Global Warming is over.

[Fusion]

as pointed out before, it was religion, not science

The point of that comparison was to show that certain authors, thinkers, ideologists, or whatever they think they are, have the balls to claim that there isn't an alternative. Of course the truth is somwhere in between (AGW).
I generally don't dismiss the whole idea. I'm sure we (humans) are doing retarded things to our environment and have been for centuries. But I lack the connection between scientific study and the unauthorized right of the government throwing money at douchbag projects like Solyndra (I don't care which political group did what). The political misuse of science is wrong.
But let's not forget that scientists can easily be politically motivated, even payed, to find "the right" answer. Picking through all the crap that is written and sentences rephrased to have a different outcome and pronouncing it as the only correct fact, which is rwb's hobby evidently, that's just dumb.

[gwb72tii]

No one, but I'm also logical enough to understand the difference between scientists and politicians.

sorry, i'll call bullshit on this assertation

here, i'll argue like rwh

if you used your brain, if you had one, its clear to even a simpleton that AGW scientists are political, that there is little distinction if any.

i at least am educated in this argument. someday you might try to be as well.

and so, the 97% comes from a narrow sampling of the GW universe. there are far more scientists on both sides than 1372.
so, if you're trying to obfuscate the argument, have the moral integrity to site the source

[rwh11385]

The point of that comparison was to show that certain authors, thinkers, ideologists, or whatever they think they are, have the balls to claim that there isn't an alternative. Of course the truth is somwhere in between (AGW).
I generally don't dismiss the whole idea. I'm sure we (humans) are doing retarded things to our environment and have been for centuries. But I lack the connection between scientific study and the unauthorized right of the government throwing money at douchbag projects like Solyndra (I don't care which political group did what). The political misuse of science is wrong.

So, are you saying that politics should attack science? (pretty much what GOP is doing most of the time)

Who claimed there wasn't an alternative? (Besides RWNJ who claim it cannot be possible for AGW to be reality). The surveys show that most scientists believe it is most likely the case that humans cause much of change in mean temperature. THOSE WORDS, MOST LIKELY, MEAN THAT THERE IS ROOM FOR ALTERNATIVES. It's like you don't understand what is being said and then upset about it.

Do you understand why Solyndra went bankrupt? Or just more ignorant repeating of the news?

[rwh11385]

sorry, i'll call bullshit on this assertation

here, i'll argue like rwh

if you used your brain, if you had one, its clear to even a simpleton that AGW scientists are political, that there is little distinction if any.

i at least am educated in this argument. someday you might try to be as well.

Okay, so why do you think that AGW is bullshit and not possible? Are all the scientists conspiring together?

Please provide your rationale and research that let you to your conclusion.

[Fusion]

If you had atleast half a brain (which is scientifically possible), you'd understand that I'm not disagreeing with the researchers. It's just too easy to find that 1] the media totally twisted what was reaserched, lies were written 2] the research itself is questionable, since science does not state a 100% answer, thus the google scraping of studies and columns claiming agreement or disgreement in a one word "yes" or "no" is impossible 3] therefor a percentual outcome is idiotic.

Then yes, I am glad to state that this (quoted) argument of yours is bullshit. I have no reason to find studies claiming otherwise, I'm just pointing out what is logical.

[gwb72tii]

Okay, so why do you think that AGW is bullshit and not possible? And all the scientists and conspiring together?

Please provide your rationale and research that let you to your conclusion.

i've never argued man has no role in contributing to climate change, just that it is not measurable and it is conjecture, or in kershaw's terms, it is not theory.

there are numerous scientists that dispute the AGW science, scentists that are smarter than anyone on this board arguing the point, that are educated in climate science.

and the reason many call AGW religion is its based on faith, not on science. there is no empirical evidence man has caused anything. it comes down to math models based on secret algorithms that the pro AGW camp will not disclose. further they have been shown to hide/manipulate data to support pre-determined conclusions.

the 97% is baloney.

[Kershaw]

or in kershaw's terms, it is not theory.

not my terms.

[rwh11385]

i've never argued man has no role in contributing to climate change, just that it is not measurable and it is conjecture, or in kershaw's terms, it is not theory.

there are numerous scientists that dispute the AGW science, scentists that are smarter than anyone on this board arguing the point, that are educated in climate science.

and the reason many call AGW religion is its based on faith, not on science. there is no empirical evidence man has caused anything. it comes down to math models based on secret algorithms that the pro AGW camp will not disclose. further they have been shown to hide/manipulate data to support pre-determined conclusions.

the 97% is baloney.

