Impact of Climate Change Is Hitting Home, U.S. Report Finds

[kimmielittle]

Continued":

265 APS members circulated an open letter saying: “By now everyone has heard of what has come to be known as ClimateGate which was and is an international science fraud, and the worst any of us have seen…We have asked APS management to put the 2007 statement on ice until the extent to which it is tainted can be determined, but that has not been done. We have also asked that the membership be consulted on this point, but that too has not been done.” Of the 265 letter signatories, many or most are fellows of major scientific societies, more than 20 are members of national academies, two are Nobel laureates, and a large number are authors of major scientific books and recipients of prizes and awards for scientific research.

Instead, the group of scientists and academic leaders urged APS to revise its statement to read: “While substantial concern has been expressed that [greenhouse gas] emissions may cause significant climate change, measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th[and] 21st century changes are neither exceptional or persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today. In addition, there is an extensive literature that examines beneficial effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide for both animals and plants.”

 

[kimmielittle]

“The Vatican and, significantly, U.S. bishops clearly say they support the scientific consensus on climate change,”

Is consensus important to you?

Because CLEARLY The Vatican and, significantly, U.S. bishops support the consensus that says they want you to be Catholic

 

[kimmielittle]

True, there is always a tiny minority of scientists that disagree with orthodox science time machine). However 98% of climate scientists agree with AGW. Note that I said EVERY scientific organization of national and/or international reputation does not disagree with AGW. I did not say every scientist.
skepticalscience.com/How-many-climate-scientists-are-climate-skeptics.html

You really need to read those surveys. AND check your sources



77 people is ALL

SOME READING ON “Consensus Science”

forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/

wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/

 

[kimmielittle]

BTW just received a report from another group of scientists who now claim the ice on Antarctica is EXPANDING rapidly and will cover the earth within a thousand years.

They attribute that growth to the same mechanism that is supposed to shrink the Antarctica.

It’s all part of that Alarmist mime of MORE-LESS

You know AGW causes MORE-LESS SNOW

MORE-LESS RAIN

MORE-LESS DROUGHT

MORE-LESS WILDFIRES

NOW WE HAVE SHRINK-EXPAND

ALL BROUGHT TO US by the words “Climate Change”

 

[LisaA]

They attribute that growth to the same mechanism that is supposed to shrink the Antarctica.

It’s all part of that Alarmist mime of MORE-LESS

You know AGW causes MORE-LESS SNOW

MORE-LESS RAIN

MORE-LESS DROUGHT

MORE-LESS WILDFIRES

NOW WE HAVE SHRINK-EXPAND

ALL BROUGHT TO US by the words “Climate Change”

Yes and thank you for all of the information…doing the job idealogues will not do! One of the dirty little secrets is the old “follow the money” theory. For some time grants, publication and support were not available to those who didn’t follow the party line with “the sky is falling!” regarding Global Warming. Anyone who thinks that science is pure is truly a man of faith…the same political wrangling, money grubbing, petty infighting occurs despite all of the alphabet soup behind one’s name.

Certainly Al Gore, poster child is the person who supposedly came to do good but did very well…for HIMSELF by pitching ridiculous and unsubstantiated charges of global warming, polar bears becoming extinct and mass flooding on all our coasts (see EdWest’s note about watching whether the rich move away from the beach). Now of course the delicious irony is that he sold his failing station to an oil economy based media outlet Al Jazzerra. LAUGHABLE and watching the Climate Change groupies scurry around like ants whose hill was upturned by a large bear is certainly worth the price of admission. I mean what do they say about the largest (literally and figuratively) sellout to their cause

Lisa

 

[kimmielittle]

Yes and thank you for all of the information…doing the job idealogues will not do!

You are very welcome

One of the dirty little secrets is the old “follow the money” theory. For some time grants, publication and support were not available to those who didn’t follow the party line with “the sky is falling!” regarding Global Warming. Anyone who thinks that science is pure is truly a man of faith…the same political wrangling, money grubbing, petty infighting occurs despite all of the alphabet soup behind one’s name.

ABSOLUTELY!

How many clean water systems could we have provided? Thirty + years - Billions of dollars and we still have NO science.

Certainly Al Gore, poster child is the person who supposedly came to do good but did very well…for HIMSELF by pitching ridiculous and unsubstantiated charges of global warming, polar bears becoming extinct and mass flooding on all our coasts (see EdWest’s note about watching whether the rich move away from the beach). Now of course the delicious irony is that he sold his failing station to an oil economy based media outlet Al Jazzerra. LAUGHABLE and watching the Climate Change groupies scurry around like ants whose hill was upturned by a large bear is certainly worth the price of admission. I mean what do they say about the largest (literally and figuratively) sellout to their cause

Lisa

It seems that Al Jazzerra’s new Poster Boy is Mr Mike Mann

americanthinker.com/2013/02/getting_gored_michael_manns_apocalyptic_prophecies_and_al_jazeeras_green_jihad.html

I STILL WANT TO KNOW WHY Mr Mike Mann received Economic Stimulus Funds?

Mann received $541,184 in economic stimulus funds last June to conduct climate change research.

