| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"$Harlèy$" |
| Date: |
04 Aug 2006 07:00:17 PM |
| Object: |
No Scientific Consensus On Global Warming!! |
No Scientific Consensus On Global Warming
By William Blase
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 1996 - I note with interest that everyone, from the President on down
to the local papers, seems to be quoting the report of the IPCC
(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), a U.N. - sponsored panel of
2,000 scientists, as "proof" that global warming is occurring, humans are
responsible, the sky is falling, and "something must be done" to prevent a
global catastrophe.
The Clinton Administration wants the U.S. to participate in a treaty to
limit "Greenhouse Gases," with "quantified and legally-binding emission
targets", an international emission trading system, and creation of a United
Nations - type body that would monitor and enforce compliance. All
"developing" nations, such as China, Mexico, etc. (132 out of 166) would be
exempted from further commitments.
Clinton is quoted as saying "The science is sound," -- but IS IT? How did
the IPCC arrive at its conclusions, and what exactly were the conclusions of
the scientists who participated?
Over a year ago, the same claims were made in an article that appeared in
the El Paso Times, written by Karl Rabago, a lawyer and Energy Program
Manager for the Environmental Defense Fund, who also "served" as Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Utility Technologies at the U.S. Department of
Energy.
After reading his environmental propaganda, I was moved to write and publish
on the Internet an article refuting his claims, and reveiling the truth of
this "scientific report" published by the U.N.
Unfortunately, Mr. Rabago, a lawyer, seems to be accepted as an
"environmental expert" by the media, who so willingly present his claims as
gospel. If he is indeed an expert on environmental issues, then it seems to
me he is purposely attempting to mislead the public concerning "Global
Warming." (The same could be said for the Clinton Administration).
As a guest columnist in the El Paso Times, (Opinion, page 6A, Sept. 19,
1996), he claimed the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) "reported that global warming is a real threat to the quality
of life on this planet."
Mr. Rabago attempts to have us believe "For the first time, the world's
scientists have concluded that changes in global climate are more than just
the natural variability of weather. Human activity... is changing the
Earth's natural climate system."
The published report may have made that claim, but it DID NOT reflect the
peer-reviewed research of the "more than 2,000 scientists from 130
countries," as Mr. Rabago claims. The report approved by the scientists
concluded just the opposite, that IF the climate really is changing, and not
just part of natural variability, no clear evidence exists that human
activity has contributed.
The conclusions of the report were changed or deleted by someone, according
to an article by Frederick Seitz, President Emeritus of Rockefeller
University and Chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute.
In his article, "A Major Deception on 'Global Warming,'" (Wall Street
Journal, 12 June, 1996, p. A16), he charges that "key changes were made
after the scientists had met and accepted what they thought was the final
peer-reviewed version... more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report --
the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human
influence over climate -- were changed or deleted after the scientists
charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final
text."
Passages peer-reviewed by the scientists but deleted from the published
version include:
"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence
that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the
specific cause of increases in greenhouse gasses."
"No study to date has positively attributed all or part
[of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic
[man-made] causes."
"Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change
are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the
total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."Mr. Seitz
states that "I am in no position to know who made the major changes in
Chapter 8, (but) the report's lead author, Benjamin D. Santer, must
presumably take the major responsibility."
One of the lead authors of the IPCC report, Keith Shine, HAS explained the
changes (from www.climatefacts.org/science/consensus.html). "We produce a
draft, and then the policymakers go through it line by line and change the
way it is presented... It's peculiar that they have the final say in what
goes into a scientists' report."
Robert Reinstein, former chief State Department negotiator on the climate
treaty under President Bush, agrees that the wording of the summary was
negotiated at length by international delegations. "Because of this," he
said, "the summary must be considered purely a political document, not a
scientific one."
