APP - Placeholder for climate FAQs

Cypress

Will work for Scooby snacks
obviously, and due to overwhelming interest, a place holder/bookmark is needed...

"When it comes to complex science, whether it be climate science or heart surgery or how a plane manages to stay up in the air, we defer to the experts who do this stuff for a living. Why? Because they know every nook and cranny of their area of expertise."

--JOHN COOK


Simple Answers to Simple Questions....

FAQs on Climate Science**….



"There’s no consensus!”

About 98% of actual climate scientists agree humans are causing global warming; the tiny handful that don’t agree are subpar scientists with lower levels of expertise and research records.

“There is a HUGE amount of scientific debate about anthropogenic climate change! Teach the controversy!”

Every single reputable and prestigious scientific body on the planet concurs that global warming is very likely due to humans; there are no known - zero, nada, zilch - reputable scientific institutions of international-standing on the planet that disagree or think the warming is natural.

"The science isn't settled!"

It is known with high scientific certainty that warming of the last half century is mostly due to humans and confirmed by observations; also refer back to previous two responses.

"It was freaking cold in Walla Walla last January!"

A local cold day has nothing to do with long term global warming trends.

"Climate’s changed before!”

The climate changes in response to whatever forces it to change at the time, which now is dominated by humans.

”It’s the Sun!”

The sun’s output has barely changed in thirty years and has nothing to do with recent warming.

”Scientists predicted an ice age in the 1970s!”

No, there were a few stories in the popular media that fueled that, and a few speculations; the scientific community in the 1970s made no such prediction.

”It hasn’t warmed since 1998!”

Wrong, 2005 was the hottest year on record, 2009 was the second hottest, and 2010 is trending towards being the hottest year on record.

"Al Gore got it wrong!”

The facts Al Gore presents are very accurate, and far more accurate than the stuff Climate Gate Clowns routinely get wrong.

"Al Gore is fat!”

True.

”Climate scientists LIED, and Climate Gate proved it!”

Multiple independent investigations of the CRU scientists completely exonerated them, and concluded that their “integrity and rigour as scientists was beyond doubt”.

"Arctic Ice has recovered and at it's highest levels since the 1970s!"

The total volume of arctic ice is in rapid retreat.

”Dr. Phil Jones said no warming since 1995!”

Dr. Jones was misquoted.

"There hasn’t been statistically significant warming since 1995".

It is unequivocal that there has been warming since 1995, the 10 on the hottest years on record are since 1997; please take a statistics class to understand what statistical significance means.

"IPCC LIED and used non-scientific data!"

IPCC summarizes the research of thousands of the world’s top climate scientists.

"IPCC is full of lies, and errors”

There were a couple of minor errors in a thousand page report, none of which affected IPCC’s summary conclusions, which have been independently corroborated by prestigious scientific bodies across the planet.

"I saw some list signed by HUNDREDS of scientists who refute human caused global warming!”

Anyone with a science degree from some college can sign anything they want, those “lists” had very few, if any, actual reputable climatologists.

"IPCC was wrong about Himalayan glaciers!”

Glaciers are in retreat worldwide, despite one error in a one thousand page report.

"IPCC used non-scientific NGO sources and LIED about the Amazon!”

The IPCC statements on the Amazon were correct, were backed by peer-reviewed science, and were misreported in the media.

"The EVIDENCE is all B.S., and it's too expensive to fix!"

This assertion is not plausible coming from anyone who supported a costly and bloody war on Iraq on the basis of the flimsiest, feeblest, and most circumstantial of evidence; the science of global warming is extremely sound, almost universally accepted by actual experts, and the cost of inaction outweighs the cost of action.

"Why did sneaky liberals switch using the word “global warming” and switch it to “climate change”?!

Nobody switched anything, it’s been called “climate change”- due to global warming - at the highest levels of science and government since the 1980s.

"I saw huge freaking snow storms last winter that PROVE global warming is a liberal lie!”

Global warming causes more snowstorms, because of increased evaporation and precipitations, as climate scientists have predicted for decades.

“Solar radiation and cosmic rays are causing it!”

Solar irradiance is at a minimum, and the trend in output of cosmic rays hasn’t change appreciably in decades.

"1934 was the hottest year!”

1934 was the hottest year in the United States, not on the planet.

