IPCC savaged for overstating climate change dangers

[cancel2 2022]

Point out the head of the IPCC is an.... ENGINEER... with NO climatology background... well... THAT is irrelevant.

Point out that the majority of the 'NAS's' he harps on as signing off on global warming also do not possess anyone who specifically works in the field.... THAT doesn't matter.

Point out that STATISTICIANS are probably equally qualified (at worst) at taking the raw data and checking the calculations by the climatologists (who are NOT statisticians) for potential errors.... and well... by golly THEY are not climatologists, so their opinions mean little to nothing.

Bottom line... idiots like Cypress wish to keep their heads buried either in the sand or up their masters asses. They are not interested in the real science behind the issue.

+

I think it was the great Michael Faraday that said, "There is nothing more terrifying than someone who knows they are right"

 

[Cypress]

+

I think it was the great Michael Faraday that said, "There is nothing more terrifying than someone who knows they are right"

Tom, according to reputable, peer reviewed research in the prestigious National Academy of Science Proceedings, About 98% of actual climate scientists agree humans are changing the climate. The the tiny 2% who disagree, are empirically shown to have lower qualifications than their peers in the 98% group.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=678999&postcount=1


Tom, every single, solitary internationally recognized reputable science organization on the planet concurs that the evidence shows that humans are largely responsible for warming the planet.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=663778&postcount=3

Tom, the vast, overwhelming preponderance of science, scientific organizations, and peer reviewed research shows with high scientific confidence that humans are largely responsible for recent global warming.

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



-Tom you were wrong on climate gate….

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=676083&postcount=1


-Tom, you were wrong about the InterAcademy Council IPCC review - which you claimed “savaged” the IPCC….the IAC chairman himself said the IPCC science, overall, was sound…..

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=702457&postcount=1

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=678261&postcount=1

-`Tom, you tried to present a blog written by a self-described mentally disturbed, and unemployed “mushroom researcher” as an authoritative source on climate science.

-Tom, you routinely link to British tabloids, some of which are owned by Rupert Murdoch, as authoritative source of science news.

-Tom, you’re MaClean et. Al (2009) paper that you popped champagne corks over is now a laughing stock of a paper…., the lead author is some computer technician dude with a gmail address, and only a “recreational interest in climate science…..and Bob Carter is a geologist, who has mostly published geology and stratigraphy papers. Geologists are not trained in atmospheric physics and chemistry, anymore than neurologists are trained to do dental surgery. Your MaClean et al paper was dissected and demolished in a peer reviewed JGR response by a team of internationally recognized and reputable climate researchers from NASA, Penn State and NCAR.

Your MacClean et al were invited to submit a peer reviewed defense of their research, and rebuttal to the NASA and Penn State scientists. But, their rebuttal was laughed out of peer review at JGR. I’ve never heard of authors who got published in JGR but subsequently had their comments in defense of their own paper laughed out of peer review. Their research is obviously now being deemed incompetent.



I don't know what all these facts make you stressed out or angry. I didn't make this stuff up, and I'm not telling you my opinion. I'm just showing you what the vast, overwhelming, and virtually universal scientific consensus is. Tom, you can live in your denial-o-sphere bubble if you want, and you can keep cruising the inter-tubes for british tabloids and blogs by mushroom researchers. That’s fine, go for it. Climate science doesn’t depend on your beliefs or my beliefs. It’s based on data and expert scientific inquiry by the worlds most qualified climate researchers. No offense dude, but you’ve wasted hours of my time on blog crap and tabloid nonsense that isn’t remotely close to being on a par with reputable, modern scientific research on climate change. Later, man.


P.S. as a public service, I offer you this article in the journal Nature. Nature arguably is the most prestigious and universally respected science journal on the planet. And they published a thoughtful editorial on the rightwing war on science - from climate denialism, to evolution, to stem cell research, to fruit fly research. It's totally worth a read, if you can manage to tear yourself away from the Rupert Murdoch tabloids. Nature might be a little more credible than your Rupert Murdoch stuff, but that's your choice.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7312/full/467133a.html

 

[cancel2 2022]

Tom, according to reputable, peer reviewed research in the prestigious National Academy of Science Proceedings, About 98% of actual climate scientists agree humans are changing the climate. The the tiny 2% who disagree, are empirically shown to have lower qualifications than their peers in the 98% group.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=678999&postcount=1


Tom, every single, solitary internationally recognized reputable science organization on the planet concurs that the evidence shows that humans are largely responsible for warming the planet.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=663778&postcount=3

Tom, the vast, overwhelming preponderance of science, scientific organizations, and peer reviewed research shows with high scientific confidence that humans are largely responsible for recent global warming.