According to Mr. Seitz, IPCC reports are often called the "consensus" view,
just as Mr. Rabago wished us to believe scientific consensus supported the
theory of global warming. Mr. Seitz warns that (if the U.N. and
environmental groups are successful in implementing them) carbon taxes and
restraints on economic growth will have a major and almost certainly
destructive impact on the economies of the world. "Whatever the intent was
of those who made these significant changes, their effect is to deceive
policy makers and the public into believing that the scientific evidence
shows human activities are causing global warming."
Mr. Seitz concludes his article with the statement that "If the IPCC is
incapable of following its most basic procedures, it would be best to
abandon the entire IPCC process, or at least that part that is concerned
with the scientific evidence on climate change, and look for more reliable
sources of advice to governments on this important question."
In other words, U.N. reports are not credible sources of scientific data,
because the final reports are produced by bureaucrats pursuing a political
agenda, such as control of land and resources - producing environmental
propaganda, not science.
Environmental groups such as the Environmental Defense Fund are apparently
willing partners in this scientific fraud. While Mr. Rabago's suggestions
for increased use of alternative energy, such as solar and wind power,
certainly couldn't hurt, his dire conclusions on the effects of global
warming are entirely conjectural: "IF climate change hasn't hurt us already,
it PROBABLY will. The POTENTIAL of...global warming MAY lead to..."
(emphasis mine).
PERHAPS global warming would give the arid Southwest MORE precipitation, and
more CO2 MIGHT reduce crop water requirements, as plants grow faster and
taller with higher concentrations of CO2. Plants NEED CO2 for their growth.
Perhaps it would be best if Mr. Rabago stuck with law, and UN bureaucrats
and environmental groups quit accepting taxpayer money to produce
propaganda. Leave the environmental science to the scientists, who, using
the scientific method and peer-review, can best come to a conclusion
concerning climatology and human activity.
Some of the facts science HAS uncovered are:
NASA satellite measurements show no net warming over the past 18 years --
rather, they show a slight cooling trend.
Plant decay, volcanic activity, and other natural processes release around
200 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year, compared
to an estimated 7 billion tons produced by Human activity.
(Perhaps the EPA, if it needs something to justify its existence, could
begin plugging volcanos. In 1991, Mt. Pinatubo blew two million tons of
chlorine into the stratosphere in a day -- every minute it produced the
equivalent of all CFCs produced in the entire world in 24 hours).
Mr. Rabago repeats the claim made by the Administration and environmental
groups, that Western societies must scale back their industrial technology,
(they have already accomplished that goal, have they not?... sending our
industries overseas, our jobs to third-world countries, and giving away our
technology to our enemies, such as China?) and adopt wind and solar power.
Are Wind and Solar Power really the best suggestions he can offer, after
working at the Department of Energy? Apparently so - the Department of
Energy has been with us for nearly two decades, and no modern technology has
been developed for public use that I am aware of. What utility technologies
were developed, while he was drawing his highly-paid salary?
In the latter days of WWII, the Nazi war machine was running almost entirely
on fuel produced by coal gasification; yet, more than 50 years later, the
U.S. Department of Energy is still studying the technology to see if it is
feasible. (Clinton just denied the American people access to millions of
tons of low-sulphur coal, so that we could "enjoy the environment" of our
new Grand Staircase - Escalante "National Monument" in Utah).
The technology of Wind Power - windmill generators - is more than a century
old, as is the internal combustion engine. Most "modern" technology is based
on discoveries made decades ago, such as the transistor. Radio was invented
over a century ago, television was developed in the 1930s. Yet Mr. Rabago,
environmental groups, and the U.S. government would have us return to the
technology of a century ago, and pretend no progress has been made. Where
has all that taxpayer research money gone in the past decades, with nothing
to show for it? Is there an agenda at work here, also?
Truly modern technology would drastically reduce pollution and energy
consumption. Nicola Tesla, who invented the alternating current electrical
distribution system, radio (a Supreme Court decision ruled his invention of
radio pre-dated Marconi's), alternators, and much more, stated that energy
could be broadcast without cost around the world. Though a U.S. citizen, his
papers were confiscated by the Alien Property Custodian, an agent of the
U.S. government, after his death in the 1940s, and have not been seen since.