"The HOTTEST temperature was 136 degrees in 1922, PROVING the earth isn’t warming!”

A temperature reading from one, single thermometer in the Libyan desert in 1922 is irrelevant to global climate change, as is reflective of very localized and anomalous weather conditions.

"You can't PROVE for sure that humans cause it!"

Science isn't in the business of proving anything, or providing answers with absolute, one-thousand percent bullet-proof certainty - science can only disprove. 400 year after Isacc Newton scientists are still trying to unravel uncertainties about the exact nature and causes of gravity. It is unequivocal that the earth is warming, and it is known with high scientific certainty that humans are causing it.

"Its just a natural cycle!”

Natural cycles in the ancient past are irrelevant to explaining the current warming trend, who’s rate of increase and magnitude can only be scientifically explained by human GHG emissions.

"Tree rings temperature record diverge after 1960, and liberals hid the data!”

This is a complex scientific topic that has been addressed by the world’s leading climate scientists, and is irrelevant to the current warming trend.

“But, the tree ring data PROVE the science is all mucked up and full of LIES!”

Other paleoclimate data proxies independently show an anomalous human-induced warming trend in the last half century, whether you use the tree ring data or not.

“There’s no correlation between CO2 and temperature!"

There is a long term correlation between CO2 and temperature; the greenhouse effect is well-established physics and confirmed by observations.

“Volcanoes cause it!”

Volcanic eruptions can have localized temporal affects on temperature, but are irrelevant to the current global warming trend.

"We can't trust climate science if they LIE and HIDE data!"

Modern climate science is probably the most transparent scientific endeavor in the history of science; almost all of the data is in the public domain for anyone to use or research; the IPCC assessments were likely the most peer-reviewed scientific reports in human history; and the science itself has been repeatedly tested, vetted, and verified by multiple lines of evidence and independent researchers.

“Models are wrong and full of LIES!”

Modeling successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.

“Climate skeptics are shut out of the scientific process!”

Climate skeptics have not produced, analyzed or presented any original research and tested alternative theories for peer review and scientific publication.

Climate scientists lie and fake data, just so they can get a huge pile of research grant money !”

Many scientists – like the CRU scientists - were involved in climate research when it an obscure and poorly funded scientific topic; scientists routinely serve on national assessment panels pro bono and without compensation.

“There’s NO evidence!”

There are multiple independent lines of evidence from direct observations that humans are causing global warming.

“CO2 is NOT a pollutant”

Increasing concentrations of CO2 will stress agriculture, cause regional droughts, change precipitation patterns and stress water supplies, effecting human health and welfare.

“Who cares if climate changes?! It’s changed before and it might be good for us!

Human-induced rapid climate change will have detrimental and disruptive effects on humans, agriculture, the biosphere, precipitation patterns, increasing occurrences of extreme weather conditions, and water supplies.

"Dr. Hulme said the IPCC consensus was phony!"

Dr. Hulme was was misreresented by rightwingers, and Dr. Hulme responded on his webpage to put on the record that his words were twisted and misused by rightwingers.

“It’s not that bad! We will be able to grow oranges in North Dakota!!”

The negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, water supplies, national economies, and the environment far outweigh any positives.

“Human CO2 is a tiny percent of the atmosphere!?

Human emissions of CO2 upset the natural balance and are causing global warming.

"Scientists can't even predict weather!"

Weather and climate are different; weather is chaotic and short term; climate is much more predictable than weather.

“Why won’t scientists and sneaky message board liberals accept the credibility of my blogs, OpEd columns; and think-tank articles on climate??!!”

Opinion, assertion, and speculation are not part of the scientific method; skeptics are free to do their own original research using the data which is almost all in the public domain, and submit their research for peer review and publication in reputable scientific journals.

“It cooled mid-century PROVING global warming is a LIE!”

A brief mid-century cooling trend involved aerosols are is irrelevant to global warming of the last half century.

“CO2 lags temperature!

Recent CO2 increase has caused recent warming without any time lag.

“The CLOUD researchers at CERN are going to PROVE that climate scientists are LYING about climate change”

The CLOUD researchers have said no such thing, none of their actual peer reviewed scientific publications dispute human-induced warming, and their experiments are based on an untested hypothesis which may or may not shed some light and semi-interesting factoids on how much – if at all – cosmic rays are related to cloud cover.