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703657604575005412584751830.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

 

[LisaA]

You are very welcome

How many clean water systems could we have provided? Thirty + years - Billions of dollars and we still have NO science.

It seems that Al Jazzerra’s new Poster Boy is Mr Mike Mann

americanthinker.com/2013/02/getting_gored_michael_manns_apocalyptic_prophecies_and_al_jazeeras_green_jihad.html

I STILL WANT TO KNOW WHY Mr Mike Mann received Economic Stimulus Funds?
online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703657604575005412584751830.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Remember several important elements of Mr Mann’s ‘science.’

He is an Obama supporter, a friend of Lisa Jackson Lee. It’s crony capitalism, the same cr*p that got welfare for millionaires in the form of support for Chevy Volts and Tesslas.

And of course we KNOW why the Middle East is behind the green movement…follow the money. If Mann and his ilk gin up hysteria about fracking and accessing our own energy, we will no longer be under the thumb of the oil sheiks

Politics makes for interesting bedfellows.

Lisa

 

[kimmielittle]

It’s crony capitalism, the same cr*p that got welfare for millionaires in the form of support for Chevy Volts and Tesslas.

Exactly what it was / is WELFARE!

Sorry Folks -You are NOT** “entitled”** to what I earn!

 

[LisaA]

Exactly what it was / is WELFARE!

Sorry Folks -You are NOT** “entitled”** to what I earn!

Aside from that bit of FAIRNESS that Obama ignores (that other people are not entitled to what we earn) it also destroys the theory that Obama and the Democrats are the party to help the poor and marginalized.

How are the poor helped by subsidies for $100000 cars? Or to prop up failing companies that make solar panels or electric car batteries.

How are the poor helped by the draconian environmental policies that make oil and gas and electricity MORE expensive? How are the poor helped when the jobs energy extraction, refining and distribution are not there because of these evironmental policies.

The “poor” make great photo ops but as has been said “Obama loves the poor, he’s made a lot MORE of them.”

Lisa

 

[wittgenstein]

I will still agree with the US bishops and NASA, Scientific American… As for claims that many scientists disagree with AGW,the ones sited are not climate scientists. For example, you are probably siteing the Oregon petition. Which was proven to be a fraud,many of those “signing” said they never signed,many were dead,and all you needed was a B.S. (batchelor of science) to be considered a scientist. The organization that came up with the silly Oregon petition also “proved” that smoking is good for you!
NASA is part of the conspiracy? Scientific American?
I gave proof (links to each scientific organizations statements). You only gave evidence from biased sources (Daily Mail etc).

 

[LisaA]

I will still agree with the US bishops and NASA, Scientific American… As for claims that many scientists disagree with AGW,the ones sited are not climate scientists. For example, you are probably siteing the Oregon petition. Which was proven to be a fraud,many of those “signing” said they never signed,many were dead,and all you needed was a B.S. (batchelor of science) to be considered a scientist. The organization that came up with the silly Oregon petition also “proved” that smoking is good for you!
NASA is part of the conspiracy? Scientific American?
I gave proof (links to each scientific organizations statements). You only gave evidence from biased sources (Daily Mail etc).

Love it, you a Unitarian agree with the Bishops on an area where they have no expertise whatsoever but I suspect you don’t think they know too much about the Trinity or the Real Presence

BTW the Bishops did not make the claims that GW is man made and must be addressed with increasing taxation. As is usual with Leftist causes the real objective is for the Elites to get control over us the Great Unwashed Masses. Whether it’s healthcare or weather patterns or cars or guns…they want CONTROL over our every move and most of our money to pay for the bureaucracy to monitor it.

Global Warming is just the lastest Leftist religious cause. Remember if you don’t believe in God, it doesn’t mean you don’t have gods.

As to your site or your complaints about other sites, I dont see anything lacking in credibility with respect to the skeptics. To whom was your post addressed?

Lisa

 

[wittgenstein]

Hmmm, because I am a Unitarian I cannot give evidence (with sources and links) about the position of the Bishops! I guess that means that you (because you are not Unitarian ) cannot state what you believe Unitarians believe. But then again,your posts were never about logical consistency.
So those that believe in AGW are all leftist atheists?

 

[LisaA]

Hmmm, because I am a Unitarian I cannot give evidence (with sources and links) about the position of the Bishops! I guess that means that you (because you are not Unitarian ) cannot state what you believe Unitarians believe. But then again,your posts were never about logical consistency.
So those that believe in AGW are all leftist atheists?

You completely missed the point. You can put in all the links you want but your statement was that you agreed with the Bishops on “climate change” an area where they have no particular knowledge (and in fact claim none). Yet you as a Unitarian clearly DISAGREE with the Bishops on the Trinity…an area where they DO have expertise. Just thought it was funny…

Oh and I can state what Unitarians believe…it’s quite simple…nothing! I was raised by them but fortunately the Holy Spirit had more credibility and I left what I learned at my mother’s knee. BTW I also find it hilarious that atheists have tremendous faith in “scientists” when in fact not only are they often wrong (although rarely in doubt) but today’s truth is tomorrow’s trash.