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



-Tom you were wrong on climate gate….

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=676083&postcount=1


-Tom, you were wrong about the InterAcademy Council IPCC review - which you claimed “savaged” the IPCC….the IAC chairman himself said the IPCC science, overall, was sound…..

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=702457&postcount=1

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=678261&postcount=1

-`Tom, you tried to present a blog written by a self-described mentally disturbed, and unemployed “mushroom researcher” as an authoritative source on climate science.

-Tom, you routinely link to British tabloids, some of which are owned by Rupert Murdoch, as authoritative source of science news.

-Tom, you’re MaClean et. Al (2009) paper that you popped champagne corks over is now a laughing stock of a paper…., the lead author is some computer technician dude with a gmail address, and only a “recreational interest in climate science…..and Bob Carter is a geologist, who has mostly published geology and stratigraphy papers. Geologists are not trained in atmospheric physics and chemistry, anymore than neurologists are trained to do dental surgery. Your MaClean et al paper was dissected and demolished in a peer reviewed JGR response by a team of internationally recognized and reputable climate researchers from NASA, Penn State and NCAR.

Your MacClean et al were invited to submit a peer reviewed defense of their research, and rebuttal to the NASA and Penn State scientists. But, their rebuttal was laughed out of peer review at JGR. I’ve never heard of authors who got published in JGR but subsequently had their comments in defense of their own paper laughed out of peer review. Their research is obviously now being deemed incompetent.



I don't know what all these facts make you stressed out or angry. I didn't make this stuff up, and I'm not telling you my opinion. I'm just showing you what the vast, overwhelming, and virtually universal scientific consensus is. Tom, you can live in your denial-o-sphere bubble if you want, and you can keep cruising the inter-tubes for british tabloids and blogs by mushroom researchers. That’s fine, go for it. Climate science doesn’t depend on your beliefs or my beliefs. It’s based on data and expert scientific inquiry by the worlds most qualified climate researchers. No offense dude, but you’ve wasted hours of my time on blog crap and tabloid nonsense that isn’t remotely close to being on a par with reputable, modern scientific research on climate change. Later, man.


P.S. as a public service, I offer you this article in the journal Nature. Nature arguably is the most prestigious and universally respected science journal on the planet. And they published a thoughtful editorial on the rightwing war on science - from climate denialism, to evolution, to stem cell research, to fruit fly research. It's totally worth a read, if you can manage to tear yourself away from the Rupert Murdoch tabloids. Nature might be a little more credible than your Rupert Murdoch stuff, but that's your choice.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7312/full/467133a.html

Here are some more things for you to ignore.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=10973

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=b35c36a3-802a-23ad-46ec-6880767e7966

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Here are some more things for you to ignore.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=10973

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=b35c36a3-802a-23ad-46ec-6880767e7966

New derivation of equations governing the greenhouse effect reveals "runaway warming" impossible

but but... my masters haven't approved this... so it must be from a rightwing blog or Rupert Murdoch!!!

Miklós Zágoni isn't just a physicist and environmental researcher. He is also a global warming activist and Hungary's most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. Or was.

Well, this guy isn't known by anyone and his work is subpar.

That was until he learned the details of a new theory of the greenhouse effect, one that not only gave far more accurate climate predictions here on Earth, but Mars too. The theory was developed by another Hungarian scientist, Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA's Langley Research Center.

he has obviously been duped by mushroom farmers

After studying it, Zágoni stopped calling global warming a crisis, and has instead focused on presenting the new theory to other climatologists. The data fit extremely well. "I fell in love," he stated at the International Climate Change Conference this week.

see... he is 'in love' that means he must be brainwashed

"Runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations," Miskolczi states. Just as the theory of relativity sets an upper limit on velocity, his theory sets an upper limit on the greenhouse effect, a limit which prevents it from warming the Earth more than a certain amount.