“Cypress is a moron, and I’m sure that climate scientists LIED!”

Having an emotional breakdown is irrelevant to the science; it is unequivocal that the earth is warming, and it is known with a very high degree of scientific certainty and confidence. that most of the warming is due to humans.


**Scientific References and Resources for FAQs:

Compiled from some of the world’s most prestigious scientific bodies, scientific reports, and scientific researchers….

Including: U.S. National Academies of Sciences; National Research Council, NASA; International Panel on Climate Change; World Meteorological Organization; Pew Research Institute; National Center for Atmospheric Research; National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration; UK Met-Hadley Center; University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (a consortium of prestigious American research universities); National Science Foundation; Smithsonian Institute; US Global Climate Change Program; International Energy Agency (IEA); UK Natural Environment Research Council; etc....

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/quick/doubts.html
http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faqs.html
http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports
http://dels-old.nas.edu/climatechange/
http://americasclimatechoices.org/
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.htm#1
http://www2.ucar.edu/news/backgrounders/hot-questions-about-climate-change
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics
http://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/causes_of_global_warming.php
http://www.research.noaa.gov/climate/
http://dels-old.nas.edu/climatechange/understanding-climate-change.shtml
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/index.html
http://www.eo.ucar.edu/basics/index.html
http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/debate/climatechange/summary.asp
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/
http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/debate/climatechange/summary.asp
http://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/ETP2008SUM.pdf
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=678999&postcount=1
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=676083&postcount=1
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=683345&postcount=73
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=659545&postcount=27
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=677801&postcount=2
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=678261&postcount=1
http://dels-old.nas.edu/climatechange/ecological-impacts.shtml
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-9-2.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-7.html
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/futuretc.html
 
Last edited:
here's a question I have asked frequently and no one ever answers......what is the temperature trend going to be over the next two decades.....and how do you prove that scientifically....
 
here's a question I have asked frequently and no one ever answers......what is the temperature trend going to be over the next two decades.....and how do you prove that scientifically....

http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/pastandfuture2.pdf
here's a credible prediction based on solar cycles. All the supporting materials are referenced. Included is a graph showing the relationship between CO2 concentration and corresponding increases in radiative forcing, or the greenhouse effect.
 
More links to scientific propaganda sheets.

Show the research. How has ACC approached proving their hypotheses? What methods were used to eliminate all possible natural factors in current MGT trends? What is the supporting evidence proving that current trends cannot possibly be natural?

All I see is repeated ad nauseum conclusions in articles "peer reviewed" by the same group that keeps writing these self-same conclusions. It's like relying on the RNC to peer review the criminal actions of a high profile republican politician. Sorry, but in-house review is hardly the equivalent of peer review.

Show us the actual studies, if they are as prevalent ass you claim. Where is the actual data? Where are the hypotheses, the methods of testing hypotheses, and the other requirements of REAL peer reviewed scientific studies?

Just because as blog is written by a group of scientists does not make it any less a blog. Real science is what publications like American Journal of Science or Journal of Molecular Physics, or Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy put out. Politics is what organizations like IPCC put out. Propaganda to brain wash the masses with blogs (yes BLOGS, not science) like "americasclimatechoices.org"

About 98% of actual climate scientists agree humans are causing global warming; the tiny handful that don’t agree are subpar scientists with lower levels of expertise and research records.
And, per usual from Cypress, the first "fact" is a lie. The actual statistic is defined as "97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" Climatologists who are not actively publishing don't get their opinions counted.

We won't bother to mention why ("we can't afford to risk our funding") studies from climatologists with opposing views do not get published. Anyone who thinks legitimate studies which oppose prevailing accepted theory do not get bypassed for publication due to their conclusions and not due to any lack of valid research techniques is blind to reality. Sadly, scientists are as vulnerable to politics - especially the politics of government funding for research - as any other profession which deals directly or indirectly with government. Some even risk losing their titles, like the climatologist from Delaware who was threatened with losing his title as state climatologist used his title in writings which opposed AGW theory.

Second "fact" also a lie. The organizations referred to were formed SPECIFICALLY to support AGW. REAL scientists do not form organizations to promote their science and real scientific organizations do not, as a body, formulate and promote a single opinion on a field of research, as such actions are counter productive to the research process. Scientists do their studies which are published in peer reviewed publications and let the chips fall where they may. If their research is controversial, REAL scientists welcome criticism of their research and opposing ideas.

