Unusually Cold Weather In Chicago = Global Warming

[red states rule]

The liberal media continues to push the myth of global warming no matter what the weather conditions may be


Report on global warming predicts dire Illinois consequences
Union of Concerned Scientists forecasts 1995-like heat every summer by mid-century


WASHINGTON -- If global warming continues unchecked, Chicago would see a repeat of the killer 1995 heat wave every summer by the middle of the century, an environmental group says in a study released Wednesday.

The report from the Union of Concerned Scientists also predicts that the city's air quality would deteriorate if humans do not scale back greenhouse gas emissions dramatically.

Illinois farmers would suffer from droughts, pests and flooding that would more than outweigh any potential benefits from a longer growing season caused by warmer temperatures. Heat stress in cattle could force the state's dairy industry to migrate north.

"Global warming represents an enormous challenge to Illinois' way of life and its residents' livelihoods," the authors write in conclusion.

More than 50 days a year would top 90 degrees in Chicago by mid-century, the report warns, up from a historical average of 15 per year. The city would average a heat wave per year on par with the city's 1995 scorcher, which authorities blamed for hundreds of deaths. Once every five years, the city would endure a heat wave similar to Europe's in 2003, which the authors project would kill more than 1,000 residents.

By century's end, the report projects, every Chicago summer would be hotter than 1983, the hottest summer on record for the city. Illinois' climate would resemble East Texas today, the report says.

The projections stem from an analysis of climate-modeling projections by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in a 2007 report.

The report includes two scenarios: one with heat-trapping gas emissions continuing to increase along current trend lines and one where countries take major steps to limit emissions.

Emissions limits would stave off many of the worst effects of warming in the middle and long term, the report concludes. But they would barely affect warming in the next three decades -- including a more than 50 percent increase in summer days topping 90 degrees -- because that warming has been essentially "locked in" by previous emissions.

"What we really have control over," said Melanie Fitzpatrick, a climate scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists, "is our temperatures in the middle and end of the century."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-illinois-global-warming-10-sep10,0,4857972.story



Now, the actual weather in Chicago


So far, June's chill is one for the records
By Steve Kahnon June 12, 2009 10:53 PM

The cloudy, chilly and rainy open to June here has been the talk of the town. So far this June is running more than 12 degrees cooler than last year, and the clouds, rain and chilly lake winds have been persistent. The average temperature at O'Hare International Airport through Friday has been only 59.5 degrees: nearly 7 degrees below normal and the coldest since records there began 50 years ago.

More bad weather is on the way Saturday with a cold rain expected to linger through the bulk of the morning. Rainfall could be heavy -- especially north of the city, which would be a reversal of Thursday's deluge that targeted the southern suburbs.

http://weblogs.wgntv.com/chicago-weather/tom-skilling-blog/2009/06/chilly-junes-2009-open-one-for-2.html

[crin63]

I thought the new term was, "Climate Change" since, "Global Warming" was shown to be another Liberal hoax.

[red states rule]

I thought the new term was, "Climate Change" since, "Global Warming" was shown to be another Liberal hoax.

When I was in high school, my liberal Social Studies teacher held up a copy of the famous Newsweek cover warning America about the coming Ice Age

When that did not happen - the kooks changed it to Global Warming

Now it is climate change so no matter what the weather is - they can scream global warming

I do love it when climate change hearing in DC are cancelled due to snow and ice - or watching the global warming nuts protesting in a snow storm

It is classic comedy from the kook left

[maineman]

those who do not understand the difference between weather and climate should probably limit their discussions to the former.:lol:

[red states rule]

those who do not understand the difference between weather and climate should probably limit their discussions to the former.:lol:

and then those are liberal hacks who can see the sheer stupidity of their fellow sheep


Out With A Shiver: Global Warming Protest Frozen Out by Massive Snowfall

It was snowing irony in Washington on Monday when global warming activists descended on the District like a storm -- but got beaten to the punch by a blast of wintry weather that incapacitated the city.
By Joseph Abrams


Global warming activists stormed Washington Monday for what was billed as the nation's largest act of civil disobedience to fight climate change -- only to see the nation's capital virtually shut down by a major winter storm.