Western civilization will need oil for some time to come, as it is used to
produce many of the things we take for granted, besides its use as fuel and
lubrication. We should develope all the sources of energy we have, and not
lock them up just for the pretty scenery. The answer to pollution is MORE
clean technology and development; not to go back to some romantic dream of
the good old days.
http://www.zianet.com/wblase/endtimes/gwarm.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TNT
begin 666 blank.gif
M1TE&.#EA!P`#`)'_`/___P```,# P ```"'Y! $```(`+ `````'``,`0 ($
&E(^I!0`[
`
end
.
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientific Consensus On Global Warming!! |
06 Aug 2006 11:28:41 PM |
|
|
"<$Harlèy$>" wrote:
No Scientific Consensus On Global Warming
By William Blase
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 1996 - I note with interest that everyone, from the President on down
1996?
heh
heh heh
heheheh ehhehahahahh hahahheeh
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686
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.
...
.
|
|
|
| User: "* US *" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientific Consensus On Global Warming!! |
07 Aug 2006 08:06:46 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 22:28:41 -0600, Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
"<$Harlèy$>" wrote:
Sept. 1996 ...
1996?
heh
heh heh
heheheh ehhehahahahh hahahheeh
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686
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.
...
Global warming and human contributions thereto
are scientific facts.
Scientific facts scare the bushkultie.
.
|
|
|
| User: "CrunchHardTack" |
|
| Title: Global Warming Is A Lie |
07 Aug 2006 08:44:55 PM |
|
|
That's a fact!
.
|
|
|
| User: "* US *" |
|
| Title: Re: Global Warming Is A Fact |
08 Aug 2006 07:07:43 AM |
|
|
The bushkultie is frightened of reality.
On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 22:28:41 -0600, Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
"<$Harlèy$>" wrote:
Sept. 1996 ...
1996?
heh
heh heh
heheheh ehhehahahahh hahahheeh
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686
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.
...
Global warming and human contributions thereto
are scientific facts.
Scientific facts scare the bushkultie.
.
|
|
|
| User: "CrunchHardTack" |
|
| Title: Global Warming Is A Lie |
08 Aug 2006 09:12:34 AM |
|
|
That's a fact!
.
|
|
|
| User: "* US *" |
|
| Title: Re: Global Warming Is A Fact |
08 Aug 2006 01:38:52 PM |
|
|
The bushkultie is frightened of reality.
On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 22:28:41 -0600, Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
"<$Harlèy$>" wrote:
Sept. 1996 ...
1996?
heh
heh heh
heheheh ehhehahahahh hahahheeh
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686
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.
...
Global warming and human contributions thereto
are scientific facts.
Scientific facts scare the bushkultie.
He's too stupid to understand scientific thought.
.
|
|
|
| User: "CrunchHardTack" |
|
| Title: Global Warming Is A Myth |
08 Aug 2006 02:31:33 PM |
|
|
That's a fact
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dano" |
|
| Title: Re: Global Warming Is A Myth |
08 Aug 2006 04:00:37 PM |
|
|
"CrunchHardTack" <qwertmanly@jethro.com> wrote in message
news:pE5Cg.334899$Zr.275674@fe06.news.easynews.com...
That's a fact
You're a whack-job...that's a fact!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deaf Power" |
|
| Title: Re: Global Warming Is A Myth |
08 Aug 2006 06:59:26 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 17:00:37 -0400, "Dano" <janeanddano@yahoo.com>
wrote:
"CrunchHardTack" <qwertmanly@jethro.com> wrote in message
news:pE5Cg.334899$Zr.275674@fe06.news.easynews.com...
That's a fact
You're a whack-job...that's a fact!
This TNT sicko pedophile is turning this newsgroup into porn.....