Other REAL scientists read the publications for studies related to their fields, and if a study catches their eye, they follow the study, repeat it for verification, and expand on it according to the results. That is how REAL science progresses.

The "science" of ACC is not real science because it is closed to opposition. IPCC scientists rely on "consensus" to push their agenda and quash opposing research. Only politically minded liars claim ANY scientific field of research is without controversy or conflicting data. Even special relativity has its opponents. When the primary argument of a scientific body is based on the (supposed) numbers who agree, then you can assume they left real science behind some time ago and are pushing forward according to agenda and not according to science.

No use reading the rest when the first two "facts" are outright lies.
 
And here comes the "you only put out blogs, where are your links to peer reviewed research (blah blah blah)"

According to Cypress, The American Journal of Science and the Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy are not peer reviewed.
 
Well, since the "Climate-gate" yahoos recently had to eat crow publicly, the climate change/global warming deniers will just have to cycle back to the same old, disproven mantras and hype ANY errors as all encompassing condemnations.
 
It's a bit like the church declaring God forgave the pedophile priests

The inquiries are currently being picked apart by rational people the world over. It's was really stupid for the warmers to whitewash the collusion and FOI violations.

I no longer care what any warmers have to say since they refuse to look at the evidence of a whitewash.

Phil Jones chose the studies on which his reputation was to be judged.
That is fucking ridiculous. Warmers are the dumbest people in history top hold attitudes that they're intellectually superior.

You morons can't even understand statistics. Even Jones is inept in stats. LOL
 
It's a bit like the church declaring God forgave the pedophile priests

The inquiries are currently being picked apart by rational people the world over. It's was really stupid for the warmers to whitewash the collusion and FOI violations.

I no longer care what any warmers have to say since they refuse to look at the evidence of a whitewash.

Phil Jones chose the studies on which his reputation was to be judged.
That is fucking ridiculous. Warmers are the dumbest people in history top hold attitudes that they're intellectually superior.

You morons can't even understand statistics. Even Jones is inept in stats. LOL

Stop babbling, you moron. The very people who MADE THE CHARGES PUBLICALLY APOLOGIZED. If everything was as you say, they'd have stuck by their guns.

But facts and logic have a way of forcing people to own up to the truth...unless their insipidly stubborn, intellectual cowards like you.

Adjust your tinfoil hat, man....and see that therapist ASAP!
 
here's a question I have asked frequently and no one ever answers......what is the temperature trend going to be over the next two decades.....and how do you prove that scientifically....

epai.png



I found this in two minutes bro, stop being lazy and do your own internet research instead of begging other people to do it for you.


I'm also adding another response to the FAQs.


If you are just in the business of yelping out random questions, or begging some other poster to find the answers for you, but you really don't care what the answer is and you're just doing it to be a hyperpartisan boob, then stop being lazy and do your own research of the legitimate scientific literature.

PmP, get back to me when you have actual legitimate science to support your beliefs, guesses, and speculations on climate.

Because as of now, I see the Flat Earth Society in full retreat: unable to provide any body of legitimate science, afraid to provide links; making up fantastical stories of global conspiracies of lying climate scientists; and laughable claims of that the world is whitewashing and sweeping under the carpet all the lies and fraud perpetrated by the global climate science community.


Dude, when y'all are reduced to just randomly yelping out crap and babbling about conspiracies, and global communities of scientists lying to get grant money, then you've hit rock bottom and you don't have a leg to stand on.


Do you really want me to take you dudes SERIOUSLY if ya'll are reduced to babbling about conspiracies, and whitewashes, and fearful of providing any legitimate science links to support your guesses? That's freaking hilarious!
 
It's a bit like the church declaring God forgave the pedophile priests

The inquiries are currently being picked apart by rational people the world over. It's was really stupid for the warmers to whitewash the collusion and FOI violations.

I no longer care what any warmers have to say since they refuse to look at the evidence of a
whitewash.


Phil Jones chose the studies on which his reputation was to be judged.
That is fucking ridiculous. Warmers are the dumbest people in history top hold attitudes that they're intellectually superior.

