So, You still say the science is settled?

[rushmc 18]

I dont think so

Quote

Man-made climate change is a myth and all efforts to prove its existence have failed, according to Weather Channel founder John Coleman. The award winning weatherman, whose career spans over sixty years, drew on the support of over 9,000 Ph.D. scientists to claim that "the science [purportedly proving man made global warming] is not valid".

and more

Quote

"It is important to have those who attend know that there is no climate crisis. The ocean is not rising significantly. The polar ice is increasing, not melting away. Polar Bears are increasing in number. Heat waves have actually diminished, not increased.

"There is not an uptick in the number or strength of storms (in fact storms are diminishing). I have studied this topic seriously for years. It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid."



The letter also names four Ph.D. scientists and a further “9,000 other Ph.D. scientists” who “all agree” that “There is no significant man-made global warming at this time, there has been none in the past and there is no reason to fear any in the future,” and that “Efforts to prove the theory that carbon dioxide is a significant “greenhouse” gas and pollutant causing significant warming or weather effects have failed. There has been no warming over 18 years.”



Dr William Happer, a climate expert from Princeton University and one of the scientists Mr Coleman references by name told The Express that he agreed with Mr Coleman, adding: “No chemical compound in the atmosphere has a worse reputation than CO2, thanks to the single-minded demonisation of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control and energy production.

Now we will see more demonization for Brietbart and no discussion of the content

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/10/24/Science-Behind-Man-Made-Global-Warming-Not-Valid-Says-Weather-Channel-Founder

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[normiss 620]

Dude.
You continue to use weak sources for support of a weak perspective.
Your politico-fu is weak sir.

[billvon 2,384]

>So, You still say the science is settled?

In the real world, yes. A good summary from skepticalscience.com:

==================
Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing. When a question is first asked – like ‘what would happen if we put a load more CO2 in the atmosphere?’ – there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested – the processes of the scientific method – because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science). Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don’t quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy.

But the testing period must come to an end. Gradually, the focus of investigation narrows down to those avenues that continue to make sense, that still add up, and quite often a good theory will reveal additional answers, or make powerful predictions, that add substance to the theory.

So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other's work. All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted - and relied upon.

In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of 928 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).

A follow-up study by the Skeptical Science team of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013). The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming.

Several studies have confirmed 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”. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 97% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.

We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.

In the field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change.
===============================================

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>So, You still say the science is settled?

In the real world, yes. A good summary from skepticalscience.com:

==================
Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing. When a question is first asked – like ‘what would happen if we put a load more CO2 in the atmosphere?’ – there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested – the processes of the scientific method – because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science). Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don’t quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy.

But the testing period must come to an end. Gradually, the focus of investigation narrows down to those avenues that continue to make sense, that still add up, and quite often a good theory will reveal additional answers, or make powerful predictions, that add substance to the theory.

So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other's work. All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted - and relied upon.

In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of 928 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).

A follow-up study by the Skeptical Science team of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013). The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming.

Several studies have confirmed 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”. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 97% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.

We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.

In the field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change.
===============================================

I love that they (and you) keep using the misleading consensus of peer review



I will give you kudos for trying though

And your right
There is no vote

But 9000 Phd scientists have opinions. And they base thier conclusion on


wait for it







predictions compared against the observed data

By the way
How about the link

I am tired of going after links when you provide none


and get a pass doing that

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

But 9000 Phd scientists have opinions. And they base thier conclusion on
wait for it
predictions compared against the observed data

Do they?

How do you know?

You don't even know who they are or what field they have PhDs in, let alone what research they've done on the subject

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[wmw999 2,117]

There are at least 20 SC posters who agree on the topic too. That really settles it

Well, they all at least agree that man may not be the only contributor to climate change, if there's climate change, or at least something

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[mirage62 0]

Nothing get's S.C. better than someone saying, climate warming is B.S.

It has been emotionally decided years ago by most, scientifically proven to them, and it makes a damn great environmental argument for just about anything that you want to support in the environment.

I tried and following the funding for people PRO and CON on the subject. I have a natural distrust of people who get funding that coincides with a position - but gave up on this one!

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]A good summary from skepticalscience.com

[Channman 2]

Environmentalism is a new religion for the left, or maybe it's a cult...not sure. But I personally don't buy into the fear. The godless religion of Al Gore who's sins against the environment are 20 times those of the average American, who would worship such a God.

With regards to the Environmentalist movement and it's religion/cultism, I stand as a proud Infidel/apostate of the movement.

