News Flashes

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofs: ... wild-eyed news flashes about AGW have greatly slowed down?....most scientists disagree with it...

Wake wrote:
Have you noticed that the wild-eyed news flashes about AGW have greatly slowed down? Apparently the media have discovered that not only do most scientists disagree with it but almost the entirety of the public are offended by the lies of the media about it.

So the media is desisting - it's bad for business. Too many authors of climate opinions from the media are losing their ability to effect anything about anything.

[b]Ceist wrote:... position statements on climate change from every major science organization/association worldwide.

litesong wrote:

[b]Ceist wrote:... position statements on climate change from every major science organization/association worldwide.

Some of the position statements:
American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society."
//////////
American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem."
//////////
American Geophysical Union
"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)
////////
American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)
///////
American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide."
///////
American Physical Society
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now."
////////
The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s."
///////
U.S. National Academy of Sciences
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."
////////
U.S. Global Change Research Program
"The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)
///////
List of worldwide scientific organizations:
The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: Consensus isn't used in science...

Into the Night wrote:

litesong wrote:

[b]Ceist wrote:... position statements on climate change from every major science organization/association worldwide.

Some of the position statements:
American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society."
//////////
American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem."
//////////
American Geophysical Union
"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)
////////
American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)
///////
American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide."
///////
American Physical Society
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now."
////////
The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s."
///////
U.S. National Academy of Sciences
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."
////////
U.S. Global Change Research Program
"The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)
///////
List of worldwide scientific organizations:
The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

Link War! All Hail the Great God Consensus!

Consensus isn't used in science, Litebeer.

Ceist wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Link War! All Hail the Great God Consensus!

Consensus isn't used in science, Litebeer.

Yes we know that ignoring science and making idiotic evidence-free nonsense assertions and rants on anonymous forums is your idea of 'science'.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: Quoting political groups is not science, dude. Neither is greenhouse gas theory.

Into the Night wrote:

Ceist wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Link War! All Hail the Great God Consensus!

Consensus isn't used in science, Litebeer.

Yes we know that ignoring science and making idiotic evidence-free nonsense assertions and rants on anonymous forums is your idea of 'science'.

Quoting political groups is not science, dude. Neither is greenhouse gas theory.

You keep running into the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law every time. You can't just ignore these at your convenience, or because you have 'consensus'.

Ceist wrote:
Read the position statements on climate change from every major science organisation/association worldwide.

litesong wrote:

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: Quoting political groups is not science, dude. Neither is greenhouse gas theory.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" retains its eunuch valuelessness.
Quoting Science Groups is powerful. Quoting the made for error, Oregon PR propaganda non-survey (accompanied by anti-AGW pulp) is a reversal of intelligence.

Ceist wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Ceist wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Link War! All Hail the Great God Consensus!

Consensus isn't used in science, Litebeer.

Yes we know that ignoring science and making idiotic evidence-free nonsense assertions and rants on anonymous forums is your idea of 'science'.

Quoting political groups is not science, dude. Neither is greenhouse gas theory.

You keep running into the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law every time. You can't just ignore these at your convenience, or because you have 'consensus'.

It's really quite sad and pathetic that you continue to show your complete ignorance of the laws of thermodynamics and the 'greenhouse' effect and continue to make insane crackpot claims.

You might as well be claiming that evolution is a hoax, or the age of the earth is less than 10,000 years old.

Into the Night wrote:

Ceist wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Ceist wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Link War! All Hail the Great God Consensus!

Consensus isn't used in science, Litebeer.

Yes we know that ignoring science and making idiotic evidence-free nonsense assertions and rants on anonymous forums is your idea of 'science'.

Quoting political groups is not science, dude. Neither is greenhouse gas theory.

You keep running into the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law every time. You can't just ignore these at your convenience, or because you have 'consensus'.

It's really quite sad and pathetic that you continue to show your complete ignorance of the laws of thermodynamics and the 'greenhouse' effect and continue to make insane crackpot claims.

You might as well be claiming that evolution is a hoax, or the age of the earth is less than 10,000 years old.

Denying science again, Ceist? STILL trying to pin science on Christianity?

Into the Night wrote:

Ceist wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Ceist wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Link War! All Hail the Great God Consensus!

Consensus isn't used in science, Litebeer.

Yes we know that ignoring science and making idiotic evidence-free nonsense assertions and rants on anonymous forums is your idea of 'science'.

Quoting political groups is not science, dude. Neither is greenhouse gas theory.

