Global Warming Grounded in Science

Global Warming Grounded in Science

There are 66 comments on the New University story from Sep 26, 2010, titled Global Warming Grounded in Science. In it, New University reports that:

Scientists overwhelmingly agree that human activities have caused global warming.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at New University.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last
Earthling

Spain

#1 Sep 27, 2010
Global Warming Grounded would have been enough.
Northie

Spokane, WA

#2 Sep 27, 2010
Roboblogger fails again, this time by exhuming a three-year-old article. Here's a more current--and much stronger--review of the science, courtesy of NOAA's NCDC:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-cl...
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#3 Sep 27, 2010
The problem here is that it says 'scientists' and not 'science'. The average nuclear physicist may be a highly educated scientist but his understanding of AGW and climate is no better than the mailmans.

The real claim is that SCIENCE is overwhelmingly in support of AGW theory which can be confirmed by measuring the papers of those who DO understand this specific issue. The published climatologists.

And the agreement is over 97%, a very rare level of 'consensus' on any issue.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/...

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#4 Sep 27, 2010
Still doesn't change the fact that climate change mitigation is untested. There are no experimental tests on greenhouse gas and temperature change in the atmosphere. The effect is too weak for measurement.
Earthling

Spain

#5 Sep 28, 2010
Northie wrote:
Roboblogger fails again
I suppose you know that you can volunteer as a Topix article poster if you don't like what a robot does?
The Truth Matters is one such person.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#6 Sep 29, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
The problem here is that it says 'scientists' and not 'science'. The average nuclear physicist may be a highly educated scientist but his understanding of AGW and climate is no better than the mailmans.
The real claim is that SCIENCE is overwhelmingly in support of AGW theory which can be confirmed by measuring the papers of those who DO understand this specific issue. The published climatologists.
And the agreement is over 97%, a very rare level of 'consensus' on any issue.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/...
Except that AGW was already disproven, hence3 the reason why everyone except a few like yourself who cannot afford to let it dro have. That was the reason why nearly everyone else had to switch to terms like man made climate change to avoid some skeptic suing them for several million.

But you are right about the average scientist underatanding of this subject is the same as the mailman. Any given scientist is highly educated and extremely knowledgable in thier given field of study but only that field. On the other hand mistakes are often made and in some cases fraud is committed. Some cases the fraud is exposed and the scientist looses creditability.

Also, consensus is still a political term and has little to do with acutal science. After all at one time the consensus was that the earth was flat and at the center of the universe and there had been at the time studies to support that.
Earthling

Spain

#7 Sep 29, 2010
Tina anne, I don't think, "AGW was already disproven," just as I know for sure that it hasn't yet been proven.
There are many arguments for and against, but to the best of my knowledge, nothing has been conclusively proven either way.
Do you have any expert citations on the subject that you can link to?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#8 Sep 29, 2010
Earthling wrote:
There are many arguments for and against, but to the best of my knowledge, nothing has been conclusively proven either way.
Earthling wrote:
Absolute proof that CO2 and methane are not the cause of GW
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...

Rank hypocrite or senile old fart?
Earthling

Spain

#9 Sep 29, 2010
Hiya FuG, thanks for the reminder.
I gather you don't make allowances for OTT reporting unless it's about the mayhem and doom that AGW is going to inflict upon the human race.

“Conservative News”

Since: Jun 10

Grand Haven, MI

#10 Sep 29, 2010
Hogwash!
Concerned US Citizens

Denver, CO

#11 Sep 29, 2010
Big Green 1: The Big Money & The Global Governance Agenda That Fuels Environmentalism

The environmental movement is not just a well funded special interest, it is a big bully gaining increased control over the U.S. economy. Environmentalists are cozy with the Democratic Party, are funded in part by the government, and are rapidly expanding their power in Washington, D.C. Joe Hicks talks to leading scholars about the motives and intentions of Big Green in this PJTV Special Report.

http://www.pjtv.com/...
litesong

Pittsburgh, PA

#12 Sep 29, 2010
Earthling wrote:
I suppose you know that you can volunteer as a Topix article poster......
dirtling, alias's earthling has no brain, eart hling (alien has no affinity for Earth),'injun killer'(has no love for human beings) can volunteer as a KKK hoodwearer & fit right in the Klan.....
litesong

