Marty's right - "the Science of climate change is clear."

[Jeff C.]

The OVERWHELMING majority of the worlds climate scientists have concluded that man made climate change is a reality. Don't believe me? Find out for yourself by doing a search of the peer reviewed scientific journals at the following link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/

Then you can come back and report how many scientific articles you found that supported the view of manmade climate change and how many that disputed it.

Here's a link to summaries of a few peer reviewed scientific journal articles that were published in just the last few weeks supporting the reality of man-made climate change:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21960529

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21900078

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21829635

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21814274

So yes, Marty, we finally agree on something. The science of climate change is clear. The overwhelming majority of scientists in the world have agreed that man-made climate change is a reality.

Jeff C.

[Marty]

Welcome back Jeff, you still at Sacramento State?

I see you are still using adjectives to boaster your argument! Overwhelming majority, really? What is the percentage of that overwhelming majority? Why is it that every review you come up with is from the same Web Site? Could it be they are receiving Government funding? Could it be if there was NO Global Warming and emergence to solve they would be out of a job?

Yes we do agree Jeff on Climate Change – It changes four times a year, Summer, Fall, Winter, and Spring! As for Global Warming we again agree – half of the global warms up while the other half cools down every 24 hours!

Here are some links that don’t come from the same location!

Rigging a Climate 'Consensus'
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... lenews_wsj

Senior Liberals desert Turnbull
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-11-26/s ... ll/1158164

Climate ‘czar’ says hacked e-mails don’t change anything
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... -anything/

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... ation.html

More on ClimateGate
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... ate/30899/

You still going to vote for Obama?

[swank]

"we leave our grandchildren" blah blah blah

[Skeeterman]

Swanker you sound like your buddy greg same stupid comments.

[Ringer]

I will dig up the journal article on the number of world climate scientists that say manmade global warming is not a significant threat. It was over 600. If Gore was right in his big speech four years ago that California could be under water within FIVE years maybe someone can explain why the oceans have actually receded in the past year. Also our great leaders were very close to adding $3000 per year to all of our utility bills yet we export all of the coal we can dig to China. You think they are collecting coal or maybe they are going to burn it?

[Jeff C.]

I see you are still using adjectives to boaster your argument! Overwhelming majority, really? What is the percentage of that overwhelming majority?

That is a very good question. If one takes the number of peer reviewed scientific journal articles providing evidence for and against anthropogenic climate change the ratio is easily 100 to 1. Another approach is to examine the positions of the national and international scientific organizations, and if you do so you will find that their positions nearly unanimously state that the evidence supports the view that human activity is at least partly or largely responsible for global climate change. So when you consider that these organizations represent hundreds of thousands of Ph.D. level scientists worldwide and there are a relative few individual scientists (largely funded by the petroleum industry) that have disagreed with the conclusion of the reality of anthropogenic climate change then the ratio is probably thousands to one. Is that overwhelming enough for you?

Why is it that every review you come up with is from the same Web Site? Could it be they are receiving Government funding? Could it be if there was NO Global Warming and emergence to solve they would be out of a job?

That particular website is a publicly available journal article search engine that indexes the peer reviewed scientific literature. When a scientist (or student) wishes to investigate a scientific issue he/she must do a search of the relevant literature. There are several of these search engines available, but most are subscription based and therefore you have to access them from a university library. The advantage of Pubmed, which is the search engine that I recommended, is that anyone can access it through the internet. Pubmed indexes most of the peer reviewed scientific journals published in the world. Think of it as a Google that only uses peer reviewed scientific journal articles as it's source.

This is much different than doing a simple google search that will pull up largely uninformed blog posts written by individuals who have no scientific credentials or those who's opinions aren't shared by the members of the scientific community. To use a fishing metaphore, I've caught a few fish on jigs in my life but I am by no means an expert on fishing jigs. However, there is nothing preventing me from making my own internet blog where I claim to be an expert jig fisherman and give you all sort of advice on fishing jigs. In reality though, would you be better off following my advice on fishing jigs or Cooche's advice? That's the nice thing about getting your scientific information from the legitimate peer-reviewed journal articles, the process of peer review helps to ensure that the scientific findings and conclusions are valid.

