[Drlee]

Climate change is beyond settled science. There are always a few idiots on the edge trying to make a name for themselves or siphon money from the lunatic right but the evidence is overwhelming.

The following are scientific organizations that hold the position that Climate Change has been caused by human action:

Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Académie des Sciences, France
Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
Academy of Athens
Academy of Science of Mozambique
Academy of Science of South Africa
Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy of Sciences of Moldova
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
African Academy of Sciences
Albanian Academy of Sciences
Amazon Environmental Research Institute
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Anthropological Association
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Fisheries Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Public Health Association
American Quaternary Association
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Australian Academy of Science
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Institute of Marine Science
Australian Institute of Physics
Australian Marine Sciences Association
Australian Medical Association
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
Botanical Society of America
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
British Antarctic Survey
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
California Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Canadian Association of Physicists
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Geophysical Union
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Society of Soil Science
Canadian Society of Zoologists
Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
Center for International Forestry Research
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
Crop Science Society of America
Cuban Academy of Sciences
Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
Ecological Society of America
Ecological Society of Australia
Environmental Protection Agency
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
Federation of American Scientists
French Academy of Sciences
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
Georgian Academy of Sciences
German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
InterAcademy Council
International Alliance of Research Universities
International Arctic Science Committee
International Association for Great Lakes Research
International Council for Science
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
International Research Institute for Climate and Society
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
Islamic World Academy of Sciences
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Korean Academy of Science and Technology
Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Latin American Academy of Sciences
Latvian Academy of Sciences
Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
National Association of State Foresters
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Council of Engineers Australia
National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Research Council
National Science Foundation
Natural England
Natural Environment Research Council, UK
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Network of African Science Academies
New York Academy of Sciences
Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
Oklahoma Climatological Survey
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Pakistan Academy of Sciences
Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Polish Academy of Sciences
Romanian Academy
Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
Royal Astronomical Society, UK
Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
Royal Irish Academy
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
Royal Society of Canada
Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences
Science and Technology, Australia
Science Council of Japan
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Slovak Academy of Sciences
Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Society for Ecological Restoration International
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of American Foresters
Society of Biology (UK)
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Sudanese National Academy of Science
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
The Wildlife Society (international)
Turkish Academy of Sciences
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Woods Hole Research Center
World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Forestry Congress
World Health Organization
World Meteorological Organization
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences

And I am supposed to believe some idiot who made a youtube video. No doubt there are plenty of deeply stupid people who do but I'm going with the above.

[Pants-of-dog]

I don't know what his views are specifically but creationism is perfectly compatible with the data. Francis Collins is a creationist.

No, since the data shows the Earth is billions of years old.

So do you, does that make you incompetent at what you do for a living?

Then show me how I am wrong. Insults are not arguments.

That's a problem in general with all scientists.

So we agree that Spencer could just be a mouthpiece for oil companies and that his science is wrong.

Right about what? Wrong about what?

Well, does Spencer have an argument? Do you?

[Rancid]

You're all a bunch of science religious zealots!

Tell'em @Sivad !

[Sivad]

No, since the data shows the Earth is billions of years old.

He's not a young earth creationist. He's an an intelligent design proponent and ID is perfectly consistent with the data. That's not to say design is a warranted inference, the data doesn't prove design, design is just compatible with the evidence.

So we agree that Spencer could just be a mouthpiece for oil companies and that his science is wrong.

They all take money from some special interests. Michael Mann has a booking agent and charges $10,000 per speech and Oppenheimer has a multi million dollar endowment at Princeton.

[Sivad]

Noemon edit: Rule 2

[Rancid]

You all are definitely up your own asses, there's no question about that.

Indeed, I've made it passed the colon.

[Sivad]

[Sivad]

Climate change is beyond settled science. There are always a few idiots on the edge trying to make a name for themselves or siphon money from the lunatic right but the evidence is overwhelming.

Major Findings

Scientists agree that humans cause global warming
Ninety-seven percent of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century.

Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest are unsure.

Scientists still debate the dangers
A slight majority (54%) believe the warming measured over the last 100 years is not “within the range of natural temperature fluctuation.” 46% believe the warming measured over the last 100 years is “within the range of natural temperature fluctuation.”


A slight majority (56%) see at least a 50-50 chance that global temperatures will rise two degrees Celsius or more during the next 50 to 100 years. (The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change cites this increase as the point beyond which additional warming would produce major environmental disruptions.)

Based on current trends, 41% of scientists believe global climate change will pose a very great danger to the earth in the next 50 to 100 years, compared to 13% who see relatively little danger. Another 44% rate climate change as moderately dangerous.

Seventy percent see climate change as very difficult to manage over the next 50 to 100 years, compared to only 5% who see it as not very difficult to manage. Another 23% see moderate difficulty in managing these changes.

A need to know more
Overall, only 5% describe the study of global climate change as a “fully mature” science, but 51% describe it as “fairly mature,” while 40% see it as still an “emerging” science. However, over two out of three (69%) believe there is at least a 50-50 chance that the debate over the role of human activity in global warming will be settled in the next 10 to 20 years.

Only 29% express a “great deal of confidence” that scientists understand the size and extent of anthropogenic [human] sources of greenhouse gases,” and only 32% are confident about our understanding of the archeological climate evidence.

https://web.archive.org/web/20100111104 ... 23_08.html

The following are scientific organizations that hold the position that Climate Change has been caused by human action:

A babbitt list of official pronouncements is not science.

Here's what actual climate scientists think:

A survey of the perceptions of climate scientists 2013
http://www.hvonstorch.de/klima/pdf/CliSci2013.pdf

[Pants-of-dog]

He's not a young earth creationist. He's an an intelligent design proponent and ID is perfectly consistent with the data. That's not to say design is a warranted inference, the data doesn't prove design, design is just compatible with the evidence.

I noticed that you ignored my point about how Creationism shows a tendency towards dogmatic thought.

They all take money from some special interests. Michael Mann has a booking agent and charges $10,000 per speech and Oppenheimer has a multi million dollar endowment at Princeton.

Since these examples do not show companies or groups that would directly profit from incorrect science, this is not a good comparison.

[Drlee]

Since I like to be aware of what I am reading when I am reading statistics (I am a scientist) I read Sivad's source first. I discounted a great deal of his first reference because it was over a decade old. Then it only surveyed less than 500 scientists in two disciplines.

Of course he dismisses the 200 odd governmental and nongovernmental organizations that I presented as his new big word. (One he uses endlessly in the face of evidence.)

There is little doubt in the scientific community that global climate change is happening. It is virtually universal and interdisciplinary. There is no debate. Idiots can always find something that they are not capable of understanding to superficially support their mistaken opinions.

Anyone who believes that climate change is not happening, is not significantly man made, and will not present us with real problems in the next century is just stupid.

I am through suffering fools gladly. Post bullshit or misinterpret the data and I am not going to play nice. People have the right to be stupid. Smart people have the right to laugh at them.

[Hindsite]

The climate has been changing for thousands of years. It says so in the Holy Bible. God made the earth to experience climate change on purpose. God created the Sun and moon in relation to the spinning earth to provide for the day and night and seasons of the year. This started on the fourth day of creation (Genesis 1:14).

There are many things that contribute to temperatures on the earth. The Sun and it's position in relation to earth is the main factor. Of course disobedient men may also have an effect in increased worldwide temperatures in a minor way, such as heating our homes in winter and causing large forest fires in California in the summer and fall. Even cooling our homes in the summer increases outside temperature a very small fraction. Praise the Lord.

