Survey finds 97% climate science pape...

Survey finds 97% climate science papers agree warming is man-made

There are 106 comments on the www.guardian.co.uk story from May 16, 2013, titled Survey finds 97% climate science papers agree warming is man-made. In it, www.guardian.co.uk reports that:

Overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed papers taking a position on global warming say humans are causing it

Our team of citizen science volunteers at Skeptical Science has published a new survey in the journal Environmental Research Letters of over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers, as the Guardian reports today. This is the most comprehensive survey of its kind, and the inspiration of this blog's name: Climate Consensus – the 97%.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.guardian.co.uk.

Since: Mar 08

Allentown, PA

#64 May 17, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Leadership is in moving the 'public support' not in following it. And your paranoia is just more right wing denial. There WILL be an increase in costs of the PROGRAM but a decrease in costs of lost wages and hours. The US has about 110 preventable deaths per 100,000 while Canada with universal health care has 77. That is a LOT of lost productivity to the US. The balance is probably positive for the US in overall economics. The MAIN incentive is that health costs tend to be lowered by universal health care. The 13% of the public that is currently under health care add to the costs, BUT the costs may be reduced by up to 30% or so by the lack of paperwork to handle cost accounting (from competing programs).
<quoted text>
Please provide some backup to this idiotic claim. Republicans have introduce a 'repeal' bill in the House where they are a majority 37 times or more, yet cannot get it to pass. This means that a number of REPUBLICANS are supporting the Obamacare in defiance of their party! Business understands that 'sick days' and having to replace workers who get sick for lack of simple medications costs THEM a lot every year.
<quoted text>
Yah, yah. You let me know when you have your brain in gear and are willing to DISCUSS the subject. And to leave you with some substance, here is the US Steel workers report on Canadian Medicare and how much it saves in dollars and how much it saves in lives. Not only business but the unions know that universal health coverage is necessary to a thriving economy as unhealthy workers don't produce as much.
http://healthcoalition.ca/steelworkers/
http://healthcoalition.ca/wp-content/uploads/...
Sorry, broad popular support never existed for Obamacare, this law was pushed through by the Democrats and in speedy fashion to avoid wide open debate. It was broken down into pieces when it became evident the plan would exceed cost projections.
.
If the bill was so good, it would have sold itself.

Since: Mar 08

Allentown, PA

#65 May 17, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
From what TO what? What idiotic statement is this? Heat can be transferred by convection, conduction, or radiation. It is never 'released'. In fact, energy is CONSERVED. I cannot discuss something where you don't make any SENSE.
<quoted text>
Here you are totally wrong and obviously ignorant. The solar radiation that delivers heat to the surface is MOSTLY in the VISIBLE spectrum. GHGs do 'reflect' some incoming IR in the right bands but the sun is at 6000K so there is little energy in the greenhouse effect bands.
Once it has warmed the SURFACE, it is at the TEMPERATURE of the surface and emits Long Wave IR photons which DO get captured and reflected. This is why there is a 'one way' trapping of heat. Because the incoming and outgoing radiation are at DIFFERENT wavelengths.
<quoted text>
GHGs (including CO2 have a WELL documented 'effect'. In fact, without them the surface would be frozen over (see the snowball earth) since even without global warming there is a 33C difference between the 'thermal equilibrium' at this distance from the sun and the actual surface temperature. And the cooling as you go up or heating as you go down in altitude is clear evidence of the greenhouse effect. Try a mountain vs Death Valley. The 'lapse rate' or difference in equilbrium temperature for each meter of altitude is well known example of the greenhouse effect.
<quoted text>
Vulcanism has mostly driven warming (by releasing CO2) in the major 'episodes' in geological history. The explosive volcanic blasts can loft enough sulfates to cause a VERY temporary dip in temperatures from sulphate aerosols but this never lasts more than a decade (and mostly less than a year). The aerosols cannot stay up indefinitely (unlike CO2).
You make a lot of statements that show a serious lack of interest or research on the subject. Are you sure you care?
The relatively minor increase and decrease in temperatures over the ages indicate there is no right or continuous range in Earth's history. The fact the atmosphere is always churning would keep the CO2 mirrors in constant motion. For global warming caused by man to be so, the "mirrors" would have to be in a position to reflect back heat the majority of the time which is a dubious proposition at best.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#66 May 17, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
..
Republicans have introduce a 'repeal' bill in the House where they are a majority 37 times or more, yet cannot get it to pass. This means that a number of REPUBLICANS are supporting the Obamacare in defiance of their party! Business understands that 'sick days' and having to replace workers who get sick for lack of simple medications costs THEM a lot every year.
..
Need some commas.

The repeals die in the House of Representatives because the Senate, where the other party is majority, will not pass them. If they were to pass, then the President would veto them.