How did modern researchers make such a mistake? They relied upon equations derived over 80 years ago, equations which left off one term from the final solution.

thats not true thats not true CONSENSUS!! CONSENSUS!!!

Miskolczi's story reads like a book. Looking at a series of differential equations for the greenhouse effect, he noticed the solution -- originally done in 1922 by Arthur Milne, but still used by climate researchers today -- ignored boundary conditions by assuming an "infinitely thick" atmosphere. Similar assumptions are common when solving differential equations; they simplify the calculations and often result in a result that still very closely matches reality. But not always.

The IPCC engineer has not acknowledged this, thus it cannot be true. This guy is a shill for oil companies.

So Miskolczi re-derived the solution, this time using the proper boundary conditions for an atmosphere that is not infinite. His result included a new term, which acts as a negative feedback to counter the positive forcing. At low levels, the new term means a small difference ... but as greenhouse gases rise, the negative feedback predominates, forcing values back down.

Who has ever heard of daily tech anyway. It is a rightwing blog.

NASA refused to release the results. Miskolczi believes their motivation is simple. "Money", he tells DailyTech. Research that contradicts the view of an impending crisis jeopardizes funding, not only for his own atmosphere-monitoring project, but all climate-change research. Currently, funding for climate research tops $5 billion per year.

No way. You must think there is a global conspiracy. NASA (ie Hansen) would never withhold data.... and he is way too cool to ever think about the funding he would lose as rationale for hiding data.

Miskolczi resigned in protest, stating in his resignation letter, "Unfortunately my working relationship with my NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate. My idea of the freedom of science cannot coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new climate change related scientific results."

See... he is a disgruntled employee... thus this is all bullshit.

His theory was eventually published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal in his home country of Hungary.

Hungary? LMAO... who has ever heard of Hungary?

The conclusions are supported by research published in the Journal of Geophysical Research last year from Steven Schwartz of Brookhaven National Labs, who gave statistical evidence that the Earth's response to carbon dioxide was grossly overstated. It also helps to explain why current global climate models continually predict more warming than actually measured.

The equations also answer thorny problems raised by current theory, which doesn't explain why "runaway" greenhouse warming hasn't happened in the Earth's past. The new theory predicts that greenhouse gas increases should result in small, but very rapid temperature spikes, followed by much longer, slower periods of cooling -- exactly what the paleoclimatic record demonstrates.

um... shit.... CONSENSUS!

However, not everyone is convinced. Dr. Stephen Garner, with the NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL), says such negative feedback effects are "not very plausible". Reto Ruedy of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies says greenhouse theory is "200 year old science" and doubts the possibility of dramatic changes to the basic theory.

whew... ok... my masters don't believe it... so we are all good again. NOAA couldn't be worried about their funding could they? No... CONSENSUS!

Miskowlczi has used his theory to model not only Earth, but the Martian atmosphere as well, showing what he claims is an extremely good fit with observational results. For now, the data for Venus is too limited for similar analysis, but Miskolczi hopes it will one day be possible.

Who cares about Mars? Pluto is not a planet anymore.

/channeling Cypress

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Here are some more things for you to ignore.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=10973

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=b35c36a3-802a-23ad-46ec-6880767e7966

the second link is from 2007... that is WILDLY outdated.

 

[Cypress]

Here are some more things for you to ignore.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=10973

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=b35c36a3-802a-23ad-46ec-6880767e7966

A web page from an uber-rightwing, noted climate denier Senator Inhofe, and a non-peer reviewed website that is known for reporting climate denialism?

Are you freaking serious??? Stop wasting my time man.


Here's some interesting reporting, from the not-so-liberal, uber-capitalist Duetch Bank.

The Deutch Bank climate change investment advisors teamed up with with the uber-prestigious Colombia University Climate Center and the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory to examine the claims of climate skeptics deniers (i.e., climate change is a hoax, based on lies, it's all natural, or that it will be great for us, etc).

Guess what they found? That climate skeptics deneirs are ill-informed, and they are pushing B.S. propaganda that is entirely at odds with the world's best science. Are those the people you stand shoulder to should with, thomas? Are you ever going to admit you were wrong on climate gate?

