King Fucktard. That is the most asinine statement I've seen him make since the swift boat fiasco. Holy shit. The acidification of oceans...........really? They are alkaline averaging about 8.2 to 9.0 on the pH scale. Where are these morons getting their facts from - Neverland?I don't care for him, but I do wonder if it's impolite to be referring to John Kerry as a "fucktard."
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/218480-kerry-climate-change-as-urgent-at-isil-ebola
25 Years Of Predicting The Global Warming ‘Tipping Point’
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
Once again liberal revisionist history.With ISIS?
No, that's totally the Bush's mess.
The neo-con's brought us ISIS by taking out Saddam without being able to keep Iraq stable or to employ his army.
ISIS is run largely by ex-Saddam generals.
But Syria, lots of folk point to the drought in Syria that hastened the political turmoil there.
From the 'liberal fucktards' at Scientific America.
Enjoy.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-hastened-the-syrian-war/
Saddam was taken out through an act of Congress that had both party support.
The Iraq surge worked and the country was stable until Obama pulled all the troops in 2011. Did that even though his advisors were against it. Panetta, Gates, Petraeus.
That has what led to the direct rise of ISIS in Iraq.
It's true that climate change has led to violent conflict in the ME - because of idiot liberal green policy that has jacked up the price of food in the developing world, the people have revolted. The Arab Spring has much to do with rising food costs as it did with gov't tyranny.
From the study.The AMS surveyed its members to determine their views on man-made global warming.
...
Like so many of the things that get said to promote man-made global warming, the "97% consensus" claim is a fairy tale.
That's 93% of the AMS members who study and know anything about climatology.93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicated they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming.
And the finding of the author of the study?
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astr...nd_institute_sowing_global_warming_doubt.htmlThese results, together with those of other similar studies, suggest high levels of expert consensus about human-caused climate change.
And what did the author of the study say about James Taylor of Heartland's claims about the study:
James Taylor’s interpretation of our study is wrong. We found high levels of expert consensus on human-caused climate change.
Why do you insist on trying to misrepresent the findings of this study, all it shows is that people who study climatology know what's happening and people who point sticks at icons of clouds don't.
That 93 number includes "deniers" -- people who think man contributes to changes in the climate but don't believe the warming is primarily caused by human activity.That's 93% of the AMS members who study and know anything about climatology.
When you take out the "deniers," you only get 73 per cent of respondents who actively publish on climate change saying they support the hypothesis of man-made global warming.
I'll say it again -- 73% is not a consensus.
The "97% consensus" is a fairy tale.
Talk about splitting hairs.That 93 number includes "deniers" -- people who think man contributes to changes in the climate but don't believe the warming is primarily caused by human activity.
When you take out the "deniers," you only get 73 per cent of respondents who actively publish on climate change saying they support the hypothesis of man-made global warming.
I'll say it again -- 73% is not a consensus.
The "97% consensus" is a fairy tale.
The scientific community strongly supports the concept that human activity is playing a role. There are a few idiots who claim it doesn't but that doesn't change anything.
According to the posted study:
73% say humans are the main factor causing the current changes in climate.
20% say humans are a cause but don't agree on the extent.
Seems pretty clear cut.
"Experts",...
FAST
YEP,...have to add acid to my pool to balance.King Fucktard. That is the most asinine statement I've seen him make since the swift boat fiasco. Holy shit. The acidification of oceans...........really? They are alkaline averaging about 8.2 to 9.0 on the pH scale. Where are these morons getting their facts from - Neverland?
FAST
No it doesn't.That 93 number includes "deniers" -- people who think man contributes to changes in the climate but don't believe the warming is primarily caused by human activity.
You didn't read the paper, did you?
Did you just read the Heartland talking points?
The question in the AMS survey was about whether climate change over the last 150 years was natural or man-made. The consensus IPCC findings are that its very clear that most of the climate change we have experienced in the last 50 years is man made, though there was climate change starting 150 years ago its only in the last 50 years that its been the largest factor. Quite a few AMS members wrote in to say that this question was unclear and hard to answer fairly. Heartland uses this question only in their faked email and propaganda, ignoring the fact that the rest of the survey totally supports the view that there is consensus for belief in man-made climate change.When you take out the "deniers," you only get 73 per cent of respondents who actively publish on climate change saying they support the hypothesis of man-made global warming.
