• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

An example of the consensus in science that AGW is real.

Threegoofs

COVID survivor
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
51,654
Reaction score
18,379
Location
The birthplace of Italian Beef
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Heres a nice example from the journal Science. For those who dont know, Science is the flagship journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the worlds largest general science society. Its about the most prestigious scientific organization in the world, about on par with what the Royal Society in England was in the 19th century, and being elected as a fellow in the Society is one of the highest honors you can get in a scientific career. Science is one of the top interdisciplinary journals in the world, along with Nature.

This month they have a special issue on climate change.

The initial introductory paragraph says:

Once and Future Climate Change

ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE IS NOW A PART OF OUR REALITY. EVEN THE MOST
optimistic estimates of the effects of contemporary fossil fuel use suggest that
mean global temperature will rise by a minimum of 2°C before the end of this
century and that CO2
emissions will affect climate for tens of thousands of
years. A key goal of current research is to predict how these changes will affect
global ecosystems and the human population that depends on them. This special
section of
Science
focuses on the current state of knowledge about the effects of
climate change on natural systems, with particular emphasis on how knowledge
of the past is helping us to understand potential biological impacts and improve
predictive power.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6145/472.full.pdf

Notice. This paragraph does not mention that this is in any way controversial. It doesnt use qualifiers, it straight out says that CO2 emissions will affect the climate. Period. This is what a consensus means. Its a commonly understood fact by all. If fact, its so strong, that an entire Science issue (an interdisciplinary journal) has been devoted to it. Nature, another journal, actually has an entire subjournal called Nature Climate Change

I cant think of any clearer evidence of consensus than this. Note the date - this came out today, August 2nd, 2013. So pretending that things are somehow 'changing' is wrong. Its consensus as of this afternoon.
 

mak2

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
Messages
12,050
Reaction score
5,716
Location
Indiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I can open the link but the pages of what it opens is blank. Is it just me? I would kinda like to read this.
Heres a nice example from the journal Science. For those who dont know, Science is the flagship journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the worlds largest general science society. Its about the most prestigious scientific organization in the world, about on par with what the Royal Society in England was in the 19th century, and being elected as a fellow in the Society is one of the highest honors you can get in a scientific career. Science is one of the top interdisciplinary journals in the world, along with Nature.

This month they have a special issue on climate change.

The initial introductory paragraph says:

Once and Future Climate Change

ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE IS NOW A PART OF OUR REALITY. EVEN THE MOST
optimistic estimates of the effects of contemporary fossil fuel use suggest that
mean global temperature will rise by a minimum of 2°C before the end of this
century and that CO2
emissions will affect climate for tens of thousands of
years. A key goal of current research is to predict how these changes will affect
global ecosystems and the human population that depends on them. This special
section of
Science
focuses on the current state of knowledge about the effects of
climate change on natural systems, with particular emphasis on how knowledge
of the past is helping us to understand potential biological impacts and improve
predictive power.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6145/472.full.pdf

Notice. This paragraph does not mention that this is in any way controversial. It doesnt use qualifiers, it straight out says that CO2 emissions will affect the climate. Period. This is what a consensus means. Its a commonly understood fact by all. If fact, its so strong, that an entire Science issue (an interdisciplinary journal) has been devoted to it. Nature, another journal, actually has an entire subjournal called Nature Climate Change

I cant think of any clearer evidence of consensus than this. Note the date - this came out today, August 2nd, 2013. So pretending that things are somehow 'changing' is wrong. Its consensus as of this afternoon.
 

Threegoofs

COVID survivor
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
51,654
Reaction score
18,379
Location
The birthplace of Italian Beef
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Also, please note that this is a single example of many, many examples. The major scientific organizations often have position statements verifying the issue of AGW on their websites. Most papers regarding climate will start with the assumption that the reader understands this is NOT a controversial issue.
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
42,983
Reaction score
12,499
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Heres a nice example from the journal Science. For those who dont know, Science is the flagship journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the worlds largest general science society. Its about the most prestigious scientific organization in the world, about on par with what the Royal Society in England was in the 19th century, and being elected as a fellow in the Society is one of the highest honors you can get in a scientific career. Science is one of the top interdisciplinary journals in the world, along with Nature.