I think time and again you have tried to shut down or laugh at any concept of AGW rather than leave it as undetermined. Finding the majority opinion from climate scientists is not the same thing as proving it as scientific certainty...

There are a few... and greatly outnumbered by those who support AGW.

You would know a lot about manipulating data to support pre-determined conclusions, wouldn't you?

Do you have a more accurate or realistic percentage? You said it was pulled out of a hat, where there was an actual study (actually two) which created it. First you claimed it didn't exist, and second you claimed it was bullshit. What made you so sure to start with that the statistic didn't exist?

and so, the 97% comes from a narrow sampling of the GW universe. there are far more scientists on both sides than 1372.
so, if you're trying to obfuscate the argument, have the moral integrity to site the source

Ummmm, are you talking to herbivor? Or me? Because I clearly did.

[gwb72tii]

not my terms.

not at all kershaw
if a theory is at some point not supported by current data it becomes a disproven, by current data, hypothesis

LOL

and so i'll ask you kershaw

is current pro AGW science theory or hypothesis?

[Fusion]

I think time and again you have tried to shut down or laugh at any concept of AGW

So you propose we take every word seriously?

150 million years ago, dinosaurs roamed the Earth and the average temperature was about 18 degrees hotter than it is today. A new study by British scientists connects the two, arguing that flatulence from sauropods could have produced 520 million tons of methane annually, enough to partially explain the warm climate, the BBC reported.

Dino Gas

Published in the journal Current Biology, the study was conducted by David Wilkinson, of Liverpool John Moores University, and scientists at the the University of London and the University of Glasgow. The team studied flatulence in cows, and used estimates of the size and number of sauropods (an order of large dinosaurs that includes the apotosaurus, aka the brontosaurus) to come up with the 520 tons figure.

It's difficult to know what to make of the findings. According to Dr. Wilson, cows today produce between 50 and 100 million tons of methane annually- less than 20% of what sauropods contributed, a seemingly insignificant amount. But given the size difference between cows and sauropods, among the largest land animals of all time, 100 tons is a lot of methane.

There's no reason to believe that the meat industry that produces huge numbers of cows is shrinking, so things aren't going to get better soon. As it stands, the meat and dairy industries are responsible for 51% of all greenhouse gas emissions.

I'm not laughing at dinosaurs, I'm laughing at the fact that scientists accidentally come up with something debunking their whole AGW theory.

[rwh11385]

So you propose we take every word seriously?



I'm not laughing at dinosaurs, I'm laughing at the fact that scientists accidentally come up with something debunking their whole AGW theory.

I dunno, maybe listen and consider arguments. Don't rule anything out because it's not what you personally believe. Be reasonable. Science long takes guesses and builds theories before coming to a conclusion. Bashing a whole field... (Based on what exactly?) Is a bit premature.

How do you perceive that debunking AGW? Are domesticated animals not a human-controlled factor?

[Fusion]

How can you reply with such an absurd question? This study obviously derails AGW because DGW (dinopogenic) may have lead to temp rise, but even in these conditions allowed them to live for some 180 mil. years.
Therefor claiming that a couple decades of data (even if it wasn't manipulated and not considering all factors) is like only taking one day of our lives into consideration and just because it's raining and rain can cause floods, we should do everything and spend any amount of money to stop the rain from happening.
Yes, that analogy may be dumb, but so is coming to conclusions and making abrupt political changes that in many cases only favor the bank accounts of a few and cause hurdles in the lives of many, while not actually solving a thing.

[herbivor]

ok, i've seen this stat that 97% of......
show me where you get this bogus statistic from.
and if you can't maybe you should refrain in the future.

Link to below (with pictures):

Oreskes and Peiser
Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis).

Benny Peiser, a climate contrarian, repeated Oreskes' survey and claimed to have found 34 peer reviewed studies rejecting the consensus. However, an inspection of each of the 34 studies reveals most of them don't reject the consensus at all. The remaining articles in Peiser's list are editorials or letters, not peer-reviewed studies. Peiser has since retracted his criticism of Oreskes survey:

"Only [a] few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique. [snip] I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact."