And in the reply to your favourite question, only 6% replied they think climate change has been from natural causes in the last 150 years.
89% reported they believe climate change is happening in the AMS survey.I'll say it again -- 73% is not a consensus.
Only 4% replied 'no'.
Here are the major points.
1) the question was for climate change over the last 150 years, which covers a time when there was climate change but it wasn't the major forcings.
2) Heartland faked an email that misrepresented the findings.
3) the author of the survey stated that Heartland's statements were false.
4) the author of the study himself said this study supports the consensus view.
5) 93% of AMS members who study and publish papers on climatology support the consensus view
6) about 20% of AMS members are TV weathermen
Your claims are pure bullshit.
What else have you got?
I'm not splitting anything. The hypothesis of man-made global warming is that man-made emissions are the "dominant" cause of warming and the IPCC has been explicit that "dominant" means more than 50 per cent of the warming was caused by emissions.Talk about splitting hairs.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24292615
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...2013/sep/27/global-warming-ipcc-report-humans
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/unfccc/cop19/cop19_pres_plattner.pdf
By the way, the results actually showed that 52 per cent of respondents supported the hypothesis. The 73 per cent number is specific to respondents who actively publish on climate research.
Neither is anything close to a "97% consensus." The "97% consensus" is a fairy tale.
The difference between you and me is that I have actually read the survey. That number isn't specific to man-made climate change.89% reported they believe climate change is happening in the AMS survey.
Only 4% replied 'no'.
When they were asked about the hypothesis that human factors are responsible for more than 50 per cent responsible for the warming, there was only 52 per cent support.
And it is the height of dishonesty to blame the Heartland Institute if you think the AMS researcher (the one you love to quote) did a poor job writing the questions.
The "97% consensus" is a fairy tale.
Wrong again. That number includes "deniers."93% of AMS members who study and publish papers on climatology support the consensus view
The actual results were that 73 per cent of members who actively publish on climate change support the hypothesis, and 78 per cent of climatologists who actively publish on climate change support the hypothesis.
The "97% consensus" is a fairy tale.
Its only 1/3 of the problem,...lets just ignore it
Rather convenient when the target isn't private enterprise driven none 3rd world countries, but 3rd world countries who are contributing by far the most to this increase in Co2 in the atmosphere due to deforestation.
To recap for you,...if the trees are cut down,...they do not absorb C02,...and also do not create oxygen,...therefore the C02 ratio goes up.
There are studies that equate the effect of deforestation being equivalent to C02 production by every car and truck in the whole world.
But you have to understand,...3rd world countries are NOT good targets for the unemployable,... !!!
FAST
Except your experts seem to completely miss the obvious consequence of the loss of Co2 absorption by the reduction of forests,...and the resultant reduction in the production of oxygen.Your numbers are way, way off.
It may have been true around 1950 or so, but its nowhere near that now.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf
That's the full report, the info and graphs you want are on page 3.
Here's the graph.
Rather convenient when the target isn't private enterprise driven none 3rd world countries, but 3rd world countries who are contributing by far the most to this increase in Co2 in the atmosphere due to deforestation.
To recap for you,...if the trees are cut down,...they do not absorb C02,...and also do not create oxygen,...therefore the C02 ratio goes up.
There are studies that equate the effect of deforestation being equivalent to C02 production by every car and truck in the whole world.
But you have to understand,...3rd world countries are NOT good targets for the unemployable,... !!!
FAST
What the fuck is that supposed to mean?Wrong again. That number includes "deniers."
And why do you think it makes that number invalid?
No, they didn't miss that.Except your experts seem to completely miss the obvious consequence of the loss of Co2 absorption by the reduction of forests,...and the resultant reduction in the production of oxygen.
FAST
I mean you are talking about really, really basic elements of climatology. Just like your claim that they missed the burning of forests, they've thought about it.
Did you look here for the information?
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/
Tell me when you read it and find the section and what it says, they maybe we can start an intelligent conversation.
Until then, try to think of something not quite so blindingly obvious.
LOL. We'll add "consensus" to the list of words you apparently don't understand.And why do you think it makes that number invalid?