A defiance on the GOP side? However, this week 2 Dems joined the GOP in the House for the repeal to pass.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#67 May 17, 2013
Mike wrote:
global warming .......it's called Summer ...Al Gore is an Azzholes
What a little genius you are, Mikey. Now eat your soup before it clots.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#68 May 17, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Need some commas.
The repeals die in the House of Representatives because the Senate, where the other party is majority, will not pass them. If they were to pass, then the President would veto them.
A defiance on the GOP side? However, this week 2 Dems joined the GOP in the House for the repeal to pass.
Of the 37 votes, it passed the HOUSE only 3 times (including this one). Sure it has no way to get past the Senate or Executive but my point stands.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#69 May 17, 2013
LookingToEscape wrote:
<quoted text>
The relatively minor increase and decrease in temperatures over the ages indicate there is no right ..
Right for what?? Will you TRY to make sense? The problem here is that AGW is damaging to the current ECONOMIC and SOCIAL stability. ANY change is costing money and time as it takes energy and money to make those changes. This is irrelevant to geological time scales, of course but you haven't shown any RELEVANCE of those change to AGW today. Nor is your current post consistent with your previous babble.
LookingToEscape wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact the atmosphere is always churning would keep the CO2 mirrors in constant motion.
What?? You think that they are mirrors or something???? A molecule of GHG absorbs a photon from ANY direction (most of which is coming from the planet which is the 'source' and re-radiates it in a random direction (quantum theory) so it retards about half the photons hitting it. And the 'direction' of the molecule is irrelevant.
LookingToEscape wrote:
<quoted text>
For global warming caused by man to be so, the "mirrors" would have to be in a position to reflect back heat the majority of the time which is a dubious proposition at best.
The only 'dubious proposition' I can see here is you getting a grade eight education..
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#70 May 17, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Of the 37 votes, it passed the HOUSE only 3 times (including this one). Sure it has no way to get past the Senate or Executive but my point stands.
No, Lessy.

You posted "37 times."

You seem to dismiss what you post. LOL.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#71 May 17, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Need some commas.
The repeals die in the House of Representatives because the Senate, where the other party is majority, will not pass them. If they were to pass, then the President would veto them.
A defiance on the GOP side? However, this week 2 Dems joined the GOP in the House for the repeal to pass.
Lessy is dizzy.

Since: Mar 08

Allentown, PA

#72 May 17, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Right for what?? Will you TRY to make sense? The problem here is that AGW is damaging to the current ECONOMIC and SOCIAL stability. ANY change is costing money and time as it takes energy and money to make those changes. This is irrelevant to geological time scales, of course but you haven't shown any RELEVANCE of those change to AGW today. Nor is your current post consistent with your previous babble.
<quoted text>
What?? You think that they are mirrors or something???? A molecule of GHG absorbs a photon from ANY direction (most of which is coming from the planet which is the 'source' and re-radiates it in a random direction (quantum theory) so it retards about half the photons hitting it. And the 'direction' of the molecule is irrelevant.
<quoted text>
The only 'dubious proposition' I can see here is you getting a grade eight education..
I never said global warming isn't happening or doesn't happen, just the pop cause used today is dubious at best. Outer space is a pretty chilly and a great place for all the excess heat to go. It would take a tremendous heat source to warm up Earth and keep it warm (and that source is the Sun). Sadly, the Sun's regulator goes a kilter and the star will produce more heat hence a warmer planet. Some who study things climate feel we are in the beginning stages of an ice age, that you get a temperature spike before the big chill sets in.
.
You had global warming happening long before Exxon ruled the world.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#73 May 17, 2013
LookingToEscape wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said global warming isn't happening or doesn't happen,
It is hard to determine what you ARE saying since you duck and weave so much with no real thread.
LookingToEscape wrote:
<quoted text>
just the pop cause used today is dubious at best. Outer space is a pretty chilly and a great place for all the excess heat to go. It would take a tremendous heat source to warm up Earth and keep it warm (and that source is the Sun). Sadly, the Sun's regulator goes a kilter and the star will produce more heat hence a warmer planet. Some who study things climate feel we are in the beginning stages of an ice age, that you get a temperature spike before the big chill sets in.
.
You had global warming happening long before Exxon ruled the world.
LookingToEscape wrote:
<quoted text>
just the pop cause used today is dubious at best.
The causes are identified as Solar insolation, sulphate aerosols and GHGs. None of these causes are in doubt.
LookingToEscape wrote:
<quoted text>
Outer space is a pretty chilly and a great place for all the excess heat to go.
There is no question that the influx comes from the sun and the outflow goes to space. But the issue is the temperature of the surface, not where the energy goes. Not sure why you think this is 'great' but then I am tired of trying to decipher your gibberish.
LookingToEscape wrote:
<quoted text>
It would take a tremendous heat source to warm up Earth and keep it warm (and that source is the Sun).
Yes. It is. But the exact temperature includes anything that slows down the emission from the surface TO the sun. If it were just the sun, we could use the Stephan Boltzman equations and the temperature of the surface would be -15C or so. And frozen over from pole to pole.
LookingToEscape wrote:
<quoted text>
Sadly, the Sun's regulator goes a kilter and the star will produce more heat hence a warmer planet. Some who study things climate feel we are in the beginning stages of an ice age, that you get a temperature spike before the big chill sets in.
.
You had global warming happening long before Exxon ruled the world.
LookingToEscape wrote:
<quoted text>
Sadly, the Sun's regulator goes a kilter and the star will produce more heat hence a warmer planet.
The sun is a VERY stable G3 star. It can change a maximum of only about three parts in a thousand, and most times only one part per thousand. These sunspot cycles could change the surface temperature by no more than 0.2C. Not enough to explain AGW even if we didn't consider the fact that they go up and down regularly and thus have a very limited LONG TERM change. While AGW is much larger, and is still increasing despite the fact that the solar cycle is DECLINING.
LookingToEscape wrote:
<quoted text>
Some who study things climate feel we are in the beginning stages of an ice age, that you get a temperature spike before the big chill sets in.
There is no serious papers in any legitimate science journal claiming that we are headed for a 'big chill'. There are a lot of BLOGS talking about the HADCRUT trends but http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warmin...
can set you straight.
LookingToEscape wrote:
<quoted text>
You had global warming happening long before Exxon ruled the world.
We certainly had LONG term changes in the surface temperature but HUMANS are responsible for this shorter term change.