Doran 2009
Subsequent research has confirmed this result. 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 are most interesting are responses 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 publish 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.


Figure 1: Response to the survey question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009) General public data come from a 2008 Gallup poll.

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."

Anderegg 2010
This overwhelming consensus among climate experts is confirmed by an independent study that surveys all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus. They find between 97% to 98% of climate experts support the consensus (Anderegg 2010). Moreover, they examine the number of publications by each scientist as a measure of expertise in climate science. They find the average number of publications by unconvinced scientists (eg - skeptics) is around half the number by scientists convinced by the evidence. Not only is there a vast difference in the number of convinced versus unconvinced scientists, there is also a considerable gap in expertise between the two groups.


Figure 2: Distribution of the number of researchers convinced by the evidence of anthropogenic climate change and unconvinced by the evidence with a given number of total climate publications (Anderegg 2010).

Vision Prize
The Vision Prize is an online poll of scientists about climate risk. It is an impartial and independent research platform for incentivized polling of experts on important scientific issues that are relevant to policymakers. In addition to assessing the views of scientists, Vision Prize asked its expert participants to predict the views of their scientific colleagues. The participant affiliations and fields are illustrated in Figure 3.



Figure 3: Vision Prize participant affiliations and fields

As this figure shows, the majority (~85%) of participants are academics, and approximately half of all participants are Earth Scientists. Thus the average climate science expertise of the participants is quite good.

Approximately 90% of participants responded that human activity has had a primary influence over global temperatures over the past 250 years, with the other 10% answering that it has been a secondary cause, and none answering either that humans have had no influence or that temperatures have not increased. Note also that the participants expected less than 80% to peg humans as the primary cause, and a few percent to say humans have no influence - the consensus was significantly better than the participants anticipated (Figure 4).



Figure 4: Vision Prize answers and expected distribution to the question"What influence has human activity had on global average ocean temperatures in the last 250 years?"

Scientific organizations endorsing the consensus
The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
British Antarctic Survey
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Environmental Protection Agency
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society of the UK
The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 13 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
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias (Mexico)
Russian Academy of Sciences
Academy of Science of South Africa
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)
A letter from 18 scientific organizations 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."
The consensus is also endorsed by a Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), including the following bodies:

African Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Madagascar's National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Academy of Science of South Africa
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Other Academies of Sciences that endorse the consensus:

Australian Academy of Science
Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences

[Kershaw]

not at all kershaw

I do not set the terminology used in the science fields, how do you not understand that?... Every time I read a post by you I facepalm.

[Q5Quint]

fyi herbivor,

I might be in love wit you.



My whole gd life revolves around this stuff and it is incredibly frustrating when people don't use rational thought to come to a conclusion. When people ask me what I believe I say 'I don't believe a damn thing until you prove to me, with multiple reputable sources, whatever stupid fact that you are trying to get across.'

I don't care if you 'heard', I don't care if it 'makes sense', and I certainly don't care about 'what people think'. I want facts- certifiable undeniable facts.

Nothing is 100% percent certain..... that is why it is a 'theory'...but once you cross the 90% pretty damn sure line we 'accept' those facts as being true to the cause.

No model that has used natural forcing only has reproduced the observed global mean warming trend or the continental mean warming trends in all individual continents (except Antarctica) over the second half of the 20th century. Detection and attribution of external influences on 20th-century and palaeoclimatic reconstructions, from both natural and anthropogenic sources (Figure 9.4 and Table 9.4), further strengthens the conclusion that the observed changes are very unusual relative to internal climate variability.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-7.html

If you are going to consider a nobel prize winning group consisting of a shitton of badass scientists a 'not-relevant source' then there is no helping you. You will not be able to find any source with as many credible people and research asserting that climate change is not man-made.... but it will not matter.... because even if you did you have already considered the most credible sources on earth not-credible. You will live your life believing in nothing at all because you will not believe it until every 4th grader already knows it. You will be the last person on earth to accept the facts. And that is ok. If it takes 7 billion people to convince you that global warming, or anything else, is true then that is just fine. It just makes you look really dumb. It only takes common sense and a handful of science to make me believe, but that is my personal choice. If you need another 7 billion people worth of evidence then goodluck.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spm.html

Apologies about the rant~ I am really glad to see a discussion on this subject somehow make 28 pages on r3v.

To sum up my feelings 'Don't shit where you eat' so we should probably stop burning trash.