As to your complaint about my posts, interesting since you don’t quote them and show me where I’ve gone off the rails. Apparently I must simply take you at your word.

Just curious, why in heck are you on a Catholic board? Do you think you can pry us away?

Lisa

 

[wittgenstein]

My point about the Bishops was that my position agrees with the official Catholic position.*I am not saying that just because the official Catholic position supports AGW, the obvious reality of AGW is true.
I rely on EVERY scientific organization in the world to verify the truth of my position.

• To deny AGW is to go against the official Catholic position.
  PS: Your last sentence was awesomely silly. My motives (actually I want to engage other philosophies,so as to correct my inaccuracies. I especially respect Catholicism’s respect for the mystery of God and its research into what “being” means) have nothing to do with anything. Attack the argument,not the person,basic logic 101!
  Do you think only Catholics can post here. Do you think only Catholics should post here? That goes against the stated mission of this forum.

 

[kimmielittle]

I will still agree with the US bishops and NASA, Scientific American…

You do know Mr James Hansen is no a Climate Scientist…He’s an astronomer and computer modeler.

YOU KNOW:THIS GUY
“The West Side Highway will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.” - James Hansen- 1988

When did he say this will happen?

Within 20 years.

Hansen’s graph, updated to depict observed temperature to end 2006 overlaid in red, shows that the temperature trend projected by the GISS model used by Hansen is near-identical to that which the model had projected on the assumption that atmospheric CO2 concentrations had been substantially reduced from 1989 onward and stabilized by 2000. On this evidence (and this is the evidence that launched the “global warming” scare), it would be legitimate to conclude that the additional CO2 that has entered the atmosphere since Hansen’s graph was published has had no climatic influence whatsoever.

As for claims that many scientists disagree with AGW,the ones sited are not climate scientists.

Support your claim.,please.

For example, you are probably siteing the Oregon petition.

For example about reading comprehension…NO I did not reference the Oregon Petition. .

BUT HERE ARE SOME MORE LINKS TO YOUR CONSENSUS

opinion.financialpost.com/2011/01/03/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats/
climatequotes.com/2011/02/10/study-claiming-97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-flawed/
wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.3684
sppiblog.org/news/the-97-consensus-is-only-75-self-selected-climatologists
sppiblog.org/news/climate-%E2%80%9Cconsensus%E2%80%9D-opiate-the-97-solution
forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not
examiner.com/article/global-warming-s-stephen-schneider-the-light-that-failed
wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/expert-embarrassment-in-climate-change/
wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/04/weather-channel-and-weather-com-the-survey-says…/ (or here)
energytribune.com/9995/ninety-seven-percent-is-not-what-you-think
wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus
wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/
rogerpielkejr.blogspot.co.uk/2010/06/new-black-list.html
suyts.wordpress.com/2012/04/08/anderegg-et-al-revisited/
pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/06/21/comments-on-the-pnas-article-expert-credibility-in-climate-change-by-anderegg-et-al-2010/
news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2012/05/04/climate-change-weekly-new-york-times-misrepresents-global-warming-surve

 

[kimmielittle]

My point about the Bishops was that my position agrees with the official Catholic position.*I am not saying that just because the official Catholic position supports AGW, the obvious reality of AGW is true.

I see you don’t understand Catholicism - You might try - before making reckless statements.

• To deny AGW is to go against the official Catholic position.

WRONG!

 

[kimmielittle]

I rely on EVERY scientific organization in the world to verify the truth of my position.

Since you know the “truth” about AGW - Could you tell us what The Global Mean Temps Were 150 Years Ago - 100 Years Ago - 75 Years Ago? Please reference your work / statement.

Here’s a start.



Here’s all of our GHCN thermometers 150 years ago, look for the pink dots.

 

[LisaA]

My point about the Bishops was that my position agrees with the official Catholic position.*I am not saying that just because the official Catholic position supports AGW, the obvious reality of AGW is true.
I rely on EVERY scientific organization in the world to verify the truth of my position.

• To deny AGW is to go against the official Catholic position.
  PS: Your last sentence was awesomely silly. My motives (actually I want to engage other philosophies,so as to correct my inaccuracies. I especially respect Catholicism’s respect for the mystery of God and its research into what “being” means) have nothing to do with anything. Attack the argument,not the person,basic logic 101!
  Do you think only Catholics can post here. Do you think only Catholics should post here? That goes against the stated mission of this forum.

The Bishops do not make scientific pronouncements, they speak on matters of Doctrine. The careful stewardship of the earth and all of the blessings given to us is nothing new. “Consideration” of climate change is hardly the claim that global warming is either proven or requires specific action on the part of Catholics. Denying global warming is NOT against Catholic doctrine.

As to your second issue, no I don’t think only Catholics can post here. But I do find most non Catholics, other than those who are sincerely interested in learning about the Church are either here to agitate or attempt to show us the error of our ways. As I said, I am curious why a Unitarian would be interested in a Catholic forum.

Lisa

 

[wittgenstein]

James Hanson?

 

[wittgenstein]

Response to post 256
I do not understand why you think the official Catholic (Vatican and U.S. Bishops)position is anti science!