Here are the findings from the survey:LOL. We'll add "consensus" to the list of words you apparently don't understand.
What is your claim that these climatologists who support the consensus are 'deniers' and this number doesn't count?93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicated they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming.
Those people in 3rd world countries are so inconsiderate, cutting down forests for farm land, subdivisions, malls, parking lots, factories, etc. wtf is wrong with living in a grass shack. Next they'll want SUVs, air conditioned homes, weekend vacations at the cottage. Sarcasm...3rd world countries who are contributing by far the most to this increase in Co2 in the atmosphere due to deforestation.
Pictures of local old growth logging http://www.oddman.ca/archives/26538
SHIT,...No wonder everybody here accuses you of lying,...No, they didn't miss that.
I mean you are talking about really, really basic elements of climatology. Just like your claim that they missed the burning of forests, they've thought about it.
Did you look here for the information?
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/
Tell me when you read it and find the section and what it says, they maybe we can start an intelligent conversation.
Until then, try to think of something not quite so blindingly obvious.
Maybe basic elements of climatology,...but something you sure as hell weren't aware of.
I never said they ignored the burning of forest,...what I did say is,...that they do NOT mention the increase in C02 due to the loss of trees converting C02 to oxygen.
Much better for the unemployable to scream about burning fossil fuels,...and big industry, than 3rd world countries.
I don't need to read another report,...you seem to have all the time to waste,...but I have read numerous ones that confirm, that the increase in C02 ,...1/3 of it can be directly connected to deforestation.
Which would help explain why the unemployables contention that burning fossil fuels is what is causing their claim of global warming,...does NOT correlate to your cut and paste graphs.
FAST
The question is whether they support the hypothesis of man-made global warming. They were never asked about whether or not they support the fairy-tale "consensus."Here are the findings from the survey:
What is your claim that these climatologists who support the consensus are 'deniers' and this number doesn't count?
More specifically, the hypothesis is that man-made emissions are the "dominant" cause of warming. The IPCC, Michael Mann, etc., have been quite clear that scientists who don't think emissions are the "dominant" cause of warming are "deniers."
Thus, when you wrap in people who think human activity may be "significant" but not necessarily the "dominant" cause, you're including "deniers."
You're also acknowledging -- finally -- that I was right. We can reasonably extrapolate that there are thousands of scientists throughout the world who think natural causes are a significant factor, as I said.
Then you need to refer to the terms of the question and understand that the question was:The question is whether they support the hypothesis of man-made global warming. They were never asked about whether or not they support the fairy-tale "consensus."
More specifically, the hypothesis is that man-made emissions are the "dominant" cause of warming. The IPCC, Michael Mann, etc., have been quite clear that scientists who don't think emissions are the "dominant" cause of warming are "deniers."
.
The problem with their question was the 150 year term. Its very clear and the consensus supports the fact that man made climate change has been the major forcing over the last 50 years. But in the previous 100 years while there was also man made climate change, but its effect wasn't as strong and it wasn't the necessarily the primary forcing and it makes answering the question trickier. Which is why if you read the answers you'd know that only 6% said it was from natural events, which is your claim.In this survey, the term “global warming” refers to the premise that
the world’s average temperature has been increasing over the past 150
years, may be increasing more in the future, and that the world’s climate
may change as a result.
The author made note of this and the problems with the question.
http://scholarsandrogues.com/2013/1...upon-industrial-climate-disruption-consensus/Six respondents sent emails to notify us that their answers would have been different if we had asked about the most recent 50-year time frame rather than the 150-year time frame; the time frame used in the question may have also influenced other respondents. Our results therefore may represent a more conservative estimate of the consensus on global warming than would have been obtained had we asked about a 50-year time frame.
And the authors findings of the study you quote supports my claim, not yours.
You are quoting a survey which in facts contradicts what you are claiming.These results, together with those of other similar studies, suggest high levels of expert consensus about human-caused climate change.
I already showed you the chart from the IPCC that tracks the issues.SHIT,...No wonder everybody here accuses you of lying,...
....
I don't need to read another report,...you seem to have all the time to waste,...but I have read numerous ones that confirm, that the increase in C02 ,...1/3 of it can be directly connected to deforestation.
FAST
Go back and reread it and the IPCC report before you make more claims that have already been dealt with.