--
Bush = Nixon
https://political.moveon.org/donate/notillegal-QT.html
Bush = Mussolini
http://www.bushflash.com/14.html
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm
Bush = Hitler
http://www.new-enlightenment.com/nazification_step4.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "* US *" |
|
| Title: Re: Global Warming Is A Fact |
09 Aug 2006 08:00:48 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 19:59:26 -0400, Deaf Power <deaf@power.com> wrote:
On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 17:00:37 -0400, "Dano" <janeanddano@yahoo.com> wrote:
"CrunchHardTack" <qwertmanly@jethro.com> wrote in message
news:pE5Cg.334899$Zr.275674@fe06.news.easynews.com...
That's a fact
You're a whack-job...that's a fact!
This TNT sicko pedophile is turning this newsgroup into porn.....
Yes, so it's best to either ignore him or correct him all
the way up to the subject line.
Global warming is real. Understanding scientific thought
is important, but beyond the limited capacity of anyone
who supports the earth-burning scourge Bush.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "* US *" |
|
| Title: Re: Global Warming Is A Fact |
09 Aug 2006 08:00:48 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 17:00:37 -0400, "Dano" <janeanddano@yahoo.com> wrote:
"CrunchHardTack" <qwertmanly@jethro.com> wrote in message
news:pE5Cg.334899$Zr.275674@fe06.news.easynews.com...
That's a fact
You're a whack-job...that's a fact!
Exactly. He is a cultist who hopes the world
will be destroyed by fire.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "* US *" |
|
| Title: Re: Global Warming Is An Aspect of a Vast Reality, Too Much of which Frightens the Poor Idiotic Masochistic Closet Homosexual Squealing Bushkultie Buttboy Into Irraational Hysteria |
08 Aug 2006 04:56:58 PM |
|
|
http://whyfiles.org/updates/080global_warm/index.html
Science is frightening to the weak person who seeks to
find imaginary safety in myths and cults.
The bushkultie is frightened of reality.
On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 22:28:41 -0600, Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
"<$Harlèy$>" wrote:
Sept. 1996 ...
1996?
heh
heh heh
heheheh ehhehahahahh hahahheeh
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686
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.
...
Global warming and human contributions thereto
are scientific facts.
Scientific facts scare the bushkultie.
He's too stupid to understand scientific thought.
.
|
|
|
| User: "CrunchHardTack" |
|
| Title: Global Warming Is A Myth For Squealing Queers |
08 Aug 2006 05:32:51 PM |
|
|
Yes it is!
.
|
|
|
| User: "* US *" |
|
| Title: Re: Global Warming Is A Fact Frightening to the Squealing Queer Bushkultie |
09 Aug 2006 08:00:49 AM |
|
|
"Scientists know for certain that human activities are changing the composition of Earth's
atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide (CO2 ), in the
atmosphere since pre-industrial times have been well documented. There is no doubt this
atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of
human activities.
It's well accepted by scientists that greenhouse gases trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere
and tend to warm the planet. By increasing the levels of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere, human activities are strengthening Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The key
greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging
from decades to centuries."
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climateuncertainties.html
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 22:32:51 GMT, "MunchHardDick" <qwertmanly@jethro.com> wrote:
Yes it is!
http://whyfiles.org/updates/080global_warm/index.html
Science is frightening to the weak person who seeks to
find imaginary safety in myths and cults.
The bushkultie is frightened of reality.
On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 22:28:41 -0600, Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
"<$Harlèy$>" wrote:
Sept. 1996 ...
1996?
heh
heh heh
heheheh ehhehahahahh hahahheeh
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686
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.
...
Global warming and human contributions thereto
are scientific facts.
Scientific facts scare the bushkultie.
He's too stupid to understand scientific thought.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "* US *" |
|
| Title: Re: Global Warming Is An Aspect of a Vast Reality, Too Much of which Frightens the Poor Idiotic Masochistic Closet Homosexual Squealing Bushkultie Buttboy Into Irraational Hysteria |
08 Aug 2006 04:56:56 PM |
|
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37232-2004Aug26.html
The bushkultie is frightened of reality.