Investment Research
Climate Change: Addressing the Major Skeptic Arguments
Duetch Bank, Sept. 2010

Authors

Mary[Elena Carr, PhD
Columbia University Climate Center

Robert Anderson, PhD
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

Kate Brash
Columbia University Climate Center

Mark Fulton
Managing Director
Global Head of Climate Change Investment Research
Deutch Bank

Deutch bank’s DB Climate Change Advisors, working with the Columbia Climate Center at the Earth Institute, Columbia University, reviewed the suite of skeptic claims — that global warming is a hoax, natural, or good for people — and found no evidence to support these contrarian positions. Mark Fulton, Global Head of Climate Change Investment Research for Deutsche Bank’s $7 billion in climate funds, concluded that trusting the skeptics “does not seem a gamble worth taking“:

The paper’s clear conclusion is that the primary claims of the skeptics do not undermine the assertion that human-made climate change is already happening and is a serious long term threat. . . .

Simply put, the science shows us that climate change due to emissions of greenhouse gases is a serious problem. Furthermore, due to the persistence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the lag in response of the climate system, there is a very high probability that we are already heading towards a future where warming will persist for thousands of years. Failing to insure against that high probability does not seem a gamble worth taking.

Although adaptation is possible, historical shifts in climate have never occurred under conditions of such high human population numbers. Natural resources and ecosystems are already taxed and further climate perturbation is likely to be disruptive. Climate shifts in the past have frequently been accompanied by collapse of governments or extensive mortality. Increasing population pressure exacerbates the likelihood of pandemics and the destabilization of food-insecure regions can lead to failed states and threats to global security. Humans have survived numerous past changes in climate, but survival of the species is a poor measure of the true consequences and costs associated with adaptation to climate change.

http://www.dbcca.com/dbcca/EN/_media/DBCCAColumbiaSkepticPaper090710.pdf

Tom, you've provided some news release from an uber rightwing, science-denying US Senator's website, and some blog called "dailytech" which is well know for reporting climate denialism, and is not a peer reviewed scientific journal.

You are emotionally-invested in living in your denial-o-sphere bubble, but with this post, and my previous post, I've provided you an amount and quantity of the world's most reputable and prestigious science, science organizations, and peer-reviewed research. A quantity and amount of reputable science that is so vast it would make your eyes bleed if you only read 20% of it.


You're done man. Don't bother me with the blogs of "mushroom researchers", or the webpages of uber rightwing, science-denying US Senators. You are totally wasting my time, and at this point is perfectly clear that you can't back up your assertions with a body of actual science and you are apparently reduced to following me around with nonsense websites for emotional reasons. You can't admit you are wrong. I get it.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

A web page from an uber-rightwing, noted climate denier Senator Inhofe, and a non-peer reviewed website that is known for reporting climate denialism?

Are you freaking serious??? Stop wasting my time man.


Here's some interesting reporting, from the not-so-liberal, uber-capitalist Duetch Bank.

The Deutch Bank climate change investment advisors teamed up with with the uber-prestigious Colombia University Climate Center and the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory to examine the claims of climate skeptics deniers (i.e., climate change is a hoax, based on lies, it's all natural, or that it will be great for us, etc).

Guess what they found? That climate skeptics deneirs are ill-informed, and they are pushing B.S. propaganda that is entirely at odds with the world's best science. Are those the people you stand shoulder to should with, thomas? Are you ever going to admit you were wrong on climate gate?



Tom, you've provided some news release from an uber rightwing, science-denying US Senator's website, and some blog called "dailytech" which is well know for reporting climate denialism, and is not a peer reviewed scientific journal.

You are emotionally-invested in living in your denial-o-sphere bubble, but with this post, and my previous post, I've provided you an amount and quantity of the world's most reputable and prestigious science, science organizations, and peer-reviewed research. A quantity and amount of reputable science that is so vast it would make your eyes bleed if you only read 20% of it.


You're done man. Don't bother me with the blogs of "mushroom researchers", or the webpages of uber rightwing, science-denying US Senators. You are totally wasting my time, and at this point is perfectly clear that you can't back up your assertions with a body of actual science and you are apparently reduced to following me around with nonsense websites for emotional reasons. You can't admit you are wrong. I get it.