Schools and businesses were shuttered, lawmakers cancelled numerous appearances and the city came to a virtual standstill as Washington was blasted with its heaviest snowfall of the winter.

It spelled about six inches of trouble for global warming activists who had hoped to swarm the Capitol by the thousands in an effort to force the government to close the Capitol Power Plant, which heats and cools a number of government buildings, including the Supreme Court and the Capitol.

The snowy scene, with temperatures in the mid-20s, was reminiscent of a day in January 2004, when Al Gore made a major address on global warming in New York -- on one of the coldest days in the city's history.

Protest organizers said about 2,500 people braved the blizzard to oppose greenhouse gas emissions, but the shroud of snow wasn't the only wet blanket in the nation's capital Monday.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who called on the architect of the Capitol to stop burning coal at the power plant last week, cancelled her appearance at the rally because her flight to Washington was cancelled.

Michelle Obama canned a public "Read Across America" event and HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan canceled a meeting with the Democratic Caucus because the members of Congress couldn't get to D.C. An honor cordon at the Pentagon for Afghanistan's defense minister also had to be called off.

Some protesters couldn't make it as dozens of flights in the area were delayed or called off, and some couldn't face the dangerous roads or blustery weather, leaving hundreds safe, if sorry, back at home.

One protester named Kat had planned to get arrested and be bailed out Monday but decided to stay put and donate her money to a good cause instead.

"I don't want to travel in the snow today. However, I am donating my bail money to fight mountaintop removal," she wrote to the Climate Action Web site.

Even marchers in gloves and parkas were wringing their hands to stay warm, and some protest leaders were having trouble providing updates on blog sites like Twitter.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/02/shiver-global-warming-protest-frozen-massive-snowfall/

[red states rule]

This is a classic

<embed src="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f8/1155201977" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashVars="videoId=14547377001&playerId=1155201977&viewerSecureGatewayURL=https://console.brightcove.com/services/amfgateway&servicesURL=http://services.brightcove.com/services&cdnURL=http://admin.brightcove.com&domain=embed&autoStart=false&" base="http://admin.brightcove.com" name="flashObj" width="486" height="412" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" swLiveConnect="true" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed>

[maineman]

my point proven.

thanks

[red states rule]

my point proven.

thanks

Yep, the point was made MM. The solar panels on Greenpeaces' van were SNOWED OVER :laugh2:

Nothing better then seeing global warming kooks protesting in the snow and dressed like Nannook of the North

[crin63]

Climate
* Main Entry: cli·mate
* Pronunciation: \ˈklī-mət\
* Function: noun
* Etymology: Middle English climat, from Middle French, from Late Latin climat-, clima, from Greek klimat-, klima inclination, latitude, climate, from klinein to lean — more at lean
* Date: 14th century

1 : a region of the earth having specified climatic conditions
2 a : the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation b : the prevailing set of conditions (as of temperature and humidity) indoors <a climate-controlled office>
3 : the prevailing influence or environmental conditions characterizing a group or period : atmosphere <a climate of fear>

MM must be talking about a climate of fear when he speaks of climate change, i.e. there is a climate of fear among rational thinking Americans due to Socialist Liberals destroying our once great country.

[red states rule]

Climate
* Main Entry: cli·mate
* Pronunciation: \ˈklī-mət\
* Function: noun
* Etymology: Middle English climat, from Middle French, from Late Latin climat-, clima, from Greek klimat-, klima inclination, latitude, climate, from klinein to lean — more at lean
* Date: 14th century

1 : a region of the earth having specified climatic conditions
2 a : the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation b : the prevailing set of conditions (as of temperature and humidity) indoors <a climate-controlled office>
3 : the prevailing influence or environmental conditions characterizing a group or period : atmosphere <a climate of fear>

MM must be talking about a climate of fear when he speaks of climate change, i.e. there is a climate of fear among rational thinking Americans due to Socialist Liberals destroying our once great country.

