Earth Has Its Warmest May on Record Globally, Spring Could Be Warmest Seems like a mix of natural phenomenon like El Nino, combined with man made effects that are sending us into these problems. Shit's getting hot, glad I'm in Oregon and not in Texas or some other arid, hot and water restricted land.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/02/16/third-coldest-winter-on-record-so-far-in-the-us/ http://www.weather.com/news/winter-ncdc-state-climate-report-2013-2014-20140313 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/02/chicago-coldest-winter-ever_n_5078201.html http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/record-breaking-cold-winter-we/24831365
Yes, the swing between the one of the coldest winters and the hottest may on record do show the changing climate and greater fluctuations than we have recorded in the past. Denny, you grabbed onto the "climate change isn't real, or at least, climate change isn't driven by humans a long time ago. But since then, more and more evidence points that way. Over 97% of climatologists, people who study this for a living believe that humans are affecting climate change. So how much info do you need, how many new examples, new articles, new findings do you require before you reexamine your stance and admit you were most likely wrong? I understand you made up your mind when the evidence was less obvious, but at some point a smart person rethinks their views. You have always been a very smart person, so it confuses me that you don't alter your stance.
The IPCC scaremonger reports say global seas will rise. Yet... http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/1352.php Sea levels falling for the past ~30 years. So the evidence does not at all support the claims of the hoax.
I don't subscribe to WSJ so I can't read that article. But regardless of if that number is not exact, it's still very high.
I was going to post that, too. Somehow, 34% = 97%. It's troubling when posters who claim to be well-versed in science don't have the intellectual curiosity to question scientific propaganda.
The article says the 97% figure comes from a survey of less than 200 scientists. The 97% figure came from surveying the papers written by thousands. Many many many were eliminated because they didn't fit the desired outcome.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136 Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "Ninety-seven percent of the world's scientists," he added, "tell us this is urgent." Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities." Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nature12786.html The objective of science is to advance knowledge, primarily in two interlinked ways: circulating ideas, and defending or criticizing the ideas of others. Peer review acts as the gatekeeper to these mechanisms. Given the increasing concern surrounding the reproducibility of much published research1, it is critical to understand whether peer review is intrinsically susceptible to failure, or whether other extrinsic factors are responsible that distort scientists’ decisions. Here we show that even when scientists are motivated to promote the truth, their behaviour may be influenced, and even dominated, by information gleaned from their peers’ behaviour, rather than by their personal dispositions. This phenomenon, known as herding, subjects the scientific community to an inherent risk of converging on an incorrect answer and raises the possibility that, under certain conditions, science may not be self-correcting. We further demonstrate that exercising some subjectivity in reviewer decisions, which serves to curb the herding process, can be beneficial for the scientific community in processing available information to estimate truth more accurately. By examining the impact of different models of reviewer decisions on the dynamic process of publication, and thereby on eventual aggregation of knowledge, we provide a new perspective on the ongoing discussion of how the peer-review process may be improved.
Basically, 97% of scientists who believe in AGW believe in AGW. 100% sounds foolish to all but the most gullible LIVs; hence the 97% number to shout down "deniers" who are part of the 66% who either have no opinion, or don't believe in AGW.
I do not work with climatologists, but I do work with scientists and have had many conversations with them about our environment and climate change. From my personal interactions, which I understand are highly biased, I have never talked with a single scientist that does not believe humans are affecting the climate.
Ask them where the glaciers went that once covered the great lakes. Global warming! I agree there's global warming.
It's nothing new, btw. http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/1298497 Read the 1871 article entitled, "Imaginary Changes of Climate."
Not at all, I am working with scientists who study cancer, ALS, and other diseases, I don't think their careers would be affected. And even if they would, have you ever had conversations with people who hide their real beliefs, they tend to obfuscate, change the topic or use some other tactic other than vociferously defending the point of view they disagree with, and this is how almost every scientist I have conversed with on the subject acts.
OK Denny, then let me ask you this: What type of information would need to be gleaned for you to alter your stance? I'm asking seriously, I don't see how it's not becoming obvious, but if it's not, I want to know if there is a tipping point at which you would start believing man is influencing climate.
