• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global [W:478]

Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

We will learn more, sure. But right now there is good evidence. It is prudent to base decisions on the bet evidence and not just because you don't want it to be true.



Me wanting it to be true or not has no impact on whether or not it is true.

Your desire for it to be true or not has the same impact on the validity or lack of validity to this stuff.

The assertions of the AGW Proponents are simply that mankind has caused the climate to change and that by employing prudent action, Mankind can both control and direct climate and return to an idyllic perfection that has been ruined. The prudent action suggested is to abandon the use of Fossil fuels. Of course, due to the role played by fossil fuels in our society world wide, this will cause global famine, biblical scale plagues and suffering beyond the ability of our modern sensibilities to grasp.

Before the global famines, plagues and misery, I'd like to have a little more to go on than the promises of a snake oil salesmen convention.

If there is proof, I love to see it, but it simply does not exist. If it did, we'd have seen it by now.


This is a great site for data that dumbs it down to a point at which the layman can understand it. I don't detect a political bias in it, but AGW proponents seem to think that I would not if it was a "Denialist" site. You can make your own judgement. It has tabs for TSI, Temperature, GHG's and about anything else you would like to see the actual data for and not the politicized BS of panic. It's really very interesting.

climate4you welcome
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

Me wanting it to be true or not has no impact on whether or not it is true.

Your desire for it to be true or not has the same impact on the validity or lack of validity to this stuff.

The assertions of the AGW Proponents are simply that mankind has caused the climate to change and that by employing prudent action, Mankind can both control and direct climate and return to an idyllic perfection that has been ruined. The prudent action suggested is to abandon the use of Fossil fuels. Of course, due to the role played by fossil fuels in our society world wide, this will cause global famine, biblical scale plagues and suffering beyond the ability of our modern sensibilities to grasp.

Before the global famines, plagues and misery, I'd like to have a little more to go on than the promises of a snake oil salesmen convention.

If there is proof, I love to see it, but it simply does not exist. If it did, we'd have seen it by now.


This is a great site for data that dumbs it down to a point at which the layman can understand it. I don't detect a political bias in it, but AGW proponents seem to think that I would not if it was a "Denialist" site. You can make your own judgement. It has tabs for TSI, Temperature, GHG's and about anything else you would like to see the actual data for and not the politicized BS of panic. It's really very interesting.

climate4you welcome

I have no desire one way or another, which is why I am willing to go with the bet available science. And there is much evidence available, the reason why there is a consensus.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

Well, surprise, surprise....Warming is caused by the sun.....



I am sure that most people will agree that if the Sun went down tonight and never rose again, Earth might get a little cooler.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

I have no desire one way or another, which is why I am willing to go with the bet available science. And there is much evidence available, the reason why there is a consensus.


SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims - Challenge UN IPCC & Gore | Climate Depot

<snip>
Link to Complete 321-Page PDF Special Report
INTRODUCTION:
More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2010 321-page Climate Depot Special Report -- updated from the 2007 groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” -- features the skeptical voices of over 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the last update in March 2009. This report's release coincides with the 2010 UN global warming summit in being held in Cancun.
<snip>
While the scientists contained in this report hold a diverse range of views, they generally rally around several key points. 1) The Earth is currently well within natural climate variability. 2) Almost all climate fear is generated by unproven computer model predictions. 3) An abundance of peer-reviewed studies continue to debunk rising CO2 fears and, 4) "Consensus" has been manufactured for political, not scientific purposes.
Scientists caution that the key to remember is "climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables," not just CO2. UK Professor Emeritus of Biogeography Philip Stott of the University of London decried the notion that CO2 is the main climate driver. "As I have said, over and over again, the fundamental point has always been this: climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically-selected factor is as misguided as it gets," Stott wrote in 2008. Even the climate activists at RealClimate.org let this fact slip out in a September 20, 2008 article. "The actual temperature rise is an emergent property resulting from interactions among hundreds of factors," RealClimate.org admitted in a rare moment of candor.]
<snip>
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims - Challenge UN IPCC & Gore | Climate Depot