ROFLMAO.... wow... you are too fucking predictable... your flat earth global warming fear mongering religion just can't fathom the FACT that scientists disagree with your masters.

Accepted for publication in
Journal of Geophysical Research

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

Here is the board of directors of BNL....

http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/Admin/BSA.asp

I know, I know... no one has EVER heard of the Universities they come from...

Harvard, Yale WHO???

Columbia, Princeton PSHAW....

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The Deutch Bank climate change investment advisors teamed up with with the uber-prestigious Colombia University Climate Center and the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory to examine the claims of climate skeptics deniers (i.e., climate change is a hoax, based on lies, it's all natural, or that it will be great for us, etc).
.

oh well... if the INVESTMENT ADVISORS of Deutch Bank say so... it must be true.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

A web page from an uber-rightwing, noted climate denier Senator Inhofe, and a non-peer reviewed website that is known for reporting climate denialism?

Are you freaking serious??? Stop wasting my time man.


Here's some interesting reporting, from the not-so-liberal, uber-capitalist Duetch Bank.

The Deutch Bank climate change investment advisors teamed up with with the uber-prestigious Colombia University Climate Center and the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory to examine the claims of climate skeptics deniers (i.e., climate change is a hoax, based on lies, it's all natural, or that it will be great for us, etc).

Guess what they found? That climate skeptics deneirs are ill-informed, and they are pushing B.S. propaganda that is entirely at odds with the world's best science. Are those the people you stand shoulder to should with, thomas? Are you ever going to admit you were wrong on climate gate?



Tom, you've provided some news release from an uber rightwing, science-denying US Senator's website, and some blog called "dailytech" which is well know for reporting climate denialism, and is not a peer reviewed scientific journal.

You are emotionally-invested in living in your denial-o-sphere bubble, but with this post, and my previous post, I've provided you an amount and quantity of the world's most reputable and prestigious science, science organizations, and peer-reviewed research. A quantity and amount of reputable science that is so vast it would make your eyes bleed if you only read 20% of it.


You're done man. Don't bother me with the blogs of "mushroom researchers", or the webpages of uber rightwing, science-denying US Senators. You are totally wasting my time, and at this point is perfectly clear that you can't back up your assertions with a body of actual science and you are apparently reduced to following me around with nonsense websites for emotional reasons. You can't admit you are wrong. I get it.

Side note... Cypress.... your dbcaa "paper" was funded by those people who INVEST in companies VESTED in climate change fear mongering.

Sorry dude... you're done.

 

[Cypress]

oh well... if the INVESTMENT ADVISORS of Deutch Bank say so... it must be true.

Try reading, before typing.

The science was evaluated by climate researchers from the Colombia University Climate Center. The investment aspects were evaluated by Duetch Bank's investment group.

Surprisingly, some uber-capitalists on the planet may be interested in how global climate change affects their investment strategies. Is this surprising to you?

I understand you don't have a body of peer reviewed modern science, or any suite of reputable scientific organizations to support your denialism. I get it. It's become an emotional issue for you, Dixie, Bravo, Tinfoil, Webbway, Southernman, and Tom. So unless you dudes have a body of reputable science supporting your denialism, there's really not much more point debating this.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Try reading, before typing.

The science was evaluated by climate researchers from the Colombia University Climate Center. The investment aspects were evaluated by Duetch Bank's investment group.

Surprisingly, some uber-capitalists on the planet may be interested in how global climate change affects their investment strategies. Is this surprising to you?

I understand you don't have a body of peer reviewed modern science, or any suite of reputable scientific organizations to support your denialism. I get it. It's become an emotional issue for you, Dixie, Bravo, Tinfoil, Webbway, Southernman, and Tom. So unless you dudes have a body of reputable science supporting your denialism, there's really not much more point debating this.

LMAO.... hey dumbass... take your own advice... I was doing EXACTLY what you do.

The first link Tom posted... that was linked to PEER REVIEWED PAPER... you pretended it was from a Senator.

Side note dipshit... I LINKED you to a PEER REVIEWED PIECE... YOU simply (as always) IGNORED it.