This month they have a special issue on climate change.

The initial introductory paragraph says:

Once and Future Climate Change

ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE IS NOW A PART OF OUR REALITY. EVEN THE MOST
optimistic estimates of the effects of contemporary fossil fuel use suggest that
mean global temperature will rise by a minimum of 2°C before the end of this
century and that CO2
emissions will affect climate for tens of thousands of
years. A key goal of current research is to predict how these changes will affect
global ecosystems and the human population that depends on them. This special
section of
Science
focuses on the current state of knowledge about the effects of
climate change on natural systems, with particular emphasis on how knowledge
of the past is helping us to understand potential biological impacts and improve
predictive power.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6145/472.full.pdf

Notice. This paragraph does not mention that this is in any way controversial. It doesnt use qualifiers, it straight out says that CO2 emissions will affect the climate. Period. This is what a consensus means. Its a commonly understood fact by all. If fact, its so strong, that an entire Science issue (an interdisciplinary journal) has been devoted to it. Nature, another journal, actually has an entire subjournal called Nature Climate Change

I cant think of any clearer evidence of consensus than this. Note the date - this came out today, August 2nd, 2013. So pretending that things are somehow 'changing' is wrong. Its consensus as of this afternoon.
Correct. They don't quantify it either.

They do say "2 C" and "CO2," but they don't say CO2 will cause a 2 C increase. They said fossil fuels.

Soot on ice......

Most of us don't have a problem with the material like this, even though it is suggestive. It's how people put on those AGW colored glasses and preach the doom and gloom and anthropogenic evil.
 

code1211

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
35,167
Reaction score
7,152
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Heres a nice example from the journal Science. For those who dont know, Science is the flagship journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the worlds largest general science society. Its about the most prestigious scientific organization in the world, about on par with what the Royal Society in England was in the 19th century, and being elected as a fellow in the Society is one of the highest honors you can get in a scientific career. Science is one of the top interdisciplinary journals in the world, along with Nature.

This month they have a special issue on climate change.

The initial introductory paragraph says:

Once and Future Climate Change

ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE IS NOW A PART OF OUR REALITY. EVEN THE MOST
optimistic estimates of the effects of contemporary fossil fuel use suggest that
mean global temperature will rise by a minimum of 2°C before the end of this
century and that CO2
emissions will affect climate for tens of thousands of
years. A key goal of current research is to predict how these changes will affect
global ecosystems and the human population that depends on them. This special
section of
Science
focuses on the current state of knowledge about the effects of
climate change on natural systems, with particular emphasis on how knowledge
of the past is helping us to understand potential biological impacts and improve
predictive power.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6145/472.full.pdf

Notice. This paragraph does not mention that this is in any way controversial. It doesnt use qualifiers, it straight out says that CO2 emissions will affect the climate. Period. This is what a consensus means. Its a commonly understood fact by all. If fact, its so strong, that an entire Science issue (an interdisciplinary journal) has been devoted to it. Nature, another journal, actually has an entire subjournal called Nature Climate Change

I cant think of any clearer evidence of consensus than this. Note the date - this came out today, August 2nd, 2013. So pretending that things are somehow 'changing' is wrong. Its consensus as of this afternoon.



Well, we know that they are currently predicting that the temperature will increase by about two degrees in the next 87 years. I'm not sure they predicted the current temperature decline. Did they?

Have they made any previous predictions on temperature that we might check to see if they know what they are doing?

Just wondering why they have all agreed and on what.
 

Threegoofs

COVID survivor
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
51,654
Reaction score
18,379
Location
The birthplace of Italian Beef
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well, we know that they are currently predicting that the temperature will increase by about two degrees in the next 87 years. I'm not sure they predicted the current temperature decline. Did they?