On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 22:28:41 -0600, Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
"<$Harlèy$>" wrote:
Sept. 1996 ...
1996?
heh
heh heh
heheheh ehhehahahahh hahahheeh
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686
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.
...
Global warming and human contributions thereto
are scientific facts.
Scientific facts scare the bushkultie.
He's too stupid to understand scientific thought.
.
|
|
|
| User: "CrunchHardTack" |
|
| Title: Global Warming Is An A Myth For Squealing Queers |
08 Aug 2006 05:32:52 PM |
|
|
That's a fact!
.
|
|
|
| User: "* US *" |
|
| Title: Re: Global Warming Is A Fact Frightening to the Squealing Queer Bushkultie |
09 Aug 2006 08:00:49 AM |
|
|
"A warming trend of about 1°F has been recorded since the late 19th century. Warming has
occurred in both the northern and southern hemispheres, and over the oceans. Confirmation
of 20th-century global warming is further substantiated by melting glaciers, decreased
snow cover in the northern hemisphere and even warming below ground."
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climateuncertainties.html
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 22:32:52 GMT, "MunchHardDick" <qwertmanly@jethro.com> wrote:
That's a fact!
Yes, it's a fact that you're afraid, among other things.
Here's what you fear this time:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37232-2004Aug26.html
The bushkultie is frightened of reality.
On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 22:28:41 -0600, Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
"<$Harlèy$>" wrote:
Sept. 1996 ...
1996?
heh
heh heh
heheheh ehhehahahahh hahahheeh
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686
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.
...
Global warming and human contributions thereto
are scientific facts.
Scientific facts scare the bushkultie.
He's too stupid to understand scientific thought.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PagCal" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientific Consensus On Global Warming!! |
07 Aug 2006 03:09:59 AM |
|
|
The US government, under the Fascist Bush Junta, has been editing in
such words as 'highly uncertain', or just plain editing out the truth
about Global Warming.
So, you can't trust them as a source.
In the US, look to non-governmental entities for the truth.
Rich Travsky wrote:
"<$Harlèy$>" wrote:
No Scientific Consensus On Global Warming
By William Blase
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 1996 - I note with interest that everyone, from the President on down
1996?
heh
heh heh
heheheh ehhehahahahh hahahheeh
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686
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.
...
.
|
|
|
| User: "* US *" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientific Consensus On Global Warming!! |
07 Aug 2006 08:07:13 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 04:09:59 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
The US government, under the Fascist Bush Junta, has been editing in
such words as 'highly uncertain', or just plain editing out the truth
about Global Warming.
So, you can't trust them as a source.
In the US, look to non-governmental entities for the truth.
Indeed.
The Bush regime stifles science.
Rich Travsky wrote:
"<$Harlèy$>" wrote:
No Scientific Consensus On Global Warming
By William Blase
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 1996 - I note with interest that everyone, from the President on down
1996?
heh
heh heh
heheheh ehhehahahahh hahahheeh
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686
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.
...
.
|
|
|
| User: "CrunchHardTack" |
|
| Title: Global Warming Is A Lie |
07 Aug 2006 08:44:55 PM |
|
|
That's a fact!
.
|
|
|
| User: "* US *" |
|
| Title: Re: Global Warming Is A Fact |
08 Aug 2006 07:07:43 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 04:09:59 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
The US government, under the Fascist Bush Junta, has been editing in
such words as 'highly uncertain', or just plain editing out the truth
about Global Warming.
So, you can't trust them as a source.
In the US, look to non-governmental entities for the truth.
Indeed.
The Bush regime stifles science.
Rich Travsky wrote:
"<$Harlèy$>" wrote:
No Scientific Consensus On Global Warming
By William Blase
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 1996 - I note with interest that everyone, from the President on down
1996?
heh
heh heh
heheheh ehhehahahahh hahahheeh
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686
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.
