The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

See this page: http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
It's not the sun. It's not volcanoes. It's not natural sources of CO2. It's CO2 from fossil fuels. The scientists have already checked this while you sit on your butt parroting conservative memes.

 

You are confusing appeal to authority with appeal to knowledge. And the arguement within the American Physical Society was about procedure not about fact.

The fact that a concensus exists among the most knowledgable scientists is undeniable. The only way to deny the consensus is to develop a conspiracy theory.

 

They didnt ask them about the theories. "(91.9%) believe in an anthropogenic contribution to rising temperatures." I dont believe anyone ever disputed this. Its been known for quite some time that replacing natural vegetation with urban sprawl, increases temperatures. The global warming "theories" are based upon models that projected increases in temperatures that simply have not occured

 

this argument every time just shows that u don't understand logic as well as science.
when people where thinking the earth was flat it was religion that explained why things are the way they are, actual science with facts and evidence and stuff had not evolved to being the main explanation for things; galileos position was an extreme position, but i wasn't true because it was an extreme position, it was true because it was actual science...
the idea that climate change deniers are right because as well as galileo, they represent an extreme position is ridiculous...its the vast majority of scientists that are right, because just like galileo they represent the scientific method

 

No we are having votes of the people who are most knowledgable on the subject. The votes are not about computer modeling but about the overwhelming preponderance of evidence.

 

Maybe you should publish your findings to prove them all wrong then.

 

LOL.... Prove it!

And prove it holding to the same standards of scientific data collection and significant digits and sampling sizes required by every other scientific discipline, such as Medicine, Pharmacology, Nuclear Physics, Laser Optics, Aerodynamics, Material Science, Structural Engineering....

The answer is... YOU CAN'T! Because it would take a minimum of 200+ years just to collect the data!

-

 

REAL Scientists would never try to publish ANYTHING about the subject, because mathematically, and data integrity standards make the minimum required sampling period far longer than we've had to collect any scientifically sound data to make any claim!

The answer about AGW is, we cannot possibly know yet, and won't know for at least another 200+ years.

And that time required IS the only part of the current science which is not in dispute!

-

 

I dont trust any copy and paste job myself if its not included with a link... They usually leave out the source or link for a reason,

 

LOL, the fact that the APS statement directly contradicted the fact finding workgroup they sponsored is proof of advocacy. Consensus is not science but opinion.

 

Imputing faulty/incomplete data into a graph even if it looks nice proves nothing.

 

Why? They are not publishing about climate science. The study is about scientists not associated with climate science.

 

They should ask them if they "believe" the global warming theories that projected the warming below that hasnt occured.



You know, something relevant to the ACTUAL debate occuring

 

Please tell us a solution for Global Warming that does not include increased costs and forced control over the Middle Class citizen.

 

People new the world was round from the time of the ancient Greeks. Religion reflects society not the other way around. It was not the church that first declared the sun revolves around the earth or that homosexuality was bad. The Catholic church has gone through many changes in my lifetime to reflect new views

 

Maybe you could start by telling us specifically which data is faulty?

 

Pretty much every suggested scenero would cost less than doing nothing.

 

Not true,
I started a thead on it and will be happy to discuss

This is a common dualist argument
Either all or nothing at all
And the fact is that there is a wide spectrum of options
Also, it is impossible to fully evaluate the costs of doing nothing
Most governments of the world agree that agw is a problem and has significant costs and risks

 

Why dont you start by showing what and how the information was gathered in 1880?

 

I just gave you a link with all the data involved. The scientists disagree that the data is incomplete. We have well over 150 years of temperature data for this current climate change. And hundreds of thousands of years of temperature data to compare with previous climate change. We also have data for over 150 years of volcano and solar activity to know those are not the cause.

Again this data is good enough for scientists to reach a conclusion. Why do you believe you are more qualified to reject the data than climate scientists?

- - - Updated - - -

Which data? Solar? Temperature? Volcano?

 

Nobody and I mean nobody dose not believe we contribute CO2 and that it has some affect on the climate. There are now new studies saying were in for global cooling

 

Solar activity is declining.

 

They will never have all the data. Their too stupid as are we all on this matter

Is Global Warming a Hoax?
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/19840-is-global-warming-a-hoax