Your piece above is from 2004. It’s now 2009 and more and more people are catching on to this regulating, money sucking swindle of an idea touted as “science”.

In the last five years, it continues to get worse. By exactly what climatological mechanism do you think the problem is going to correct itself?

It sounds to me like you’re just believing in the possibility that you would prefer, rather than the one indicated by evidence. I’d like to live in a universe created from my hopes and dreams too, but unfortunately that doesn’t actually work.

.

mchamma Says:

Don’t be sheep.

They tell me that energy exchanges follow the laws of thermodynamics, they tell me that according to quantum physics particles become probability waves, etc. and I pretty much accept it on face value. Even though I can’t reproduce the high-energy particle physics experiments myself, I don’t have any contrary evidence either, and the vast majority of the accredited scientists who can do the experiments agree with these conclusions. Is that “being a sheep?”

That’s exactly the same situation when it comes to climate change. I don’t have any contrary data, and the vast majority of accredited scientists who have access to it agree that a) the greenhouse effect is increasing to such levels that will soon dramatically change the ecosystem of most areas, and that b) manmade emissions are a significan factor in this increase of the greenhouse effect.

When you go outside, the Earth looks flat. Does that mean you’re a sheep if you believe those who claim that it’s round? Is it “being a sheep” to believe in science at all?

What reputation? It turned into a Zionist rag sheet years ago, sucking on Bush’s tits. Everyone knows it. The same happened to the NYT. They just act like nothing has happened when in fact their credibility is totally down the toilet.

When will Charles Krauthammer be committed to a mental institution?

Looks like “YOU Can’t Touch This”. (That was a MC Hammer joke)

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes*
December 2004

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, “As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change” (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC’s purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth’s climate is being affected by human activities: “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations” [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members’ expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise” [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: “The IPCC’s conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue” [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies’ members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change” (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Why in the world would you be so proud to show how incredibly ignorant you are. Global warming puts and keeps more energy in the environment you moron so there will be more intense storms including snowstorms. The TREND will be warming. I think they changed it because the underestimated the STUPIDITY and gullibility of morons like YOU that make these incredibly ignorant arguments. Beg, borrow, or steal a couple of functional braincells you fool. You are a stupid brainwashed fool without even the CAPACITY to think for yourself so you spew out these zombie memes that have been explained to the ignorant like you dozens of times. Have the decency to be ASHAMED to be so stupid

Well that is our little LushMoron. The shite goes in the stupid comes out.

I have an urge to hate baby fur seals!
_____________

Is this in addition to your usual daily intake of shite?

Salad? We bears don’t eat salad…..we eat baby fur seals alive…silly pharmaceutical.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

My GOD you are a stupid and pathetic piece of garbage. I am starting to resent your constant begging for our pity.

Ist ok we know you cons are determined to believe your fantasies. You just dont LIKE reality. The SCIENTISTS, the ones doing SCIENCE, that is peer reviewed studies disagree with what you WANT to believe.

Economic impact cannot be the sole factor in every regulatory policy of the U.S. government. Those that do not learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them. We can no longer afford to be so short-sighted when the long-term consequences of our inaction are so great.

Because, as we all know, Bloomberg is the most reliable source of scientific information. Not Nature, not Science, not even the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences… no sir, oh no, it’s Bloomberg.

Feb. 20 (Bloomberg) — A glitch in satellite sensors caused scientists to underestimate the extent of Arctic sea ice by 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles), a California- size area, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center said.

The error, due to a problem called “sensor drift,” began in early January and caused a slowly growing underestimation of sea ice extent until mid-February. That’s when “puzzled readers” alerted the NSIDC about data showing ice-covered areas as stretches of open ocean, the Boulder, Colorado-based group said on its Web site.