<snip>
Link to Complete 321-Page PDF Special Report
INTRODUCTION:
More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2010 321-page Climate Depot Special Report -- updated from the 2007 groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” -- features the skeptical voices of over 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the last update in March 2009. This report's release coincides with the 2010 UN global warming summit in being held in Cancun.
<snip>
While the scientists contained in this report hold a diverse range of views, they generally rally around several key points. 1) The Earth is currently well within natural climate variability. 2) Almost all climate fear is generated by unproven computer model predictions. 3) An abundance of peer-reviewed studies continue to debunk rising CO2 fears and, 4) "Consensus" has been manufactured for political, not scientific purposes.
Scientists caution that the key to remember is "climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables," not just CO2. UK Professor Emeritus of Biogeography Philip Stott of the University of London decried the notion that CO2 is the main climate driver. "As I have said, over and over again, the fundamental point has always been this: climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically-selected factor is as misguided as it gets," Stott wrote in 2008. Even the climate activists at RealClimate.org let this fact slip out in a September 20, 2008 article. "The actual temperature rise is an emergent property resulting from interactions among hundreds of factors," RealClimate.org admitted in a rare moment of candor.]
<snip>

You do know his is not accurate, right?
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

You do know his is not accurate, right?



You need to prove the negative. It should be easy. It is what is only what is asked of those who doubt the validity of the the claims of AGW proponents.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

You need to prove the negative. It should be easy. It is what is only what is asked of those who doubt the validity of the the claims of AGW proponents.

Frankly,if you had really wanted to know, you'd have questioned this the first I've you saw it. But it misrepresents the positions of those they list. Not to mention that a survey doesn't speak to consensus at all. Instead, consensus is about the number of studies showing the same result. This as all been linked before, anyone concerned with this topic as already seen it. Only the faithful deniers accept nonsense like the thousand unquestioned.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...oubt/timeline-the-politics-of-climate-change/
 
Last edited:
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

Frankly,if you had really wanted to know, you'd have questioned this the first I've you saw it. But it misrepresents the positions of those they list. Not to mention that a survey doesn't speak to consensus at all. Instead, consensus is about the number of studies showing the same result. This as all been linked before, anyone concerned with this topic as already seen it. Only the faithful deniers accept nonsense like the thousand unquestioned.

Timeline: The Politics of Climate Change | Climate of Doubt | FRONTLINE | PBS




That link is not what you promised it to be.

Where is the listing of the studies that show the same result?

From what I've seen, most studies show different results. MIT, as an example, releases a new projection almost annually and the none of these releases has shown the "Same Result". In truth, most studies released more recently show a lower and lower projection of warming as the fallacy of the previous studies created and contrived to induce panic are revealed to be wildly inaccurate. The 2009 prediction from MIT included a range of variation between 3.5 and 7.4 degrees over the next century. Both ends of this scale are higher than the 2003 projection.

The question, obviously, is whether the science that they claimed supported their hysteria was rigged or if the physical properties of CO2 have changed over the last 30 years. I tend to think that the physical properties of CO2 are consistent across time. I could be wrong.

Do you have a link that shows that all of the studies have shown and are showing the same result? In the case of gravity, as an example, the studies will show that bodies of particular mass and density will fall through the air at pretty specific rates in pretty specific locations. This was true when a couple balls were dropped off the tower in Pisa and it's true today. Across time.

As I understand climate science, the predicted and observed results are not so consistent and certainly are not predictable.

Lacking agreement between the human beings that are the scientists, the results of the studies that vary wildly in their predictions and change annually and the observed results vs predictions, on what is the consensus that is touted based? The links below show that MIT disagrees with MIT and that almost everyone else disagrees with almost everyone else.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html
<snip>
Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important "to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science," he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. "In that sense, our work is unique," he says.