You morons can't even understand statistics. Even Jones is inept in stats. LOL



Man, this whole topic has really bottomed out when y'all have to go down the road of babbling about whitewashes and conspiracies.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=683374&postcount=1
 
I found this in two minutes bro, stop being lazy and do your own internet research instead of begging other people to do it for you. [/size]

just can't bring yourself to provide a link can you.....where is this from.....what assumptions did they make in their predictions?......what is the data it's based on?....

also from EPA data
co2_concentrations-lg.gif


how do we know we have not reached a peak in the cycle.....temperatures in the last decade have declined......what scientific evidence can you submit that the base temperatures twenty years from now will not be lower than the present?.....

are there gaps in EPA data?....from the EPA
What's Not Certain?

Important scientific questions remain about how much warming will occur, how fast it will occur, and how the warming will affect the rest of the climate system including precipitation patterns and storms. Answering these questions will require advances in scientific knowledge in a number of areas:

* Improving understanding of natural climatic variations, changes in the sun's energy, land-use changes, the warming or cooling effects of pollutant aerosols, and the impacts of changing humidity and cloud cover.
* Determining the relative contribution to climate change of human activities and natural causes.
* Projecting future greenhouse emissions and how the climate system will respond within a narrow range.
* Improving understanding of the potential for rapid or abrupt climate change.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html
 
Last edited:
.. fearful of providing any legitimate science links to support your guesses...
Still claiming that the American Journal of Science and the Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy (and others) are not legitimate science links?

Yea, laugh away. You show yourself to be blind to the reality of science. It is readily apparent to anyone with a brain that the only reason you support ACC is because your political masters say so. Only a partisan hack with no genuine interest in science, whose only real interest is what it's political ramifications are (ie: how can we use this to fuck the people in favor of our political agenda?) use pseudoscientific claims like "proven beyond a doubt" crap. No scientist worthy of the name EVER maintains that a scope of scientific study is finished and the conclusions beyond doubt. The fact that you present links saying so from so-called scientists just proves that ACC science has been corrupted by politics.

The fact is questions remain how ACC has come to their conclusions. You have yet to provide scientific evidence that shows why it is valid to disregard temperatures from 1 million years ago. You have yet to show any analysis showing why we should take you word for it that human sources of CO2 are the primary cause of climate change when, by your own admission, the Earth was naturally warmer 1 million years ago at lower CO2 levels. How does that data fit with ACC claims that the correlation effect found in ice core data shows a cause/effect relationship between CO2 and temperature, indicating that CO2 is a driver of temperature increases? How does ACC theory cause/effect claims account for the hundred plus year lag between rising temperatures and increased CO2 levels? You have answered NONE of these questions, nor has ACC theory addressed them.

The facts are the data does NOT fit the theory if climatic data from 1 million years ago and older are included. So, since the data supposedly irrefutably proves that man is the cause THIS time, what changed between 1 million years ago and 600,000 years ago that PERMANENTLY caused the Earth to change so the current ice age cycle is the norm, instead of the hundreds of millions of years of much higher temperatures that came before?

You call for legitimate scientific links, ignore them when they are provided, and in turn use ACC propaganda links as if they are genuine scientific articles.

So laugh away, donkey boy. Because the joke is on you.
 
And here comes the "you only put out blogs, where are your links to peer reviewed research (blah blah blah)"

According to Cypress, The American Journal of Science and the Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy are not peer reviewed.

Ummmm……You have some words underlined, but they’re not linked to anything.

Here’s why I’ve reached my limit of trusting you to actually provide credible, peer reviewed science that relevant to the state of modern climate science.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=683533&postcount=77
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=683110&postcount=48

Why should I keep going around in circles with you on this, when you’ve made me waste significant amounts of my time already? You’ve got nothing, and this little game of going round and round in circles on stuff that I can easily debunk has limited comedy value which is rapidly diminishing.





Also,
Paleoclimate, and ancient carbon cycling has been studied to death, and the world’s best, legitimate peer-reviewed science concludes the anomalous current warming trend can’t be explained by natural variation. Check it out.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/quick/doubts.html

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faqs.html

http://www2.ucar.edu/news/backgrounders/hot-questions-about-climate-change#people

Sources:

-UK Met Hadley Center
-International Panel on Climate Change
-University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (Stanford University, Johns Hopkins University, Harvard, UC Berkley)
 


Ummm....your own link says that its known for certain, beyond doubt, that humans are changing the composition of the atmosphere, that the green house effect is a known property of basic physics that's beyond dispute, and that it is very likely based on the 2007 Assessment that humans are causing global warming although it can't be proven with 100% bullet proof certainty. Science will continue to refine and resolve, as it always does.