Have they made any previous predictions on temperature that we might check to see if they know what they are doing?

Just wondering why they have all agreed and on what.
I thought no one says that it isnt getting warmer. Oh, right. Thats denier #2. You are going with the Denier #1 argument.

Thanks for totally missing the entire point of the post, though. I knew it would be too much cognitive dissonance for you to handle.
 

code1211

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
35,167
Reaction score
7,152
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I thought no one says that it isnt getting warmer. Oh, right. Thats denier #2. You are going with the Denier #1 argument.

Thanks for totally missing the entire point of the post, though. I knew it would be too much cognitive dissonance for you to handle.

I'm only asking for the information that will reveal their expertise.

If there is no information that qualifies them as expert on anything, I will accept that they are renowned in the world of AGW Science.
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
42,983
Reaction score
12,499
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I thought no one says that it isnt getting warmer. Oh, right. Thats denier #2. You are going with the Denier #1 argument.

Thanks for totally missing the entire point of the post, though. I knew it would be too much cognitive dissonance for you to handle.
Do you ever have a point?

When it comes to future temperatures, I have said it can go either way from here, depending on what the sun does.
 

Threegoofs

COVID survivor
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
51,654
Reaction score
18,379
Location
The birthplace of Italian Beef
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Correct. They don't quantify it either.

They do say "2 C" and "CO2," but they don't say CO2 will cause a 2 C increase. They said fossil fuels.

Soot on ice......

Most of us don't have a problem with the material like this, even though it is suggestive. It's how people put on those AGW colored glasses and preach the doom and gloom and anthropogenic evil.
Seems to me that if 'soot on ice' (aka albedo) was important, they might have highlighted that in one of the articles.
 

code1211

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
35,167
Reaction score
7,152
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Do you ever have a point?

When it comes to future temperatures, I have said it can go either way from here, depending on what the sun does.



By now you should have realized that if the Sun were extinguished tomorrow with CO2 already at these fatal high levels, we would warm to a point at which we were as warm as Venus is today.

Have you learned nothing from the IPCC?
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
42,983
Reaction score
12,499
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Yes. I encourage you to have someone read you the original post.
I understood it just fine. It's obvious you don't see the word games these people play.

1) The "most optimistic" estimates are that the temperature will increase by two degrees over the next 87 years.

2) It says that CO2 will affect climate for thousands of years.

3) they say they the key goal will focus on how these changes will affect the ecosystem.

4) The rest talks about the 11 stories and revies, but no mention of CO2. only climate.


What do these mean:

1) What are lesser optiomistiocs estimates? They don't say. Do they. This leaves this wide open.

2) Yes. CO2 affects climate, at any modern levels. However, the slope of change is pretty small.

3) They are stating two separate issues. CO2, and temperature.

4) Are you going to pay for our subscriptions so we can read these 11 articles?

Now of these 11 articles, please tell us. How many talk about CO2 as a primary cause?
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
42,983
Reaction score
12,499
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Seems to me that if 'soot on ice' (aka albedo) was important, they might have highlighted that in one of the articles.
OK, find the article for us that doesn't require buying their subscription please.

At least tell us which one. I can search by title.
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
42,983
Reaction score
12,499
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
By now you should have realized that if the Sun were extinguished tomorrow with CO2 already at these fatal high levels, we would warm to a point at which we were as warm as Venus is today.

Have you learned nothing from the IPCC?
Yes, i know that's the color of the glasses they must wear at their prayer meets. I just don't have such blind faith.
 

Threegoofs

COVID survivor
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
51,654
Reaction score
18,379
Location
The birthplace of Italian Beef
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
OK, find the article for us that doesn't require buying their subscription please.

At least tell us which one. I can search by title.
Find the article that DOESNT say soot is a primary cause of AGW? all of them, unless youve managed to publish something.

You don't have to buy a subscription. You may have to walk to a University library though.