You keep running into the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law every time. You can't just ignore these at your convenience, or because you have 'consensus'.

It's really quite sad and pathetic that you continue to show your complete ignorance of the laws of thermodynamics and the 'greenhouse' effect and continue to make insane crackpot claims.

You might as well be claiming that evolution is a hoax, or the age of the earth is less than 10,000 years old.

Denying science again, Ceist? STILL trying to pin science on Christianity?

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Ceist wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Ceist wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Link War! All Hail the Great God Consensus!

Consensus isn't used in science, Litebeer.

Yes we know that ignoring science and making idiotic evidence-free nonsense assertions and rants on anonymous forums is your idea of 'science'.

Quoting political groups is not science, dude. Neither is greenhouse gas theory.

You keep running into the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law every time. You can't just ignore these at your convenience, or because you have 'consensus'.

It's really quite sad and pathetic that you continue to show your complete ignorance of the laws of thermodynamics and the 'greenhouse' effect and continue to make insane crackpot claims.

You might as well be claiming that evolution is a hoax, or the age of the earth is less than 10,000 years old.

Denying science again, Ceist? STILL trying to pin science on Christianity?

He became quite looney when we insisted he actually know something about the articles he was pasteing.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Ceist wrote:
Read the position statements on climate change from every major science organisation/association worldwide.

Why would I believe ANYTHING they had to say? They are paid to say what they are told to say. Here's one off the top...AAAS. 55% gov funded. Oh yea, there's a great recipe for truth.

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3239

Ceist wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Ceist wrote:
Read the position statements on climate change from every major science organisation/association worldwide.

Why would I believe ANYTHING they had to say? They are paid to say what they are told to say. Here's one off the top...AAAS. 55% gov funded. Oh yea, there's a great recipe for truth.

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3239

So what other science do you reject? Age of the earth? Evolution? Gravity?

BTW, most science societies are not government funded. Sounds like you are deeply paranoid. Infowars fan?

Ceist wrote:
BTW, most science societies are not government funded.

Into the Night wrote:

Ceist wrote:
BTW, most science societies are not government funded.

True, but most MEMBERS of those same societies ARE.

"gaslighter" gushed: I don't trust much of anything.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: Quoting either science groups or Oregon PR propaganda as science isn't even intelligence....

But I guess they'll just have to find the surface details of a spot on ceist.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Ceist wrote:
BTW, most science societies are not government funded.

True, but most MEMBERS of those same societies ARE.

I told these scientists that if they weren't willing to speak up that they would give all scientists a bad name and not just the climate scientists. And that this would inevitably lead to the taxpayer refusing to fund any science. This is having an effect now with more scientists asking how ice cores could accurately report CO2 levels when it take at least 90 years for the frost to collapse into a sheet.

We have only had high levels for a couple of decades and other indicators indicate that spurts in the CO2 levels aren't particularly unusual.

And since CO2 isn't particularly important it doesn't matter anyway.

But I guess they'll just have to find the surface details of a spot on ceist.

Into the Night wrote:

Ceist wrote:
BTW, most science societies are not government funded.

True, but most MEMBERS of those same societies ARE.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Ceist wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Ceist wrote:
Read the position statements on climate change from every major science organisation/association worldwide.

Why would I believe ANYTHING they had to say? They are paid to say what they are told to say. Here's one off the top...AAAS. 55% gov funded. Oh yea, there's a great recipe for truth.

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3239

So what other science do you reject? Age of the earth? Evolution? Gravity?

BTW, most science societies are not government funded. Sounds like you are deeply paranoid. Infowars fan?

I don't trust much of anything. Paranoid? No. Skeptical of anything with a $ attached to it? Damn right.....and that doesn't stop at party lines. Corruption has infested both parties, the dems just have a disastrous platform.

In your paranoid and delusional mind, are all governments around the world involved in the same giant world-wide conspiracy that also involves millions of scientists from all over the world faking evidence, including even the laws of physics?

GasGuzzler wrote:

In your paranoid and delusional mind, are all governments around the world involved in the same giant world-wide conspiracy that also involves millions of scientists from all over the world faking evidence, including even the laws of physics?

I know this much,
When new taxes are imposed they don't go away.
When freedoms disappear they're gone forever.
And when the gov controls healthcare and energy-they control your life.

We are damn fools to blindly give away the freedoms that were earned with buckets of blood.