[Sivad]

[Pants-of-dog]

I would say that the climate change debate is over in two ways:

1. The science is indisputably in support of ACC theory, and...
2. We are not going to do anything about it.

[Hindsite]

I would say that the climate change debate is over in two ways:

1. The science is indisputably in support of ACC theory, and...
2. We are not going to do anything about it.

Who wants to go back to the stone age. I am not going to give up driving in cars, electric lights, microwaves, electric ranges, televisions, elevators, air conditioners, and heaters. And paying a carbon tax want do shit. So no, we are not going to do anything about it other than pray to God.
HalleluYah

[Sivad]

1. The science is indisputably in support of ACC theory, and...

Yeah, no it's not. The science has established a plausible model for catastrophic climate change but that's about it. And even it if was "indisputably in support of ACC theory", given the flaws and limitations inherent to science that wouldn't mean the theory was beyond rational doubt.

2. We are not going to do anything about it.

I guess carbon despotism isn't going be the next big tyranny, too bad for the scumbag technocrats.


The last question from Paikin to Hadi Dowlatabadi in the video above is hilarious. Paikin asks Dowlatabadi what percentage of climate experts are ideologues and Dowlatabadi says "too many of them are entrenched in the message".

[Sivad]

The exchange about proxy data is also pretty entertaining and Lindzen and Dowlatabadi both shit on the accuracy of the models.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yeah, no it's not. The science has established a plausible model for catastrophic climate change but that's about it. And even it if was "indisputably in support of ACC theory", given the flaws and limitations inherent to science that wouldn't mean the theory was beyond rational doubt.

No, climatologists have done far better than merely establish a model for anthropogenic climate change.

And yes, all scientific theories are contingent and therefore not beyond rational doubt. But the same can be said about the theories used to build the computer upon which you type your posts. And your computer obviously works, so merely being contingent is not a criticism of any scientific theory.

I guess carbon despotism isn't going be the next big tyranny, too bad for the scumbag technocrats.

Instead, we are witnessing high levels of extinction, loss of land, increased migration, less crops, more death, and are risking widespread ecological harm, just so fossil fuel companies can continue to make profits.

But this is not a good comparison, since the things I mentioned are actually happening, while carbon despotism is imaginary.

[Sivad]

No, climatologists have done far better than merely establish a model for anthropogenic climate change.

Not according to the opinions of climatologists.

And yes, all scientific theories are contingent and therefore not beyond rational doubt. But the same can be said about the theories used to build the computer upon which you type your posts. And your computer obviously works, so merely being contingent is not a criticism of any scientific theory.

You don't know anything about the philosophy of science, the extent of your wisdom is maybe a few bullshit popsci propaganda books and whatever idiotic bullshit you picked up from Bill Nye the science guy soundbites.

Instead, we are witnessing high levels of extinction, loss of land, increased migration, less crops, more death, and are risking widespread ecological harm, just so fossil fuel companies can continue to make profits.

Did Bill Nye the science guy tell you that?

But this is not a good comparison, since the things I mentioned are actually happening, while carbon despotism is imaginary.

You don't know shit about the history or sociology of power either so whatever. Go get an informed, intelligent opinion and then we'll talk.

[Drlee]

You don't know shit about the history or sociology of power either so whatever. Go get an informed, intelligent opinion and then we'll talk.

Right back at you sport. You have made a POFO career out of posting fringe shit and pop science.

[Pants-of-dog]

Not according to the opinions of climatologists.

If you are referring to that long piece of text you keep copying and pasting, it does not contradict my claims.

You don't know anything about the philosophy of science, the extent of your wisdom is maybe a few bullshit popsci propaganda books and whatever idiotic bullshit you picked up from Bill Nye the science guy soundbites.

None of this contradicts my point either.

Did Bill Nye the science guy tell you that?

What part do you doubt?

You don't know shit about the history or sociology of power either so whatever. Go get an informed, intelligent opinion and then we'll talk.

The last time you mentioned carbon despotism, you had modified a short article on hydraulic despotism. From this, I assumed that you had no actual evidence for carbon despotism.

Now, I assume you will simply insult me instead of providing actual arguments. I will take that as a concession.