You still going to vote for Obama?

Of course.

[Ringer]

Please show documentation that there are "hundreds of thousands of climate scientists". Also please show us photos of Laguna Beach covered in sea water. You are quick to believe that America can change the actions of the third world like China building one coal powered plant every week. We have come a long way in energy efficiency and clean fuel technology so why do you think we should tax our citizens $3000 per year when the rest of the industrial world refuses to comply? We are in a modern depression and need to put this aside for ten more years until we have recovered enough to play with your liberal ideals.

[Marty]

Jeff,

We are making some head way when you state “nearly unanimously” and not Overwhelming majority!

You use Ph.D as most would use the team Pro (using your fishing metaphor). You are also missing my point in using the same references of peer reviewed – meaning the same peers are doing the reviewing. Where did you get the 100 to 1? Did you actual count them or get them from a reference? Science is based on the notion that science by its very nature is skeptical. Genuine skepticism means you don't take someone's word for it but investigate for yourself (in my case read from different point of view).

You look at all the facts before coming to a conclusion. In the case of climate science, our understanding of climate comes from considering the full body of evidence and the science of climate is still too young to come to final conclusions.

Take the term of “The science is settled!” Is it really? Liberals love to use it when in fact it is not settled!

'Many people think the science of climate change is settled. It isn't. And the issue is not whether there has been an overall warming during the past century. There has, although it was not uniform and none was observed during the past decade. The geologic record provides us with abundant evidence for such perpetual natural climate variability, from icecaps reaching almost to the equator to none at all, even at the poles. The climate debate is, in reality, about a 1.6 watts per square metre or 0.5 per cent discrepancy in the poorly known planetary energy balance.' (Jan Veizer)

A heat wave-or even a hot year-does not indicate global warming. More important, such weather does not point to any warming created by mankind’s utilization of fossil fuels. This is what the Liberals really want is to stop using fossil fuels and use wind and the sun no matter what the cost – I not referring to money!

Take CO2, when I was going to school it was stated that carbon was life and we (us) were referred to as carbon units in ‘Stat Track’. Now carbon is evil and it only accounts for 3/10,000ths of the atmosphere. Now to get a idea of how much that is, put a dime on a football field not laying down but standing up. You will not be able to see it from the grand stands.

Your scientific journal articles state that CO2 is significantly higher today. But in data primarily gathered from ice cores, we see carbon dioxide levels were 500 times higher during the Cretaceous period, some 160 million years ago. Many theorize that the dinosaurs were able to grow to such sizes because of the indescribable abundance of carbon fed foliage and overall atmospheric conditions present during that era. Certainly the SUV could not be blamed for those high levels of CO2. Dinosaur flatulence, perhaps?

It does not help your argument when climate-change related emails that scientists had twisted research in order to strengthen the case for global warming. Or the fame Hockey Stick model is incorrect.

What need to happen is the data needs to be done by truly independent people doing analysis with all "sides" as watchdogs/guides all working together. But the solution needs to be balanced and not one glove fits all. The goal of Science is to explain what peer reviewed science has to say about global warming. But when you peruse the many arguments of global warming a pattern emerges. Liberal arguments tend to focus on narrow pieces of the puzzle while neglecting the broader picture.

[swank]

how old is the earth?

[Marty]

how old is the earth?

Scott if you want to talk religion come out and say it!

Scientifically
"The age of the Earth is 4.54 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%). This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material."

Creationism
"Young Earth creationism (YEC) is a form of creationism that believes the Heavens, Earth, and all life on Earth was created by direct acts of the Abrahamic God during a relatively short period, sometime between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago."

As for me!
The Bible does not reference any age, implicitly or explicitly. Some Christian have interpreted values such as five or six thousand years as the age of the Earth. They get this from "adding" up the years that some of the people that lived and by giving an estimate of how long people lived along the different lineages of the Holy Bible. Not all Christian follow that nor do they pay too much attention to the age of the Earth as it is insignificant to them.