Here it is again....

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

 

[Damocles]

I know, I know... no one has EVER heard of the Universities they come from...

Harvard, Yale WHO???

Columbia, Princeton PSHAW....

Channeling Cypress

Holy St. Algore of Hysteria! Have you no shame?!!

Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Princeton? Who? Please! These Universities are nothing compared to people who make a living publishing Chicken Little stories and whom I trust because... well... Consensus!... *tick* NASA! *tick, spasm* IPCC! *eye twitch* Scientists!

/Channeling...

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Try reading, before typing.

The science was evaluated by climate researchers from the Colombia University Climate Center. The investment aspects were evaluated by Duetch Bank's investment group.

Surprisingly, some uber-capitalists on the planet may be interested in how global climate change affects their investment strategies. Is this surprising to you?

I understand you don't have a body of peer reviewed modern science, or any suite of reputable scientific organizations to support your denialism. I get it. It's become an emotional issue for you, Dixie, Bravo, Tinfoil, Webbway, Southernman, and Tom. So unless you dudes have a body of reputable science supporting your denialism, there's really not much more point debating this.

Side note... I read the crappy little paper you posted.... they do not address the SCIENCE... they take positions of skeptics and exaggerate them.... like

Skeptics say 'ONLY the Sun is responsible'.... then they 'address the skeptics' by saying 'well by golly there are a lot of different factors that can effect climate and the Sun IS one of them, but those silly skeptics just don't understand there are other factors as well.'

Great piece of crap that paper is.

 

[hotdog]

How much co2 do american trees convert into water and Oxygen? How many trees could the federal government plant in order to offset all carbon emmisions?

 

[cancel2 2022]

Side note... Cypress.... your dbcaa "paper" was funded by those people who INVEST in companies VESTED in climate change fear mongering.

Sorry dude... you're done.

Deutsche Bank along with Goldman Sachs have huge vested interests in carbon trading so they are hardly likely to be objective on the subject. It is especially mind boggling to me that people who would ordinarily be deeply distrustful of financial institutions, with very good reason, invest so much faith in the markets solving these problems for them. It just defies all reason as far as I am concerned.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Here is another climate change heretic that Cypress would have put up against a wall and shot.


http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388

 

[Cypress]

Here is another climate change heretic that Cypress would have put up against a wall and shot.


http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388

Having fantasies of me being involved in murder and mayhem? You are a creepy vato loco, Thomas! Honestly, nothing you've ever written stressed me out, and I don't even think about you for a nanosecond if I'm not on a thread with you. Thomas, nine out of ten mental health professionals agree that if message boarding banter with dudes you don’t even know, gets you stressed out emotionally, it might be time for therapy!

Tom, well known basic physics do not require the consent of the uninformed. The undisputed physics of the greenhouse property and its relation to human emissions of gigatons of GHG do not require your approval. Or my approval. It is what it is.

I recommend this publication for all climate skeptics deniers misinformers. It’s a tad more informative and honest than blogs by mushroom researchers, or Rupert Murdoch tabloids.

“Climate Literacy”

A publication by

U.S. Global Climate Change Program
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Science Foundation
NASA
Smithsonian Institute
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Department of Interior,
U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. Department of Defense

“Scientific observations and climate model results indicate that human activities are now the primary cause of most of the ongoing increase in Earth’s globally averaged surface temperature.”

-- U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the U.S. Global Climate Change Program, 2010

WHAT IS CLIMATE SCIENCE LITERACY?

Climate Science Literacy is an understanding of your influence on climate and climate’s influence on you
and society.

A climate-literate person:

• understands the essential principles of Earth’s climate system,
• knows how to assess scientifically credible information about climate,
• communicates about climate and climate change in a meaningful way, and
• is able to make informed and responsible decisions with regard to actions that may affect climate.

WHY DOES CLIMATE SCIENCE LITERACY MATTER?

- During the 20th century, Earth’s globally averaged surface temperature rose by approximately 1.08°F (0.6°C). Additional warming of more than 0.25°F (0.14°C) has been measured since 2000. Though the total increase may seem small, it likely represents an extraordinarily rapid rate of change compared to
changes in the previous 10,000 years.