So set yourselves free from these false teachings and worship the only true God of the Environment after all, El Elyon i.e. El Olam is the one behind all things. Just saying

[rushmc 18]

Channman

Environmentalism is a new religion for the left, or maybe it's a cult...not sure. But I personally don't buy into the fear. The godless religion of Al Gore who's sins against the environment are 20 times those of the average American, who would worship such a God.

With regards to the Environmentalist movement and it's religion/cultism, I stand as a proud Infidel/apostate of the movement.

So set yourselves free from these false teachings and worship the only true God of the Environment after all, El Elyon i.e. El Olam is the one behind all things. Just saying

I went to the sight billvon posted about
The same one lawrocket corrected described
Just to see how old the post was that billvon put up

Couldnt find it (but I did not look to hard) so I a guessing is is a few years old. I think he has posted this before

In any event, I went to one of the topics (I do not remember which one) and started reading the comments and comment replies
THAT was some of the best true discussions I have seen

Some of the people outside the sight are interesting to read. And I am talking on both sides of the issues and related data

But to your point, it is a religion because at this point, it takes faith to believe it. THAT is a fact

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

jakee

Quote

But 9000 Phd scientists have opinions. And they base thier conclusion on
wait for it
predictions compared against the observed data

Do they?

How do you know?

You don't even know who they are or what field they have PhDs in, let alone what research they've done on the subject

I don't have a Ph.D. But thanks to the internet there's all kinds of stuff one can see.

For example, the attached. It's James Hansen's climate projection. The bottom line is the projection of temp increase with a zero emissions scenario. Top is "business as usual." Middle is with some emissions cut. Then the colored line is the GISS data (the same data the deniers think is faked and adjusted way up).

Considering that the ppm of CO2 has kept increasing but temps are below where Hansen thought we'd be 25 years ago had we stopped all CO2 emissions, the whole, "My goodness he was fucking wrong" conclusion isn't that hard to make.

There's debate about the "pause." Lots of debate because data suggests there's a pause but the science said there shouldn't be.

Science aint settled. Observations - real world observations - show that, wow, since 2006 there haven't been more and worse hurricanes hitting the US, though were were told there would be. And it hasn't stopped snowing in the UK, despite what we were told.

We were told Arctic ice was in a death spiral. It's apparently recovering. Antarctic sea ice was predicted to be dramatically reduced. It's at a record high.

Climate scientists are trying to explain these things. Because they didn't predict them. The data did not match predictions. Thus the science is not settled. Not even close.

Time for people to stop insisting the science is settled while complaining that more funding is needed for climate science.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,384]

>You don't even know who they are or what field they have PhDs in, let alone what
>research they've done on the subject

I understand a lot of economics and literature PhD's disagree with the science of climate change. Especially old English literature. Have you ever read The Tempest? It makes Katrina look like a little squall.

[kallend 1,621]

rushmc

I dont think so

Quote

Man-made climate change is a myth and all efforts to prove its existence have failed, according to Weather Channel founder John Coleman. The award winning weatherman, whose career spans over sixty years, drew on the support of over 9,000 Ph.D. scientists to claim that "the science [purportedly proving man made global warming] is not valid".

Well, a TV weatherman (who is NOT a climate scientist) backed up by 9,000 PhDs (but in what? Maybe history, literature or womens' studies) is clearly a definitive source.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mirage62 0]

Quote

Well, a TV weatherman (who is NOT a climate scientist) backed up by 9,000 PhDs (but in what? Maybe history, literature or womens' studies) is clearly a definitive source.

Naaa, but you can believe a physics professor.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[kallend 1,621]

mirage62

Quote

Well, a TV weatherman (who is NOT a climate scientist) backed up by 9,000 PhDs (but in what? Maybe history, literature or womens' studies) is clearly a definitive source.

Naaa, but you can believe a physics professor.

Climate science IS physics. Applied physics.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

mirage62

Quote

Well, a TV weatherman (who is NOT a climate scientist) backed up by 9,000 PhDs (but in what? Maybe history, literature or womens' studies) is clearly a definitive source.

Naaa, but you can believe a physics professor.

People who don't know what climate science is about tend to think that the Ph.D. Is important. Like unless you've got a ph.D. In climate science you've got no business commenting.

That's like saying that climate models aren't done by computer engineers, so shouldn't be regarded. James Hansen was an astrophysicist.

Think meteorologists don't know about mathematics? Chemistry? Atmospheric physics? Computer modeling? Clouds? Remote sensing? Instrument siting?

I suggest they do. And I think that meteorology is vital to climatology.

And who is it who is the arbiter of who is qualified or not to comment?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[turtlespeed 212]

rushmc

I dont think so

Quote

Man-made climate change is a myth and all efforts to prove its existence have failed, according to Weather Channel founder John Coleman. The award winning weatherman, whose career spans over sixty years, drew on the support of over 9,000 Ph.D. scientists to claim that "the science [purportedly proving man made global warming] is not valid".

and more

***"It is important to have those who attend know that there is no climate crisis. The ocean is not rising significantly. The polar ice is increasing, not melting away. Polar Bears are increasing in number. Heat waves have actually diminished, not increased.