The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees. This can be compared to a median projected increase in the 2003 study of just 2.4 degrees. The difference is caused by several factors rather than any single big change. Among these are improved economic modeling and newer economic data showing less chance of low emissions than had been projected in the earlier scenarios. Other changes include accounting for the past masking of underlying warming by the cooling induced by 20th century volcanoes, and for emissions of soot, which can add to the warming effect. In addition, measurements of deep ocean temperature rises, which enable estimates of how fast heat and carbon dioxide are removed from the atmosphere and transferred to the ocean depths, imply lower transfer rates than previously estimated.
<snip>

http://www.ig.utexas.edu/people/staff/charles/uncertainties_in_model_predictio.htm
 
Last edited:
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

That link is not what you promised it to be.

Where is the listing of the studies that show the same result?

From what I've seen, most studies show different results. MIT, as an example, releases a new projection almost annually and the none of these releases has shown the "Same Result". In truth, most studies released more recently show a lower and lower projection of warming as the fallacy of the previous studies created and contrived to induce panic are revealed to be wildly inaccurate. The 2009 prediction from MIT included a range of variation between 3.5 and 7.4 degrees over the next century. Both ends of this scale are higher than the 2003 projection.

The question, obviously, is whether the science that they claimed supported their hysteria was rigged or if the physical properties of CO2 have changed over the last 30 years. I tend to think that the physical properties of CO2 are consistent across time. I could be wrong.

Do you have a link that shows that all of the studies have shown and are showing the same result? In the case of gravity, as an example, the studies will show that bodies of particular mass and density will fall through the air at pretty specific rates in pretty specific locations. This was true when a couple balls were dropped off the tower in Pisa and it's true today. Across time.

As I understand climate science, the predicted and observed results are not so consistent and certainly are not predictable.

Lacking agreement between the human beings that are the scientists, the results of the studies that vary wildly in their predictions and change annually and the observed results vs predictions, on what is the consensus that is touted based? The links below show that MIT disagrees with MIT and that almost everyone else disagrees with almost everyone else.

Climate change odds much worse than thought - MIT News Office
<snip>
Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important "to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science," he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. "In that sense, our work is unique," he says.

The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees. This can be compared to a median projected increase in the 2003 study of just 2.4 degrees. The difference is caused by several factors rather than any single big change. Among these are improved economic modeling and newer economic data showing less chance of low emissions than had been projected in the earlier scenarios. Other changes include accounting for the past masking of underlying warming by the cooling induced by 20th century volcanoes, and for emissions of soot, which can add to the warming effect. In addition, measurements of deep ocean temperature rises, which enable estimates of how fast heat and carbon dioxide are removed from the atmosphere and transferred to the ocean depths, imply lower transfer rates than previously estimated.
<snip>

Uncertainties in Model Predictions of Future Climate

Within it there is reference to the signers of disagreement and the problems with it. Other links can show the trouble with meteorologists. One was on NPR just Thursday discussing the mistakes he and others made while trying to dispute the science. Again, this is merely another mistaken premise. ,


Meanwhile, researcher Ed Maibach polled people before Climate Matters began, then again a year into it. He says compared with viewers of other local stations, those who watched Jim Gandy gained a more scientifically grounded understanding of climate change, from understanding that it's largely caused by humans, that it's happening here and now and that it's harmful.

Forecasting Climate With A Chance Of Backlash : NPR
 
Last edited:
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm


I happen to be an author on one of the studies that you quoted, and feel like perhaps I should clarify a few points.

In the last few decades we have indeed become more aware of just how variable the climate has been throughout the Holocene. Maybe thirty or forty years ago we thought that the climate warmed up after the last glaciation about 15,000 years ago, got perhaps slightly warmer than today, and then gradually got slightly cooler over the course of the last 7 or 8 thousand years. Improved analytical techniques have shown that this is an over-simplification. The climate has been variable throughout the Holocene.

So the climate has always been changing naturally. Great! Does this mean we're let off the hook with the climate change we're seeing now? No.