Even if you are a warmie hardliner, what's worse for your children and grand children.... paying 50%-75%-90%? of everything they work for in taxes because we burned the country credit card on "Green" everything?...or 1 degree warmer. There is no question which one will be a miserable hardship.

Hell, that's a great question right now for you warmies.

If you could knock the global temp down 1 degree tomorrow..... What percent of your paycheck would you be willing to give away for the rest of your life to get it done?

You're arguing from a false premise. We don't need to pay higher taxes if we stop subsidizing fossil fuels and invest in renewable/alternative energy solutions instead.

You're rejecting science because you've bought into the dishonest fear-mongering and misinformation by fossil fuel companies trying to protect their profits.

Ceist wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Ceist wrote:
BTW, most science societies are not government funded.

True, but most MEMBERS of those same societies ARE.

I told these scientists that if they weren't willing to speak up that they would give all scientists a bad name and not just the climate scientists. And that this would inevitably lead to the taxpayer refusing to fund any science. This is having an effect now with more scientists asking how ice cores could accurately report CO2 levels when it take at least 90 years for the frost to collapse into a sheet.

We have only had high levels for a couple of decades and other indicators indicate that spurts in the CO2 levels aren't particularly unusual.

And since CO2 isn't particularly important it doesn't matter anyway.

But I guess they'll just have to find the surface details of a spot on ceist.

Hey Comatose, did you 'tell all these scientists' this in your dreams ?

When are you going to cite and directly quote from even one published evidence-based research paper anything that supports your nutcase evidence-free assertions? All you are doing is regurgitating from junkscience conspiracy blogs run by non-scientist cranks who just make up shit about the papers they reference. You unsceptically swallow the shit, then just mindlessly regurgitate it here.

If you ever wake up from your self-imposed coma, you're going to have a really really nasty taste in your mouth.

Wake wrote:

Ceist wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Ceist wrote:
BTW, most science societies are not government funded.

True, but most MEMBERS of those same societies ARE.

I told these scientists that if they weren't willing to speak up that they would give all scientists a bad name and not just the climate scientists. And that this would inevitably lead to the taxpayer refusing to fund any science. This is having an effect now with more scientists asking how ice cores could accurately report CO2 levels when it take at least 90 years for the frost to collapse into a sheet.

We have only had high levels for a couple of decades and other indicators indicate that spurts in the CO2 levels aren't particularly unusual.

And since CO2 isn't particularly important it doesn't matter anyway.

But I guess they'll just have to find the surface details of a spot on ceist.

Hey Comatose, did you 'tell all these scientists' this in your dreams ?

When are you going to cite and directly quote from even one published evidence-based research paper anything that supports your nutcase evidence-free assertions? All you are doing is regurgitating from junkscience conspiracy blogs run by non-scientist cranks who just make up shit about the papers they reference. You unsceptically swallow the shit, then just mindlessly regurgitate it here.

If you ever wake up from your self-imposed coma, you're going to have a really really nasty taste in your mouth.

On your brightest day you wouldn't even be allowed inside a meeting let alone be allowed to speak. So tottle over and see if you can use the potty before your mother discovered you've dirtied your diaper.

GasGuzzler wrote:

You're arguing from a false premise. We don't need to pay higher taxes if we stop subsidizing fossil fuels and invest in renewable/alternative energy solutions instead.

So how much will it cost to stop burning fossil fuels? No fuel should be subsidized, INCLUDING renewables. When the technology is developed, renewables will be an attractive product. Global warming is a trillion dollar industry and gov should stay out of it. I've said it before I'll say it again. Go for it. If you think the world needs cleaning then be my guest. Don't send me the bill for your belief.

You're rejecting science because you've bought into the dishonest fear-mongering and misinformation by fossil fuel companies trying to protect their profits.

Really? You are going to accuse my side of fear-mongering? I'm sure there is some, but do I need to repost the 5 million dead every year due to global warming?

I knew you wouldn't answer the question. You people never do.
How much out of YOUR paycheck will you spend to eliminate fossil fuels?

Ceist wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

You're arguing from a false premise. We don't need to pay higher taxes if we stop subsidizing fossil fuels and invest in renewable/alternative energy solutions instead.

So how much will it cost to stop burning fossil fuels? No fuel should be subsidized, INCLUDING renewables. When the technology is developed, renewables will be an attractive product. Global warming is a trillion dollar industry and gov should stay out of it. I've said it before I'll say it again. Go for it. If you think the world needs cleaning then be my guest. Don't send me the bill for your belief.

You're rejecting science because you've bought into the dishonest fear-mongering and misinformation by fossil fuel companies trying to protect their profits.

