a question on future sea level rise, simply because I do not have enough in depth knowledge or research topic on the background to be able to provide a more reasonable answer than ' based on trends in observed sea level rise, I think sea level in 2100 might be higher than today, but I'm not really sure'.

However, I still agree with the IPCC position on climate change - that it is extremely likely that humans are causing climate change via greenhouse gas emissions - because I know that there are multiple lines of independent evidence that demonstrate this, including those from my own research specialism.

Even if you disagree with Bart's interpretation of his results, it is completely inappropriate for WUWT to write an article stating explicitly that only 43% of climate scientists agree with the IPCC position on climate change. This is *not* what the results of the survey show.

It is also inappropriate to compare the results of the survey to previous studies (e.g. Cook et al 2013), as these studies looked for papers that stated a position on climate change - there are only 3 outcomes: they supported climate change, they did not support climate change, or they did not state a view on climate change. The survey asked extremely specific questions about specific aspects of climate change. I'm sure that no one who answered the survey could possible be an expert on all the topics covered by the survey.

I therefore disagree with Thomas Fuller's statement. If I had taken part in the survey, there are a few questions that I would have answered 'don't know' to, and yet I agree with the IPCC position on climate change. This is demonstrated in question 1b in the survey, which as about confidence that climate change is due to greenhouse gas emissions. Chapter 10 in AR5 considers it 'very likely' that this is the case. 1091 of the respondents to q1b also thought that the anthropogenic GHG contribution is the dominant cause of climate change (very likely or higher confidence). That is 76% of the total number of respondents to q1b. Conversely, only 7% of the respondents on q1b thought it 'very likely' (or higher confidence) that the anthropogenic GHG contribution was not the dominant cause. If we include the people who didn't respond, the results become 58% who very likely or higher agree >50% GHG contribution, 5% who very likely or higher agree < 50% GHG contribution, and 36% who did not respond to that question.

Either way you look at it, it is either 76% vs 7%, or 58% vs 5%. What the results definitely do not show is 43% agreeing on GHG contribution, and 57% disagreeing, which is what WUWT has published in their article.

Firstly, I suspect you don't actually know the real facts of the rise in CO2. We entered the present warm period in 1896 or some insist it was in 1864. In either case man had NO ability to effect the climate in those times. In fact until WW II man couldn't even generate enough CO2 to measure. As for the present increasing temperatures blamed entirely on CO2 we have looked at the NASA temperature graphs and they are completely false.

These sharp increases are from about 1980 onward and Dr. Roy Spencer's NASA weather satellite program which is the only world wide accurate method of recording temperatures shows NO change in temperature beyond normal climatic variations.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_April_2018_v6.jpg

Also other satellite data shows CO2 coming not from energy plants in the world but from the rain forests in South America and Africa.

The warm periods like the one we're presently are recorded for the last 3,000 years interspersed with cooler periods though the little ice age was unusually cool.

The 97% numbers had nothing to do with real science but Australian graduate student John Cooke cooking the numbers for a paper. That NASA under Obama doctored everything they got their hands on says a great deal about the Obama administration and nothing at all about science.

Again I'll ask as a man very familiar with spectometry: where do you propose the energy is coming from to cause any increases in atmospheric temperatures with CO2 levels higher than 250 ppm? The CO2 absorption lines are exceedingly narrow and the areas in which emissions from the warmed Earth are within these bands is so rare that by my estimation the entire amount of energy in these bands is entirely absorbed by perhaps 250 ppm. Add CO2 would have no energy to absorb. So explain this if you would?

Wake wrote:

drm wrote:
These 5 people do not all disagree with the statement that manmade CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming. They may disagree with other aspects of the consensus, especially the magnitude of the impacts. But most of them agree that manmade CO2 causes global warming.

As I said before - CO2 is responsible for a minute amount of warming.

Wake wrote:
And as of 250 ppm that stops.

Wake wrote:
Additional levels of CO2 actually cause cooling since CO2 has a lower molar heat capacity and hence causes conduction and convection at lower temperatures.

Wake wrote:
This will give you an out to claim that we're going to have a man-made ice age.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Davros wrote:
I only know this CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we are thickening the blanket around the earth and the vast majority of our brightest and best have told us this will be bad for both us and those who come after us, so I'm off to seek a solution so my grandkids won't think to badly of me, I really can't be bothered with those who deny the science.

H2O in it's three phases - gas, liquid and solid is 100 times more common and 1000 times more effective.

Can you explain what effect CO2 could possibly have?

Neither water nor CO2 have the capability to warm the Earth.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

drm wrote:
These 5 people do not all disagree with the statement that manmade CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming. They may disagree with other aspects of the consensus, especially the magnitude of the impacts. But most of them agree that manmade CO2 causes global warming.

As I said before - CO2 is responsible for a minute amount of warming.

None. Absorption of surface radiance by any substance does not warm the Earth.