There are some important reasons why the realisation that the Holocene climate has been variable should not be used as evidence against human-induced climate change:

1) Most reconstructions from most parts of the world (it does vary) do bear out the general trend towards cooler conditions for most of the Holocene. The warming we're seeing now is, therefore, qualitatively different - not least in the fact that the recent warming has now been clearly observed all over the globe - http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/full/ngeo1797.html

2) The fact that atmospheric CO2 concentration has not been implicated in these past changes, again suggests that the current change is different, since global temperatures appear to rise as CO2 concentrations have increased.

3) The innate variability that is now becoming apparent in the Holocene climate at a range of timescales from millennia to centuries and decades, means that we would expect future change to be variable too. This is what we have seen in the last decade or so, where the warming has appeared to "pause". CONTRA -> Desperately trying to explain the

This is not a conspiracy where we are trying to make facts fit some dogmatic belief in anthropogenic global warming. I don't really know about the future climate, I'm not a modeller - the past climate is a big enough field for me. These are the facts, as far as we understand them. Yes, there is complexity, subtlety, and uncertainty - that's because we're trying to be honest and thorough, and we are studying some very complex and subtle systems.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

Frankly,if you had really wanted to know, you'd have questioned this the first I've you saw it. But it misrepresents the positions of those they list. Not to mention that a survey doesn't speak to consensus at all. Instead, consensus is about the number of studies showing the same result. This as all been linked before, anyone concerned with this topic as already seen it. Only the faithful deniers accept nonsense like the thousand unquestioned.

Timeline: The Politics of Climate Change | Climate of Doubt | FRONTLINE | PBS




I'm glad for all of these folks who rub each other's backs and make each other feel really, really good.

Now produce the evidence that the misconception they share has any scientific validity by producing the 30 year old prediction that is accurate.

I'll show you one that is not accurate:

http://images.debatepolitics.com/attach/jpg.gif
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

I'm glad for all of these folks who rub each other's backs and make each other feel really, really good.

Now produce the evidence that the misconception they share has any scientific validity by producing the 30 year old prediction that is accurate.

I'll show you one that is not accurate:

http://images.debatepolitics.com/attach/jpg.gif

Your link doesn't work, but you're not really citing yourself are you?

The proof is in the ver wheeling body of work and acceptance of that work by the vast majority of the scientific community.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

Your link doesn't work, but you're not really citing yourself are you?

The proof is in the ver wheeling body of work and acceptance of that work by the vast majority of the scientific community.


The link is just the words for the picture of the failed predictions of Dr. Hansen.

View attachment 67151023
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

Your link doesn't work, but you're not really citing yourself are you?

The proof is in the ver wheeling body of work and acceptance of that work by the vast majority of the scientific community.

Didn't the "ver wheeling body of work and acceptance" (whatever that is) at one point in time also say that blacks were inferior to whites? Can you reproduce the hypothesis of the religion of GW in scientific settings? The problem that you have with continuing this charade of wealth redistribution in the name of saving the world from the human virus is that instead of truly letting science accurately study the phenomena, politicians have figured out that they could co opt the theory, and turn into a way to not only control the people, but take their wealth, all while getting rich off it themselves...It is a scam, a fraud...And all the name calling, and self serving arrogance about the matter will not change that liberal/progressives have ruined the trust in scientific pronouncements by subverting the system to their own ends. Shame on you libs.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

Didn't the "ver wheeling body of work and acceptance" (whatever that is) at one point in time also say that blacks were inferior to whites?

Beliefs in the past were shown to be wrong, therefore all scientific conclusions today are wrong. Great thinking! :prof
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

Didn't the "ver wheeling body of work and acceptance" (whatever that is) at one point in time also say that blacks were inferior to whites? Can you reproduce the hypothesis of the religion of GW in scientific settings? The problem that you have with continuing this charade of wealth redistribution in the name of saving the world from the human virus is that instead of truly letting science accurately study the phenomena, politicians have figured out that they could co opt the theory, and turn into a way to not only control the people, but take their wealth, all while getting rich off it themselves...It is a scam, a fraud...And all the name calling, and self serving arrogance about the matter will not change that liberal/progressives have ruined the trust in scientific pronouncements by subverting the system to their own ends. Shame on you libs.

