fc drones like you have no fricken clue. The patently easy solution to anyone who actually believed your BS would be. 1) Annihilate (estimated 80%) of the earth's population. 2) Or use nukes to usher in a thermonuclear winter. 3) conveniently 1&2 are compatible with each other. Good thing EVERYBODY knows AGW is just playing the Godless secular role of eschatology. Your religion insists we repent or be destroyed, does that meme sound familiar? It should, ironically it's the same one you thought the theory of evolution liberated you from numb nuts. You can't see that?
Well I guess 97% of the world's climatologists are wrong then. But you who can produce no logical reason to deny it, except that you say so, are right. Cool.
You can't supply any evidence that 97% percent of climatologists have said that AGW exists so obviously you've fabricated that figure. You have not lifted a finger nor spent a single dollar to limit your carbon emissions. It follows from that fact that you do not believe in AGW yourself. You are simply interested in seeing the population taxed heavily in order to fund socialism. I've spent a respectable amount of money on CFL and LED lighting, low-flow toilets and shower heads and converted my ranch to drip irrigation. The central 2 acres or so of land right around my home is xeriscaped. When a pine tree on my property dies it gets replaced with something more appropriate to my area that requires little or no irrigation. The outer 4 acres of my property is pristine desert with mesquite, joshua trees, creosote bushes, yucca and much of the property boundry is lined with oleander and ochoa. I've trucked in some enormous ocotillos from Arizona. When I purchased my home it was surrounded by 3 very large lawns and I've reduced that to one moderately sized lawn of tall fescue that requires little water. I rarely use my gas furnace and have installed pellet stoves in the main and guest houses that use pellets made from waste from wood mills. I have the biggest evaporative coolers that Adobe makes and only have to run the conventional air conditioner for a week or two in August during the monsoon when the humidity is too high for the swamp coolers to work effectively. Both houses have advanced learning thermostats and double-pane storm windows. My primary transportation is a hybrid gasoline/electric vehicle and I typically walk to lunch from the office. I've pressured Waste Management to bring recycling to my area. I don't do these things with my carbon footprint in mind but the fact is that my efforts to conserve do reduce carbon emissions that result from my life. You apparently do nothing to limit carbon emissions but enjoy bitching about AGW. Total hypocrisy. So I'll ask again and will keep asking until you answer. What is the single-most important step you have taken to reduce your contribution to AGW?
How often do we have to explain that you 97% figure is totally fabricated. Even the survey results that you posted (Doran) show that it is fabricated. Can you explain how someone who does not even have a science degree can suddenly magically be declared a "climatologist"? Yes, because many of your 'climatologists' are self-declared in title -- without any scientific degree whatsoever. I guess the global warming promoters view this as perfectly acceptable as long as these 'climatologists' support their agenda.... but if a engineer or physicist who is skeptical about global warming shows up then obviously this person is not qualified to comment on the subject. Pure Hypocrisy.
97% (or very close to that number) of the world's publishing climatologists believe that most of the rapid warming we are seeing over the last 50 years is due to the activities of man, mostly the burning of fossil fuels.
In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: âGreenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to riseâ [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: âThe IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issueâ [p. 3 in (5)]. Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8). The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords âclimate changeâ (9). The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. https://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
Where do the denier morons get their news and information about AGW....Fox News? LOL A question that frequently arises in popular discussion of climate change is whether there is a scientific consensus on climate change.[113] Several scientific organizations have explicitly used the term "consensus" in their statements: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2006: "The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National Academies' statement."[28] US National Academy of Sciences: "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earthâs warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the National Academiesâ reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science..."[114] Joint Science Academies' statement, 2005: "We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."[115] Joint Science Academies' statement, 2001: "The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the worldâs most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus."[21] American Meteorological Society, 2003: "The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papersâthe validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequatelyâcan be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus.... IPCC assessment reports are prepared at approximately five-year intervals by a large international group of experts who represent the broad range of expertise and perspectives relevant to the issues. The reports strive to reflect a consensus evaluation of the results of the full body of peer-reviewed research.... They provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the degree of consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that can be placed on the various statements and conclusions."[116] Network of African Science Academies: âA consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change.â[24] International Union for Quaternary Research, 2008: "INQUA recognizes the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."[117] Australian Coral Reef Society,[118] 2006: "There is almost total consensus among experts that the earthâs climate is changing as a result of the build-up of greenhouse gases.... There is broad scientific consensus that coral reefs are heavily affected by the activities of man and there are significant global influences that can make reefs more vulnerable such as global warming...."[119] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
It has already been demonstrated in the Doran study that there is NOT 97% agreement among 'climatologists' because the term 'climatologist' is completely fabricated. In the summary of the results themselves 82% of the responders stated that man had any impact on 'climate change'. This has been pointed out to you over and over. This means your entire chart is complete B.S.