Second Coldest Spring In U.S. History

Discussion in 'Politics' started by pspr, Apr 27, 2013.

  1. jem

    jem

    it does if you understand what they are writing. what do you think it says?


     
    #121     May 6, 2013
  2. 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
    Geological Society of London
    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


    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."




    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.
     
    #122     May 6, 2013
  3. Lucrum

    Lucrum

    I'm sorry, did you say something?
     
    #123     May 6, 2013
  4. Repeat after me...... "I pspr am an idiot.......... Every science organization in the world agrees with consensus opinion that man has caused most of the warming over the last few decades. CO2 IS a greenhouse gas and it HAS increased 35% due to man. What was I thinking. Al Gore is right and I, pisspoor am an idiot."

    LOL

    Read what NOAA has to say.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/globalwarming.html
     
    #124     May 6, 2013
  5. pspr

    pspr

    The Costs of Ideology Masquerading as Science:

    As Greenpeace co-founder Peter Moore observed on Fox Business News in January 2011: “We do not have any scientific proof that we are the cause of the global warming that has occurred in the last 200 years…The alarmism is driving us through scare tactics to adopt energy policies that are going to create a huge amount of energy poverty among the poor people. It’s not good for people and it’s not good for the environment…In a warmer world we can produce more food.”

    When Moore was asked who is responsible for promoting unwarranted climate fear and what their motives are, he said: “A powerful convergence of interests. Scientists seeking grant money, media seeking headlines, universities seeking huge grants from major institutions, foundations, environmental groups, politicians wanting to make it look like they are saving future generations. And all of these people have converged on this issue.”

    Paul Ehrlich, best known for his 1968 doom and gloom book, “The Population Bomb”, reported in a March 2010 Nature editorial that a barrage of challenges countering the notion of a looming global warming catastrophe has his alarmist colleagues in big sweats: “Everyone is scared s***less, but they don’t know what to do.”

    Yes, and it should, because consequences of subordinating climate science to ideology, however well intentioned, have proven to be incredibly costly.

    The U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) reports that federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010 (a total $106.7 billion over that period). This doesn’t include $79 billion more spent for climate change technology research, tax breaks for “green energy”, foreign aid to help other countries address “climate problems”; another $16.1 billion since 1993 in federal revenue losses due to green energy subsidies; or still another $26 billion earmarked for climate change programs and related activities in the 2009 “Stimulus Bill”.

    Virtually all of this is based upon unfounded representations that we are experiencing a known human-caused climate crisis, a claim based upon speculative theories, contrived data and totally unproven modeling predictions. And what redemptive solutions are urgently implored? We must give lots of money to the U.N. to redistribute; abandon fossil fuel use in favor of heavily subsidized but assuredly abundant, “free”, and “renewable” alternatives; and expand federal government growth, regulatory powers, and crony capitalist-enriched political campaign coffers.

    It is way past time to realize that none of this is really about protecting the planet from man-made climate change. It never was.


    http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...rds-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/3/

    <a href=http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/>It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus</a>

    Futurecunt is a buffoon for being led by the nose by a bunch of money grubbing organizations who don't want to lose their $8 billion in annual government grants.
     
    #125     May 6, 2013
  6. pspr

    pspr

    #126     May 6, 2013
  7. Forbes? American THinker? LOL You are pathetic and you don't even know it.
     
    #127     May 6, 2013
  8. pspr

    pspr

    Those are just the reporters of the facts from scientists, dumbass. If I posted the direct links to the data you would be too stupid to understand it. Instead you would prefer to post your old distorted, irrelevant and false info.
     
    #128     May 6, 2013
  9. jem

    jem

    so your own quote shows you what a loon you are .
    as we have been telling you for yeears..

    read the last paragraph...


    the question is

    Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009)
    I would say yes to that as well.
    We might be making it cooler.
    We are cutting down rain forests...

    only crazy leftists loons think that there is current science showing man mad CO2 causes warming.






     
    #129     May 6, 2013