"There is not an uptick in the number or strength of storms (in fact storms are diminishing). I have studied this topic seriously for years. It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid."



The letter also names four Ph.D. scientists and a further “9,000 other Ph.D. scientists” who “all agree” that “There is no significant man-made global warming at this time, there has been none in the past and there is no reason to fear any in the future,” and that “Efforts to prove the theory that carbon dioxide is a significant “greenhouse” gas and pollutant causing significant warming or weather effects have failed. There has been no warming over 18 years.”



Dr William Happer, a climate expert from Princeton University and one of the scientists Mr Coleman references by name told The Express that he agreed with Mr Coleman, adding: “No chemical compound in the atmosphere has a worse reputation than CO2, thanks to the single-minded demonisation of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control and energy production.

Now we will see more demonization for Brietbart and no discussion of the content

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/10/24/Science-Behind-Man-Made-Global-Warming-Not-Valid-Says-Weather-Channel-Founder

For fuck sake rush . . . we have changed the fucking climate.
Humans . . .
Get the fuck over it.

Now, how MUCH is the debate.

Alarmists say it is a LOT.

Deniers say it is nothing or less.

My interpretation is that we have caused damage, but not unlike any natural disaster.

The Earth is a living thing. It will adjust, and survive.

The things on it may or may not.

But this denier bull shit needs to stop.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[devildog 0]

turtlespeed

For fuck sake rush . . . we have changed the fucking climate.
Humans . . .
Get the fuck over it.

Now, how MUCH is the debate.

Alarmists say it is a LOT.

Deniers say it is nothing or less.

If the debate is ranging from no caused change to a lot of caused change, then you can't really say its settled that we have changed the climate. Your first 5 lines are at odd with itself.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[quade 3]

devildog

If the debate is ranging from no caused change to a lot of caused change, then you can't really say its settled that we have changed the climate. Your first 5 lines are at odd with itself.

Not really.

That's like saying the science isn't settled on the earth being round just because there is a group called the "Flat Earth Society."

The facts are not contingent on 100% consensus (or any consensus whatsoever!). There will pretty much always be someone who believes some other version instead of reality. However, that doesn't mean reality is dependent on that person's opinion.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,384]

>For fuck sake rush . . . we have changed the fucking climate.
>Humans . . . Get the fuck over it.

>Now, how MUCH is the debate.
>Alarmists say it is a LOT.
>Deniers say it is nothing or less.

>My interpretation is that we have caused damage, but not unlike any natural
>disaster.

>The Earth is a living thing. It will adjust, and survive.
>The things on it may or may not.
>But this denier bull shit needs to stop.

Agreed with all the above. Now to convince RushMC.

[rushmc 18]

lawrocket

And who is it who is the arbiter of who is qualified or not to comment?

kallend!!!!

at least he thinks so....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

billvon

Agreed with all the above. Now to convince RushMC.

Just me??

Ya right...



Every year that passes at this point put another brick on the pile showing you to be wrong

Should this turn around in the next few years the debate may change course

Until then, so many will continue to trya dn stop those who believe as you do, from pushing a life style you wish on the rest of us (which is your religion)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,121]

rushmc

***

Agreed with all the above. Now to convince RushMC.

Just me??

Ya right...



Every year that passes at this point put another brick on the pile showing you to be wrong

Should this turn around in the next few years the debate may change course

Until then, so many will continue to trya dn stop those who believe as you do, from pushing a life style you wish on the rest of us (which is your religion)

So, for the record, you believe humans have absolutely no impact on climate?

[rushmc 18]

SkyDekker

******

Agreed with all the above. Now to convince RushMC.

Just me??

Ya right...



Every year that passes at this point put another brick on the pile showing you to be wrong

Should this turn around in the next few years the debate may change course

Until then, so many will continue to trya dn stop those who believe as you do, from pushing a life style you wish on the rest of us (which is your religion)

So, for the record, you believe humans have absolutely no impact on climate?

Negligible at best
Now, I think they can do horrible damage to local eco-systems. But I feel it is very arrogant of us to think we can alter global climate (with CO2 for christs sake) in the way alarmists predict

but of course I am already on the record stating I want dirty air and cancer causing water for my children and grandchildren (I am assuming you understand what sarcasm is)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Quote

Negligible at best

Negligible means there is an impact. That is different from no impact.

Which one do you believe. Do humans have an impact on climate, yes or no?