That's the current sad state of academic publication these days.
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
42,983
Reaction score
12,499
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Find the article that DOESNT say soot is a primary cause of AGW? all of them, unless youve managed to publish something.

You don't have to buy a subscription. You may have to walk to a University library though.

That's the current sad state of academic publication these days.
Soot being the primary cause of AGW is my claim. It is based on the fact it does warm more than previously claimed, even acknowledged by the IPCC. Also that CO2 is proving not to provide the amount of warming previously claimed.

I will remind you once again that the scientific community is often wrong, and that I will let the future's history to prove me correct.

Ptolemy's Earth centered system was the scientific belief for about 1,400 years until Copernicus came along.
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
42,983
Reaction score
12,499
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Find the article that DOESNT say soot is a primary cause of AGW? all of them, unless youve managed to publish something.
Soot being the primary cause of AGW is my claim. It is based on the fact it does warm more than previously claimed, even acknowledged by the IPCC. Also that CO2 is proving not to provide the amount of warming previously claimed.
Consider that even James Hansen has claims of higher BC and solar than the IPCC. Here's an interesting paper:

Trends of measured climate forcing agents

Please look at figure 1, and the reality that CO2 isn't causing the forcing claimed, as supported by temperatures lower than all the alarmist predictions. I'd say I have a real solid chance in being correct!
 

KLATTU

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
11,194
Reaction score
3,678
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Science and Nature both have a strong liberal bias. Thus, this is just another echo chamber where warmists tell each other how right they are.
 

mak2

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
Messages
12,050
Reaction score
5,716
Location
Indiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Facts and scientific data have a liberal bias.
Science and Nature both have a strong liberal bias. Thus, this is just another echo chamber where warmists tell each other how right they are.
 

zgoldsmith23

Antichrist
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 2, 2011
Messages
7,692
Reaction score
3,368
Location
TN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Science and Nature both have a strong liberal bias. Thus, this is just another echo chamber where warmists tell each other how right they are.
Well yeah, because Conservatives still argue "evolution is 'just a theory'" and argue for creationism. I guess when you sink that low in the intellectual field(s)...
 

KLATTU

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
11,194
Reaction score
3,678
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
On a related d note. The congressman from around here, Rush Holt,
is adored by the warmist crowd and the liberal illuminati because he's a scientist.

Here's an exerpt from his website.

U.S. Senate candidate Rush Holt said his claim made Monday that “millions will die” if something isn’t done to address global warming was reality, not hyperbole.

“I think it’s no exaggeration at all to say that millions will die. And in fact there’s pretty good evidence that millions already have died because of climate change,” Holt, a congressman from central New Jersey who’s seeking the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate, said in a Star-Ledger editorial board meeting this morning.

Millions have already died because of climate change. No, he really said that.
{CUE LAugh track}
Really- how low can you guys sink?
And you wonder why you are getting your talis kicked on this issue.

SQUAWK....... " 90% of Scientist agree' ..............SQUAWKKKK " Consensus...." SQUAWWWWWWWK
 

mak2

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
Messages
12,050
Reaction score
5,716
Location
Indiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You have a link? Sounds interesting.
On a related d note. The congressman from around here, Rush Holt,
is adored by the warmist crowd and the liberal illuminati because he's a scientist.

Here's an exerpt from his website.

U.S. Senate candidate Rush Holt said his claim made Monday that “millions will die” if something isn’t done to address global warming was reality, not hyperbole.

“I think it’s no exaggeration at all to say that millions will die. And in fact there’s pretty good evidence that millions already have died because of climate change,” Holt, a congressman from central New Jersey who’s seeking the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate, said in a Star-Ledger editorial board meeting this morning.

Millions have already died because of climate change. No, he really said that.
{CUE LAugh track}
Really- how low can you guys sink?
And you wonder why you are getting your talis kicked on this issue.

SQUAWK....... " 90% of Scientist agree' ..............SQUAWKKKK " Consensus...." SQUAWWWWWWWK
 
Top Bottom