The only global warming taking place is when MM opens his blowhole

Here is another gem from the files of global warming kooks being snowed out


GORE HEARING ON WARMING MAY BE PUT ON ICE
Mon Jan 26 2009 17:59:26 ET

Al Gore is scheduled before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday morning to once again testify on the 'urgent need' to combat global warming.

But Mother Nature seems ready to freeze the proceedings.

A 'Winter Storm Watch' has been posted for the nation's capitol and there is a potential for significant snow... sleet... or ice accumulations.

"I can't imagine the Democrats would want to showcase Mr. Gore and his new findings on global warming as a winter storm rages outside," a Republican lawmaker emailed the DRUDGE REPORT. "And if the ice really piles up, it will not be safe to travel."

A spokesman for Sen. John Kerry, who chairs the committee, was not immediately available to comment on contingency plans.

Global warming advocates have suggested this year's wild winter spells are proof of climate change.

http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2009/01/26/20090126_230340_flashghi.htm

[maineman]

"the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation."
again...thanks you two, for proving my point.:clap:

[crin63]

those who do not understand the difference between weather and climate should probably limit their discussions to the former.:lol:


"the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation."
again...thanks you two, for proving my point.:clap:

You're the one who said there is a difference between weather and climate. Regardless of how many years are involved the climate is the weather.

[maineman]

You're the one who said there is a difference between weather and climate. Regardless of how many years are involved the climate is the weather.

there IS a difference between climate and weather.... and pointing to the weather as proof that the climate is not changing is, and will always be, fucking ridiculous.

but I don't expect double digit IQ morons like you to fathom that distinction, so let's just agree to disagree, shall we? How about NASCAR wanna talk about that instead?

[red states rule]

there IS a difference between climate and weather.... and pointing to the weather as proof that the climate is not changing is, and will always be, fucking ridiculous.

but I don't expect double digit IQ morons like you to fathom that distinction, so let's just agree to disagree, shall we? How about NASCAR wanna talk about that instead?

As usual, and as others have said you are the measure of sanity and maturity :rolleyes:

[maineman]

As usual, and as others have said you are the measure of sanity and maturity :rolleyes:

as usual, you avoid admitting you don't know the difference between climate and weather.

[red states rule]

as usual, you avoid admitting you don't know the difference between climate and weather.

I know when I see global warming kooks getting snowed out at their global warming protests - it shows what idiots they are

[Jeff]

I know when I see global warming kooks getting snowed out at their global warming protests - it shows what idiots they are

LMAO, how true

Gore has been invited to many events, for example the ice sculptures in a town in Alaska last year, where they had the coldest winter in history, he didn't go, imagine that. :laugh2:

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. The climate isn't changing, its the seasons that change, so the weather keeps changing here in Texas, always has.
2. There is no noticable change in the weather here, and or climate, and as far as across the fruited plains of USA, no change.
3. Al Gore has to be the stupidist politician ever to walk upright.
4. Anyone who believes there is some noticable change in our climate is a total moron.
5. This winter it will be the coldest winter on record.
6. And we will have nutjob global warming preachers of change, telling us how its global warming doing this.
7. Winters should be pleasent, not colder.
8. Some people actually believe this crap.
9. I am not calling anyone here directly they are an idiot, just saying.



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[red states rule]

LMAO, how true

Gore has been invited to many events, for example the ice sculptures in a town in Alaska last year, where they had the coldest winter in history, he didn't go, imagine that. :laugh2:

snip

Springtime weather is getting harder to distinguish from winter weather. It snowed in Britain in June. Kids built snowmen. Temperatures here in the northern tier of states have cooled substantially.