Not quite the same. But follow your argument: we don't need no stink'in evidence. We just believe. That's not science. It is valid to make decisions based on available information, and not valid to merely think something because that's how you want it to be.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

The link is just the words for the picture of the failed predictions of Dr. Hansen.

View attachment 67151023

Regardless of the truth or citron of your chart (often find this little charts to be fictions), he isn't the issue. The overwhelming body of work is the issue, with solid support among the scientific community.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

Regardless of the truth or citron of your chart (often find this little charts to be fictions), he isn't the issue. The overwhelming body of work is the issue, with solid support among the scientific community.



It's an infant science that really is not falsifiable.

The simple fact of the matter is that the science has been around for a long enough period of time to have risen to the level of being a theory if it is in fact based on anything beyond fantasy. It still has not done so.

It is an assertion and not even really a hypothesis. It has not demonstrated any basis for predicting climate and that is one of the defining factors of being a theory. Everyone seems to be agreeing that there is warming and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

The missing link in the whole thing demonstrating that the CO2 is causing the warming. Since the warming predates the rise of CO2 and the rise of CO2 is constant while the rise of temperature is not, this seems to be a flaw in the whole line of logic.

The experts simply do not understand the climate system and with every passing year, another piece of information rises that blows another hole in the house of cards. Like this one:

New Paper “On the Misdiagnosis Of Surface Temperature Feedbacks From Variations In Earth

<snip>
Climate models get energy balance wrong, make too hot forecasts of global warming

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (July 26, 2011) — Data from NASA’s Terra satellite shows that when the climate warms, Earth’s atmosphere is apparently more efficient at releasing energy to space than models used to forecast climate change have been programmed to “believe.”
<snip>
Applied to long-term climate change, the research might indicate that the climate is less sensitive to warming due to increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere than climate modelers have theorized. A major underpinning of global warming theory is that the slight warming caused by enhanced greenhouse gases should change cloud cover in ways that cause additional warming, which would be a positive feedback cycle.

Instead, the natural ebb and flow of clouds, solar radiation, heat rising from the oceans and a myriad of other factors added to the different time lags in which they impact the atmosphere might make it impossible to isolate or accurately identify which piece of Earth’s changing climate is feedback from manmade greenhouse gases.
<snip>
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

It's an infant science that really is not falsifiable.

The simple fact of the matter is that the science has been around for a long enough period of time to have risen to the level of being a theory if it is in fact based on anything beyond fantasy. It still has not done so.

It is an assertion and not even really a hypothesis. It has not demonstrated any basis for predicting climate and that is one of the defining factors of being a theory. Everyone seems to be agreeing that there is warming and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

The missing link in the whole thing demonstrating that the CO2 is causing the warming. Since the warming predates the rise of CO2 and the rise of CO2 is constant while the rise of temperature is not, this seems to be a flaw in the whole line of logic.

The experts simply do not understand the climate system and with every passing year, another piece of information rises that blows another hole in the house of cards. Like this one:

New Paper “On the Misdiagnosis Of Surface Temperature Feedbacks From Variations In Earth

<snip>
Climate models get energy balance wrong, make too hot forecasts of global warming

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (July 26, 2011) — Data from NASA’s Terra satellite shows that when the climate warms, Earth’s atmosphere is apparently more efficient at releasing energy to space than models used to forecast climate change have been programmed to “believe.”
<snip>
Applied to long-term climate change, the research might indicate that the climate is less sensitive to warming due to increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere than climate modelers have theorized. A major underpinning of global warming theory is that the slight warming caused by enhanced greenhouse gases should change cloud cover in ways that cause additional warming, which would be a positive feedback cycle.