- Over the 21st century, climate scientists expect Earth’s temperature to continue increasing, very likely more than it did during the 20th century. Two anticipated results are rising global sea level and increasing frequency and intensity of heat waves, droughts, and floods. These changes will affect almost every aspect of human society, including economic prosperity, human and environmental health, and national security.
-
- Scientific observations and climate model results indicate that human activities are now the primary cause of most of the ongoing increase in Earth’s globally averaged surface temperature.

CLIMATE SCIENCE LITERACY IS A PART OF SCIENCE LITERACY.

People who are climate science literate know that climate science can inform our decisions that improve quality of life. They have a basic understanding of the climate system, including the natural and human-caused factors that affect it. Climate science literate individuals understand how climate observations and records as well as computer modeling contribute to scientific knowledge about climate. They are aware of the fundamental relationship between climate and human life and the many ways in which climate has always played a role in human health. They have the ability to assess the validity of scientific arguments about climate and to use that information to support their decisions.[/i]

HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT IS SCIENTIFICALLY CORRECT?

The Peer Review Process

Science is an on-going process of making observations and using evidence to test hypotheses. As new ideas are developed and new data are obtained, oftentimes enabled by new technologies, our understanding evolves. The scientific community uses a highly formalized version of peer review to
validate research results and our understanding of their significance. Researchers describe their experiments, results, and interpretations in scientific manuscripts and submit them to a scientific journal that specializes in their field of science. Scientists who are experts in that field serve as “referees” for the journal: they read the manuscript carefully to judge the reliability of the research design and check that the interpretations are supported by the data. Based on the reviews, journal editors may accept or reject manuscripts or ask the authors to make revisions if the study has insufficient data or unsound interpretations.

Through this process, only those concepts that have been described through well-documented research and subjected to the scrutiny of other experts in the field become published papers in science journals and accepted as current science knowledge. Although peer review does not guarantee that any particular published result is valid, it does provide a high assurance that the work has been carefully vetted for accuracy by informed experts prior to publication. The overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed papers about global climate change acknowledge that human activities are substantially contributing factors.……..

”A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems….Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.”

-U.S. National Academies of Sciences, 2010

http://climate.noaa.gov/education/pdfs/ClimateLiteracyPoster-8.5x11-March09FinalLR.pdf

 

[Cypress]

This is an brilliant ad. Nissan knows the future is in green technology, and the people Nissan hired to do this ad are freaking geniuses. This ad says so much, with so few words. I admit it made me teary eyed, but that's because I'm a tree hugging bleeding heart. But, I think this could even pull the heart strings of all but the most black-hearted and soulless teabagger. Hat tip to Nissan.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNeEVkhTutY&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - Nissan LEAF™: Polar Bear[/ame]

 

[hotdog]

Politicians need to be supporting renewable/nuclear energy and electric because its essential to America's and Europe's national security. Americans and europeans buy oil from the middle east. These muslims then give part of their profits to Islamic extremists. The U.S and Europe need to make oil worthless. If Muslims have to make budget cuts terrorist funding will be the first thing to go. Electric cars are the future and are essential to winning the war on terrorism. Economic sanctions on Iran don't work. If Irans oil is worthless that would be more effective then any U.N sanctions designed to stop them from obtaining nukes. Once oil is worthless Iran will go broke. Mor money needs to go into designing electric cars. Biofuels can also help to end the importance of middle eastern oil. Lets destroy the people who finance eterrorism. Republicans and Democrates need to realize that this is a national security issue. Nuclear power is more efficient then coal its also cleaner. We will need to generate more power to power millions of electric cars. Let America make the right decesion and win the war on terror. Helping the enviornment should be a bonous for republicans. They need to see that this is the only way for them to achieve victory against americas enemies.

 

[tinfoil]

This is an brilliant ad. Nissan knows the future is in green technology, and the people Nissan hired to do this ad are freaking geniuses. This ad says so much, with so few words. I admit it made me teary eyed, but that's because I'm a tree hugging bleeding heart. But, I think this could even pull the heart strings of all but the most black-hearted and soulless teabagger. Hat tip to Nissan.
//polar bear CGI video

LOL

Wow, you're a tool