Uh oh...Science has spoken! The debate is over. Global warming is dead. Artic Ice Grows by 920,000 sq. miles in a Year!

boards of FL wrote:
That isn't what we have here.  We have the general consensus of virtually the entire scientific community of the world....and then republicans and a few one-off scientists.

boards of FL wrote:

Bob wrote:How the hell is anyone supposed to know the truth about this when you have two disparate groups of scientists claiming exactly the opposite thing.

That isn't what we have here.  We have the general consensus of virtually the entire scientific community of the world....and then republicans and a few one-off scientists.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on climate change. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) , summarized below:

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[5]

Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[6]

"Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[7] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[7] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming."[7]

"[...] the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time"[8]

"The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources)"[9]

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[12] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

boards of FL wrote:You see, Bob.  Markle's only comeback here is some text from his copy-and-paste vault - sourced from a british tabloid - and a vague allusion to the idea that everything on wikipedia is BS.  

Here again, this is a no brainer.  On one side we have wikipedia.  On the other, Markle's copy-and-paste vault. 

On one side, the consensus of the world scientific community.  On the other, republicans.

I leave this one to the reader to decide.

Markle wrote:Not anything on Wikipedia but since anyone can edit and change the content, I trust it for the history of someone or when an even occurred.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on climate change. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), summarized below:

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[5]

Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[6]

"Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[7] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[7] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming."[7]

"[...] the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time"[8]

"The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources)"[9]

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[12] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

PkrBum wrote:THIS JUST IN..!! Climate Change is causing Climate Models to Fail... all plans to socially and politically engineer still on.

There is unanimous consensus among scientists currently funded that more funding will allow for continued demagoguery.

Whew... That was a close call.

boards of FL wrote:

Markle wrote:Not anything on Wikipedia but since anyone can edit and change the content, I trust it for the history of someone or when an even occurred.

Really?  Well why don't you prove that for us then, Markle?  Why don't you go edit the following text from the following wikipedia page so that it is more accurate?

Be sure to let them know that your source is a word file and a british tabloid.  I'm sure they'll OK whatever change you submit as 100% facts.  

And....go!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on climate change. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), summarized below:

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[5]

Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[6]

"Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[7] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[7] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming."[7]

"[...] the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time"[8]

"The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources)"[9]

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[12] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

Markle wrote:Your information, as you even show, is far outdated by the massive scandal at EAU.

May I quote?

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007[edit source]

Main article: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

In February 2007, the IPCC released a summary of the forthcoming Fourth Assessment Report.


As you saw and know, the IPCC information came from the EAU.

Data used by the United Nations IPCC and NASA findings came from EAU.

14th February, 2010

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

Sal wrote:Of course, in reality there were several investigations launched into the EAU email smear, and all of them completely exonerated the scientists and debunked the fake scandal.

But then in the alternate universe, none of this ever happened because it wasn't reported on FAUX News, so they're free to revel in their "climategate" fantasy.

And, so it goes ...

PkrBum wrote:THIS JUST IN..!! Climate Change is causing Climate Models to Fail... all plans to socially and politically engineer still on.

There is unanimous consensus among scientists currently funded that more funding will allow for continued demagoguery.

Whew... That was a close call.

PkrBum wrote:December 12, 2007

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm

Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.

Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.

Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.

Summer melting this year reduced the ice cover to 4.13 million sq km, the smallest ever extent in modern times.

Remarkably, this stunning low point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used data sets from 1979 to 2004 to constrain their future projections.

"Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC. "So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."