As Robert Felix just reported in his authoritative iceagenow.com, on various days is June of 2009 there were record low temperatures in 18 states; record low temperatures in 15 states; record low temperatures in 24 states; record low temperatures in 11 states; record low max temperatures in 20 states; record low temperatures in seven states; and record low temperatures in 10 states.

Despite all this, with a straight face, the Obama administration prattles on about a disastrous global warming that just plain isn't happening.

The timing of this Piltdown-man-style report is more than suspicious, coming at a time when the planet is cooling. It seems that what they are asking us is just who are we to believe, their bought-and-paid scientific hucksters or our lying eyes, focused on piles of snow in Britain in the month of June?

http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/climate_change/2009/06/16/225766.html

[maineman]

I know when I see global warming kooks getting snowed out at their global warming protests - it shows what idiots they are

no. it only shows that you still do not comprehend the difference between climate and weather.

but double digit IQ morons like you who have a tough time figuring out how much to tip, really don't stand much of a chance in a discussion such as this and really should recuse themselves.... but here, on a site inhabited primarily by troglodytes such as yourself, your secret is safe!:laugh2:

[red states rule]

no. it only shows that you still do not comprehend the difference between climate and weather.

but double digit IQ morons like you who have a tough time figuring out how much to tip, really don't stand much of a chance in a discussion such as this and really should recuse themselves.... but here, on a site inhabited primarily by troglodytes such as yourself, your secret is safe!:laugh2:

Once again, the blue nosed arrogrant liberal falls back on insutls in a lame attempt to refute FACTS posted that show global warming is a myth

As one other guy said about you - and how true it is - You have no moral high ground to claim. You both are well beyond any measure of maturity. You have built this house on sand

[Jeff]

no. it only shows that you still do not comprehend the difference between climate and weather.

but double digit IQ morons like you who have a tough time figuring out how much to tip, really don't stand much of a chance in a discussion such as this and really should recuse themselves.... but here, on a site inhabited primarily by troglodytes such as yourself, your secret is safe!:laugh2:

LOL, why come here if every one is beneath you? Same trash you were spewing on your vaca

[red states rule]

LOL, why come here if every one is beneath you? Same trash you were spewing on your vaca

That is all the preacher from Maine can come up with. When liberal have nothing to counter facts - they attack

[maineman]

LOL, why come here if every one is beneath you? Same trash you were spewing on your vaca

slumming is fun. the fact remains, you and your dear friend RSR confuse climate and weather and I find that quite funny.

For example...if the Yankees lose to Baltimore tonight by a huge score, does that mean that they are no longer WAY ahead in the American League East?

or is that analogy too tough for ya?

[Jeff]

slumming is fun. the fact remains, you and your dear friend RSR confuse climate and weather and I find that quite funny.

I know you enjoy slumming, I seen a pic of your house, LOL

[maineman]

I know you enjoy slumming, I seen a pic of your house, LOL
(I bet you did, Jethro, you illiterate idiot)

but not a current one. LOL

[red states rule]

not a current one. LOL

I can give him one. It looks just like the local animal shelter

[maineman]

I can give him one. It looks just like the local animal shelter

you would be wrong.

[red states rule]

you would be wrong.

Hardly. I have seen it and the tiny amount you pay in property taxes is about right for a run down flea trap like that

The local government should call in an air strike and tunr the lot into a parking lot

It would look better and increase the property values in the neighborhood

[Jeff]

I am not going to get into a pissing match with you mm, we did that the other night and no one enjoyed it, all I asked was why come here if all are beneath you, you answered and I hope the Mods take that into consideration when they boot you for good

Seems , from your answer any way, is you only come here to stir the pot, hmmm, wonder if the Mods see that?