I believe both – the Plane Earth (third rock from the sun) is 4.54 billion years old and about 6,000 years ago God put humans on earth about the time your ancestors forerunners were running around as monkeys – how do you think we got Liberals?

[swank]

just attempting to point out some viewpoints are skewed. even the Koch bros now have flipped after their own independent study. liberals came from universities and cities and type on macs and have more money are better looking and smell better

[Greg_Cornish]

Marty think intellectual is a swear word.

[Grumpy]

Interesting stats for hot and cold temperature records set for every state. I don't see any obvious trend up or down, does appear most of the heat records were set in early to mid 1900's.
Notice California's heat record was set in 1913 Death Valley 134 degrees

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state ... e_extremes

[swank]

Muller a former skeptic research points out that the land temp has increased 1.6 degrees since the 1950's i'll go with 97% of unbiased scientist. ask yourself using common sense-with all the crap we put in our air, overpopulation, deforestation, melting glaciers do you think mans influence could have an effect on climate change? and if you could feasibly do anything to help stop it would you?

[Rod Martin]

You guys are right. Man made. So effectve now no more than 1 baby per woman per lifetime. if you abort that counts as having your child.
Do that for 20 years then we will revisit the problem and see were we are at.

Libs should like this . allows abortion, addresses global warming and helps with worldwide hunger and so many other issuses.

[Grumpy]

World population is about 7 billion now. The earth is a big place, you can fit the entire worlds population inside the state of Texas with each person having around 1000 sq. ft. of space. Think about that, every person on the planet could fit in Texas leaving every continent on the planet uninhabited by humans.

[Ringer]

Problem is the same on both counts. I just saw last night that all of the developed countries have their birth rates at 2.0 children or lower. Africa, India and China are going crazy and are starving people. If the third world developing countries are not willing to curb population growth or carbon emissions then how the heck are we supposed to make them? If a global warming advocate can answer that question we will be talking. Don't say we can tax our citizens and give a few $trillion to the third world. Not acceptable and would go to dictators who hate us.

[Rod Martin]

I know lots of room. BUT less people less problems and less people to take MY money and give it too.
Plus less people less impact on the earth.

Again libs should like it

But less people means we that are here could still use nasty ol oil and coal till it was all used up and not hurt Mother Earth too much, then as it was used up the conversion to wind and sun power would be cost effective.

and you guys love abortion so instead of birth control just abort after 1 child.

Cut the crap, people cause all the problems, so lets cut the number of people.

[Grumpy]

Before modern medicine populations were somewhat controlled with outbreaks of diseases, wars and natural disasters. Modern medicines and vaccinations allow people to not only live but to live longer more reproducing lives. Ironic, the very technology and medicine extending and saving peoples lives may be the downfall of humanity thru over population.

[Skeeterman]

I truely believe they have the cure for cancer that they do not want us know.Money and population control?Thats what I beleive.

[Rod Martin]

I truely believe they have the cure for cancer that they do not want us know.Money and population control?Thats what I beleive.

I dont know if they had a cure . Steve Jobs would have gotten it

[Ringer]

There was an interesting article on the "scientists" who wrote the paper on global warming for the UN yesterday. The LEAD climnate scientist was 24 years old and had an undergraduate degree. He did not get his PHD for another 9 years and it was in GEOGRAPHY!! His co writers were young kids and some were undergraduates. This was an orchestrated joke from the start to gain control of massive amounts of the worlds money and redistribute it. Suckers and crooks.

[Marty]

Marty think intellectual is a swear word.

Greg, You must think your shlt don’t stink!

There was an interesting article on the "scientists" who wrote the paper on global warming for the UN yesterday. The LEAD climnate scientist was 24 years old and had an undergraduate degree. He did not get his PHD for another 9 years and it was in GEOGRAPHY!! His co writers were young kids and some were undergraduates. This was an orchestrated joke from the start to gain control of massive amounts of the worlds money and redistribute it. Suckers and crooks.