Really? You are going to accuse my side of fear-mongering? I'm sure there is some, but do I need to repost the 5 million dead every year due to global warming?

I knew you wouldn't answer the question. You people never do.
How much out of YOUR paycheck will you spend to eliminate fossil fuels?

Like I said, your question and your argument is based on a false premise, as well as abject ignorance.

Wake wrote:

Ceist wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

You're arguing from a false premise. We don't need to pay higher taxes if we stop subsidizing fossil fuels and invest in renewable/alternative energy solutions instead.

So how much will it cost to stop burning fossil fuels? No fuel should be subsidized, INCLUDING renewables. When the technology is developed, renewables will be an attractive product. Global warming is a trillion dollar industry and gov should stay out of it. I've said it before I'll say it again. Go for it. If you think the world needs cleaning then be my guest. Don't send me the bill for your belief.

You're rejecting science because you've bought into the dishonest fear-mongering and misinformation by fossil fuel companies trying to protect their profits.

Really? You are going to accuse my side of fear-mongering? I'm sure there is some, but do I need to repost the 5 million dead every year due to global warming?

I knew you wouldn't answer the question. You people never do.
How much out of YOUR paycheck will you spend to eliminate fossil fuels?

Like I said, your question and your argument is based on a false premise, as well as abject ignorance.

Please continue patting yourself on the back and telling everyone how intelligent you are though never achieving one thing in your entire life.

Ceist wrote:

Wake wrote:

Ceist wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

You're arguing from a false premise. We don't need to pay higher taxes if we stop subsidizing fossil fuels and invest in renewable/alternative energy solutions instead.

So how much will it cost to stop burning fossil fuels? No fuel should be subsidized, INCLUDING renewables. When the technology is developed, renewables will be an attractive product. Global warming is a trillion dollar industry and gov should stay out of it. I've said it before I'll say it again. Go for it. If you think the world needs cleaning then be my guest. Don't send me the bill for your belief.

You're rejecting science because you've bought into the dishonest fear-mongering and misinformation by fossil fuel companies trying to protect their profits.

Really? You are going to accuse my side of fear-mongering? I'm sure there is some, but do I need to repost the 5 million dead every year due to global warming?

I knew you wouldn't answer the question. You people never do.
How much out of YOUR paycheck will you spend to eliminate fossil fuels?

Like I said, your question and your argument is based on a false premise, as well as abject ignorance.

Please continue patting yourself on the back and telling everyone how intelligent you are though never achieving one thing in your entire life.

It would be nice if you could 'achieve' posting some links and direct quotes from published research papers instead of mindlessly regurgitating the rants of non-scientists on junkscience conspiracy blogs.

Wake wrote:

Ceist wrote:

Wake wrote:

Ceist wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

You're arguing from a false premise. We don't need to pay higher taxes if we stop subsidizing fossil fuels and invest in renewable/alternative energy solutions instead.

So how much will it cost to stop burning fossil fuels? No fuel should be subsidized, INCLUDING renewables. When the technology is developed, renewables will be an attractive product. Global warming is a trillion dollar industry and gov should stay out of it. I've said it before I'll say it again. Go for it. If you think the world needs cleaning then be my guest. Don't send me the bill for your belief.

You're rejecting science because you've bought into the dishonest fear-mongering and misinformation by fossil fuel companies trying to protect their profits.

Really? You are going to accuse my side of fear-mongering? I'm sure there is some, but do I need to repost the 5 million dead every year due to global warming?

I knew you wouldn't answer the question. You people never do.
How much out of YOUR paycheck will you spend to eliminate fossil fuels?

Like I said, your question and your argument is based on a false premise, as well as abject ignorance.

Please continue patting yourself on the back and telling everyone how intelligent you are though never achieving one thing in your entire life.

It would be nice if you could 'achieve' posting some links and direct quotes from published research papers instead of mindlessly regurgitating the rants of non-scientists on junkscience conspiracy blogs.

My, my, you still don't even know how to find the papers. But I don't expect that to improve because you aren't very bright.

Like I said, your question and your argument is based on a false premise, as well as abject ignorance.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Like I said, your question and your argument is based on a false premise, as well as abject ignorance.

OK genius, what your plan and how do we fix it? What is your solution? How much does it cost?

GasGuzzler wrote:
It was actually Cyst that I was responding to, but it don't much matter. They're all the same. They like to sit and bitch all day. It make them feel important and worthy of something...who knows what.