...
Notice that the bushkultie fears such facts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "CrunchHardTack" |
|
| Title: Global Warming Is A Lie |
08 Aug 2006 09:12:32 AM |
|
|
That's a fact!
.
|
|
|
| User: "* US *" |
|
| Title: Re: Global Warming Is A Fact |
08 Aug 2006 01:38:51 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 04:09:59 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
The US government, under the Fascist Bush Junta, has been editing in
such words as 'highly uncertain', or just plain editing out the truth
about Global Warming.
So, you can't trust them as a source.
In the US, look to non-governmental entities for the truth.
Indeed.
The Bush regime stifles science.
Rich Travsky wrote:
"<$Harlèy$>" wrote:
No Scientific Consensus On Global Warming
By William Blase
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 1996 - I note with interest that everyone, from the President on down
1996?
heh
heh heh
heheheh ehhehahahahh hahahheeh
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686
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.
...
Notice that the bushkultie fears such facts.
He belongs to a cult which seeks the destruction of earth in a huge fire.
.
|
|
|
| User: "CrunchHardTack" |
|
| Title: Global Warming Is A Myth! |
08 Aug 2006 02:31:33 PM |
|
|
The Democratic regime promotes junk science.
.
|
|
|
| User: "* US *" |
|
| Title: Re: Global Warming Is An Aspect of a Vast Reality, Too Much of which Frightens the Poor Idiotic Masochistic Closet Homosexual Squealing Bushkultie Buttboy Into Irraational Hysteria |
08 Aug 2006 04:56:58 PM |
|
|
http://netmar.com/~maat/announce/ann_dryice.htm
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 19:31:33 GMT, "MunchHardDick" <qwertmanly@jethro.com> wrote:
...promotes junk science.
Of course you do: you can't understand real science.
On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 04:09:59 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
The US government, under the Fascist Bush Junta, has been editing in
such words as 'highly uncertain', or just plain editing out the truth
about Global Warming.
So, you can't trust them as a source.
In the US, look to non-governmental entities for the truth.
Indeed.
The Bush regime stifles science.
Rich Travsky wrote:
"<$Harlèy$>" wrote:
No Scientific Consensus On Global Warming
By William Blase
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 1996 - I note with interest that everyone, from the President on down
1996?
heh
heh heh
heheheh ehhehahahahh hahahheeh
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686
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.
...
Notice that the bushkultie fears such facts.
He belongs to a cult which seeks the destruction of earth in a huge fire.
.
|
|
|
| User: "CrunchHardTack" |
|
| Title: Global Warming Is A Myth For Squealing Queers |
08 Aug 2006 05:32:51 PM |
|
|
That's a fact!
.
|
|
|
| User: "* US *" |
|
| Title: Re: Global Warming Is A Fact Frightening to the Squealing Queer Bushkultie |
09 Aug 2006 08:00:47 AM |
|
|
http://www.climatehotmap.org/
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 22:32:51 GMT, "MunchHardDick" <qwertmanly@jethro.com> wrote:
That's a fact!
Of course you're afraid of reality.
http://netmar.com/~maat/announce/ann_dryice.htm
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 19:31:33 GMT, "MunchHardDick" <qwertmanly@jethro.com> wrote:
...promotes junk science.
Of course you do: you can't understand real science.
On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 04:09:59 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
The US government, under the Fascist Bush Junta, has been editing in
such words as 'highly uncertain', or just plain editing out the truth
about Global Warming.
So, you can't trust them as a source.
In the US, look to non-governmental entities for the truth.
Indeed.
The Bush regime stifles science.
Rich Travsky wrote:
"<$Harlèy$>" wrote:
No Scientific Consensus On Global Warming
By William Blase
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 1996 - I note with interest that everyone, from the President on down
1996?
heh
heh heh
heheheh ehhehahahahh hahahheeh
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686
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:
" | | | | | | | | | | | |
