- Joined
- Mar 31, 2013
- Messages
- 63,586
- Reaction score
- 28,952
- 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.
Try www.sciencemag.orgI 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.
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.
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 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.
Yes. I encourage you to have someone read you the original post.Do you ever have a point?
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.
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.
Yes. I encourage you to have someone read you the original post.
OK, find the article for us that doesn't require buying their subscription please.Seems to me that if 'soot on ice' (aka albedo) was important, they might have highlighted that in one of the articles.
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?
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Science and Nature both have a strong liberal bias. .
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?