You are obviously falling back on recycling the denialist claims. They are all rebutted at http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Try to come up with something new.
litesong

Mountlake Terrace, WA

#74 May 17, 2013
lookingtoescapeintelligence wrote:
......broad popular support never existed for Obamacare
Correction:
Should be,...... broad support from curmudgeon, uncaring re-pubic-lick-uns, devoid of humanity never existed.......

Since: Mar 08

Allentown, PA

#75 May 17, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
Try to come up with something new.
From March 30, 2013:
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-tec...
Pretty new article.
.
Simply put, no one is sure what is going on.

Since: Mar 08

Allentown, PA

#76 May 17, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
Try to come up with something new.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-w...
.
Again, no one is really sure what is going on.

Since: Mar 08

Allentown, PA

#77 May 17, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
Try to come up with something new.
If 97% of all automotive engineers said the Ford Pinto was a safe car, would you believe them?

Since: Mar 08

Allentown, PA

#78 May 17, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Correction:
Should be,...... broad support from curmudgeon, uncaring re-pubic-lick-uns, devoid of humanity never existed.......
I wish I was half as clever as you. Maybe even a quarter as clever.
litesong

Mountlake Terrace, WA

#79 May 17, 2013
lookingtoescapeintelligence wrote:
I wish I was half as clever as you. Maybe even a quarter as clever.
I wish curmudgeon toxic topix AGW denier exxon directed re-pubic-lick-uns were double as compassionate as they are...... no, even 4 times as compassionate, as they are........ yeah, why not more!
litesong

Mountlake Terrace, WA

#80 May 17, 2013
lookingtoescapeintelligence wrote:
If 97% of all automotive engineers said the Ford Pinto was a safe car, would you believe them?
Ford

97% of auto engineers never said that the Pinto was safe.
litesong

Mountlake Terrace, WA

#81 May 17, 2013
lookingtoescapeintelligence wrote:
Again, no one is really sure what is going on.
However, whatever cyclical near future events occur to the sun, its average TSI is within 2 parts per 1000, & solar physics mathematics indicate its TSI will continue to increase into the long future.

“Better Dead than red!”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#82 May 17, 2013
And 100% of the folks I polled, say it total BS.. There you are!
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#83 May 17, 2013
LookingToEscape wrote:
<quoted text>
From March 30, 2013:
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-tec...
Pretty new article.
You like it because it is devoid of science (which you would expect from a paper called 'the economist'. It pretends to a conflict with AGW theory that does NOT exist (in the sciences)
LookingToEscape wrote:
<quoted text>
Simply put, no one is sure what is going on.
By 'Nobody' you are talking about yourself, of course. Must be your new handle. The only person I have found here that IS ignorant enough to 'not know his @ss from a hole in the wall'.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Trump, the 'America First' president, goes to t... 2 min Retribution 340
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 4 min Freedomofexpression 10,004
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min Realtime 1,601,889
News Trump, top Democrats reach deal on DACA immigrants 6 min bblight 80
News 21 states told they were targeted by Russian ha... 7 min Retribution 6
News Jimmy Kimmel transforms debate, and shows comed... 9 min spud 82
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 12 min Chilli J 31,144
News GOP health bill all but dead; McCain again deal... 19 min spud 32
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 32 min Reader 289,188
More from around the web