Pittsburgh, PA

#13 Sep 29, 2010
Earthling wrote:
'.....something stupid'
==========
Fair Game wrote:
....... senile old fart........
==========
Earthling wrote:
Hiya Fair Game, thanks for the reminder.
==========
litesong clarifies the situation:
dirtling asked for reminders that he should fart to clear his brain, which was once thought to exist in his butt. But further research discovered that.......dirtling is 'earthling with NO brain'......
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#14 Sep 29, 2010
RightWingExtremist wrote:
Hogwash!
We don't really care about your personal hygiene unless you get upwind.. what you bathe in is your own concern.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#15 Sep 30, 2010
Earthling wrote:
Tina anne, I don't think, "AGW was already disproven," just as I know for sure that it hasn't yet been proven.
There are many arguments for and against, but to the best of my knowledge, nothing has been conclusively proven either way.
Do you have any expert citations on the subject that you can link to?
Not on me but the date was Jun 2008. I remeber that date because I knew LHMF wasn't going to like it.
Earthling

Spain

#16 Sep 30, 2010
tina anne wrote:
Not on me but the date was Jun 2008. I remember that date because I knew LHMF wasn't going to like it.
Ahh, yes, thanks for the reminder.
2008, the year when 160 years of GW was wiped away in one hit.
It will happen again, much to the chagrin of our alarmist friends who believe in warming so much, that they'd be disappointed if cooling ever returned or sea level rise slowed down.
In a weird way, I often think it might be nice if warming accelerated at ten times the current rate and sea level rose alarmingly, it might give alarmists something to do physically, instead of just sitting there whining about a future they'll never witness.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#17 Sep 30, 2010
Two more claims that there is a quote somewhere, just not anywhere they have looked. In other words, BUBKIS. Same as the basis of their claim that the science behind AGW was 'overturned'. Facts are that the scientists are still solidly behind AGW theory because it is the ONLY solid theory that fits the overwhelming collection of facts. They might as well claim that 'law of gravity' had been appealed and overturned.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#18 Oct 2, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
Two more claims that there is a quote somewhere, just not anywhere they have looked. In other words, BUBKIS. Same as the basis of their claim that the science behind AGW was 'overturned'. Facts are that the scientists are still solidly behind AGW theory because it is the ONLY solid theory that fits the overwhelming collection of facts. They might as well claim that 'law of gravity' had been appealed and overturned.
Any of those scientist involved in the study of climate? Nearly all of those have long since switched if they can and the rest are now keeping a low profile. Another indicator along with the media having dropped the term 'AGW' that the study must of been pretty solid. No signs that anyone has been able to debunk it which is something that could not be said for AGW, even in it's heyday.

The fact is that AGW never did 'fit' the facts. It required careful editing just to fit some of the facts. Now the fact is that it is now found a new home in the trash can of failures. Of course there will be a few like yourself who it was more of a religious experience who cannot abandon you 'god' as it were. But then again those on the fringe were never part of the majority.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#19 Oct 2, 2010
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Any of those scientist involved in the study of climate?
Nearly all of those have long since switched if they can and the rest are now keeping a low profile.
Unlike you, I am talking ABOUT the climate scientists.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/...
The support for AGW theory strengthens remarkably with increasing relevance to the field.

And no. This survey was done of the SCIENCE papers fairly recently so they are hardly 'hiding'. They form the OVERWHELMING majority of climate scientists with only maybe 32 or so in the 'denial' cmap with none of THOSE actually have any science to back it up.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Another indicator along with the media having dropped the term 'AGW' that the study must of been pretty solid.
Again, you are confusing terms and claiming that they are 'changed' when the discussion is on two SEPARATE ISSUES.

AGW is the global surface temperature rising (mostly attributed to GHGs from industry activity)

Climate change is the shift of the climate RESULTING from AGW (the change in the surface temperature)

Here. Maybe you could use this reference.. to at least get a basic start on the subject so that you don't sound so dim.

http://tinyurl.com/32gwduy
Earthling

Spain

#20 Oct 3, 2010
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
ABOUT SCIENCE OVERWHELMING THOSE SEPARATE ISSUES RESULTING
Anyone for CAPS?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

James Inhofe Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Global warming deniers unimpressed with pope's ... Aug 20 Earthling-1 126
News Pope Francis Expected To Blame Global Warming O... Jul '15 don t drink the k... 6
News James Inhofe to Pope Francis: Shut up with your... Jun '15 2all 42
News Obama cites public health in urging climate cha... Jun '15 LeDuped 29
News US tightens rules for disclosure of chemicals u... Mar '15 Emily Latella 3
News Just say no to a gas tax hike (Jan '15) Jan '15 Leonard 1
News Gas tax, infrastructure funding puts some dayli... (Jan '15) Jan '15 maroons 5
More from around the web