Instead, the natural ebb and flow of clouds, solar radiation, heat rising from the oceans and a myriad of other factors added to the different time lags in which they impact the atmosphere might make it impossible to isolate or accurately identify which piece of Earth’s changing climate is feedback from manmade greenhouse gases.
<snip>

Again, best evidence doesn't support you. The consensus is clear. The science is clear.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

Again, best evidence doesn't support you. The consensus is clear. The science is clear.



Present the science and explain why you believe it is clear when it is wrong.

Here is a copy of the prediction made by Dr. Hansen that missed the mark big time, but only if we compare it to what actually happened.

The other attachment shows 73 other predictions based on AGW Science that all miseed the mark, also, but only if we compare them to actual real world temperatures.

The evidence is pretty clear and the consensus is in agreement. However, their agreement is with each other and not with the real world. I kind of prefer science that works in the real world.


View attachment 67151048View attachment 67151049
 
Last edited:
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

More BS doesn't make the previous BS any more credible.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

Well,
surprise, surprise....Warming is caused by the sun.....Who'd have thunk it?..
...:mrgreen:

So the question is, why would an international body like the UN be pushing so hard for man made climate change? The answer is in what few know about, called agenda 21.



So you all tell me. I know that those willing, or wanting to mask the "ends" that they are for will attack me for using the Blaze as a source for the secondary piece, but agenda 21 is there for all to read...

Agenda 21 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read it, and do your own research, but this is probably the clearest sign that the UN is dangerous to freedom, and needs to be dismantled.




When did this start?




We need to spend a few hundred billion dollars figuring this **** out.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

Present the science and explain why you believe it is clear when it is wrong.

Here is a copy of the prediction made by Dr. Hansen that missed the mark big time, but only if we compare it to what actually happened.

The other attachment shows 73 other predictions based on AGW Science that all miseed the mark, also, but only if we compare them to actual real world temperatures.

The evidence is pretty clear and the consensus is in agreement. However, their agreement is with each other and not with the real world. I kind of prefer science that works in the real world.


View attachment 67151048View attachment 67151049

97% global warming consensus meets resistance from scientific denialism
The robust climate consensus faces resistance from conspiracy theories, cherry picking, and misrepresentations

97% global warming consensus meets resistance from scientific denialism | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | guardian.co.uk
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

Present the science and explain why you believe it is clear when it is wrong.

Here is a copy of the prediction made by Dr. Hansen that missed the mark big time, but only if we compare it to what actually happened.

The other attachment shows 73 other predictions based on AGW Science that all miseed the mark, also, but only if we compare them to actual real world temperatures.

The evidence is pretty clear and the consensus is in agreement. However, their agreement is with each other and not with the real world. I kind of prefer science that works in the real world.


View attachment 67151048View attachment 67151049

I've attempted to explain your fundamental misconceptions regarding climate models before.

Here's something that the so-called skeptics can't seem to grasp:

1) It is possible for a model to be accurate even when temperature trends end up not following the model projection.
2) It is possible for a model to be inaccurate even when temperature trends end up following the model projection perfectly.

But they don't want to discuss anything more than the bare surface. Temperature trends are running at the bottom end of the models, therefore AGW is all phony. As if that "real world" you claim to prefer is so simple.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

97% global warming consensus meets resistance from scientific denialism
The robust climate consensus faces resistance from conspiracy theories, cherry picking, and misrepresentations

97% global warming consensus meets resistance from scientific denialism | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | guardian.co.uk

What your authors omit is that more than 66% of the survey did not state on opinion which means they did not endorse the AGW Science. This gives us a bit of faith in the scientists of our age.

However, of the 33% that did state an opinion, 97% of that small slice do endorse AGW Science. By the standards of AGW Science data, this is an accurate statement. By any rational measure of honesty, it's an outright lie. But in this particular realm, it must be considered to be accurate.

That 97% is a Red Herring:

Scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change

From the 11,994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain.
 
Back
Top Bottom