Which is exactly what I said.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=683374&postcount=1


After spending 9 months blabbing that climate scientists lied, fabricated data, and the science was completely fraudulent, do you really have the nerve to back peddle and goal post-move to now claiming that you only have some innocent questions about some benign scientific uncertainties in the analyses? Hilarious, man.


Also, with regard to your link, the 2007 Assessment is already getting outdated.

More recent information indicates that the science now is even stronger and more robust that humans are indeed responsible for changing the climate.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=675408&postcount=154



the 2012 IPCC assessment will be even stronger than the 2007 Assessment. But, I imagine you'll keep denying, deflecting, and spinning even then.

I suppose the merry band of flat earthers will claim the 2012 assessment is based on lies, fabrications, and a global conspiracy of deceptive scientists when it comes out.

Should be good times!
 
Last edited:
Ummmm……You have some words underlined, but they’re not linked to anything.

Here’s why I’ve reached my limit of trusting you to actually provide credible, peer reviewed science that relevant to the state of modern climate science.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=683533&postcount=77
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=683110&postcount=48

Why should I keep going around in circles with you on this, when you’ve made me waste significant amounts of my time already? You’ve got nothing, and this little game of going round and round in circles on stuff that I can easily debunk has limited comedy value which is rapidly diminishing.





Also,
Paleoclimate, and ancient carbon cycling has been studied to death, and the world’s best, legitimate peer-reviewed science concludes the anomalous current warming trend can’t be explained by natural variation. Check it out.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/quick/doubts.html

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faqs.html

http://www2.ucar.edu/news/backgrounders/hot-questions-about-climate-change#people

Sources:

-UK Met Hadley Center
-International Panel on Climate Change
-University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (Stanford University, Johns Hopkins University, Harvard, UC Berkley)
You shouldn't keep going, because all you do is continue to prove you are a mindless hack.

The journals I named are where articles I linked previously were published. Should I provide the original links each and every time you come out with your lies about blogs and "non-peer-reviewed"? It's too tiring.

You LIE about the links I provide, so I mentioned where they were published - not a link, but the proper method of referencing a publication by title (underlining). Others have read and understood. I cannot help your complete lack of reading comprehension.

As to your links - more of the same trash you accuse me of. Conclusions, but no supporting data, analysis, etc. I link you to actual scientific studies that include all the required aspects of a scientific paper to be included in a journal of science. You link to government and panel consensus reports which simply present the conclusions.

One more time, since you have such a hard time comprehending:
Show the SCIENTIFIC STUDY that analyzes the data in a way showing why climatic data from 1 million years ago is irrelevant, though CLEARLY showing the Earth has been much warmer through NATURAL causes. WHY is it irrelevant. All you answer is (paraphrasing here) "it's irrelevant because we have concluded it is irrelevant." If that is not good enough coming from scientists I reference (though you LIE about my references to make that claim) why should it be good enough for your references?
 
Ummm....your own link says that its known for certain, beyond doubt, that humans are changing the composition of the atmosphere, that the green house effect is a known property of basic physics that's beyond dispute, and that it is very likely based on the 2007 Assessment that humans are causing global warming although it can't be proven with 100% bullet proof certainty. Science will continue to refine and resolve, as it always does.

Which is exactly what I said.

but that does nothing to answer my question....let's say we could agree that human activity was going to add two degrees to the natural course of the earth's temperature over the next twenty years......we still have no knowledge of what that temperature is going to be.....will the natural course of the earth's temperature be three degrees lower than now or three degrees higher
 
the 2012 IPCC assessment will be even stronger than the 2007 Assessment. But, I imagine you'll keep denying, deflecting, and spinning even then.

I suppose the merry band of flat earthers will claim the 2012 assessment is based on lies, fabrications, and a global conspiracy of deceptive scientists when it comes out.

Should be good times!

ah, but will it show us that human activity is the only thing saving us from global cooling?........wouldn't that be ironic....what is the current direction of the earth's natural cycle?.......
 
Back
Top