[maineman]

Hardly. I have seen it and the tiny amount you pay in property taxes is about right for a run down flea trap like that

The local government should call in an air strike and tunr the lot into a parking lot

It would look better and increase the property values in the neighborhood

you are wrong.... but I really could give a fuck if you know it or acknowledge it.... what is important in this thread is your demonstrated inability to understand the difference between climate and weather... as the very subject of the thread itself proves.:dance:

[red states rule]

I am not going to get into a pissing match with you mm, we did that the other night and no one enjoyed it, all I asked was why come here if all are beneath you, you answered and I hope the Mods take that into consideration when they boot you for good

Seems , from your answer any way, is you only come here to stir the pot, hmmm, wonder if the Mods see that?

VAlid point Jef. MM is not worth the waste of space on the baord. I damn near pity the idiot. For a man who pretends to spread the word of God - we all know what he really spreads

[maineman]

I am not going to get into a pissing match with you mm, we did that the other night and no one enjoyed it, all I asked was why come here if all are beneath you, you answered and I hope the Mods take that into consideration when they boot you for good

Seems , from your answer any way, is you only come here to stir the pot, hmmm, wonder if the Mods see that?

I came to this thread to point out that you do not understand the difference between climate and weather. that has been proven. my work here is done.

[Jeff]

I came to this thread to point out that you do not understand the difference between climate and weather. that has been proven. my work here is done.

You might look back mm, you didn't debate me at all , you were telling others how wrong they were way before I even got here, wow guess ya get so involved trying to stir the pot ya forget who you are even talking to

[red states rule]

You might look back mm, you didn't debate me at all , you were telling others how wrong they were way before I even got here, wow guess ya get so involved trying to stir the pot ya forget who you are even talking to

If MM was in Chicago he could open the window and check out the effects of global warming - but he might want to put on a jacket so he does not catch a cold

[maineman]

If MM was in Chicago he could open the window and check out the effects of global warming - but he might want to put on a jacket so he does not catch a cold If RSR had watched the Yankees get beat and beat badly last night by the Baltimore Orioles, he would suggest that that was proof that the idea that the Yankees were the best team in the American League was all a left wing myth.:lol:
weather versus climate.

[red states rule]

you are wrong.... but I really could give a fuck if you know it or acknowledge it.... what is important in this thread is your demonstrated inability to understand the difference between climate and weather... as the very subject of the thread itself proves.:dance:

Totally devoid of reality as usual - looks like the preacher form Maine is gearing up for another sermon from the Book of Hate

You are indeed DP"s version of Rev Wright

[maineman]

it's called an ANALOGY

It suggests that you making a determination about the Yankee's baseball season based upon one game is analogous to making a determination about climate change based upon one year's worth of weather.

it's a fact. you continue to bullheadedly confuse weather with climate....

like confusing one baseball game with a season of baseball games.:dance:

[red states rule]

it's called an ANALOGY

It suggests that you making a determination about the Yankee's baseball season based upon one game is analogous to making a determination about climate change based upon one year's worth of weather.

it's a fact. you continue to bullheadedly confuse weather with climate....

like confusing one baseball game with a season of baseball games.:dance:

No, it is called Virgil's Bullshit

and another example of you ignoring facts, logic, and reason and sprewing the usual liberal talking points about another "crisis"

[maineman]

No, it is called Virgil's Bullshit

and another example of you ignoring facts, logic, and reason and sprewing the usual liberal talking points about another "crisis"

no. it was an analogy and it remains correct. you refuse to differentiate between weather and climate. The very essence of the opening post of this thread clearly proves that.

[red states rule]

no. it was an analogy and it remains correct. you refuse to differentiate between weather and climate. The very essence of the opening post of this thread clearly proves that.

Don't you have to go worship Obama somewhere Virg? Your constant crap is not only repetitive but very boring

Or is there a chill in the air up in Maine and you are worried you may catch a cold if you go outside into the global warming? :laugh2:

[maineman]

Don't you have to go worship Obama somewhere Virg? Your constant crap is not only repetitive but very boring

Or is there a chill in the air up in Maine and you are worried you may catch a cold if you go outside into the global warming? :laugh2:

all you have is insults, RSR. The fact remains: you don't understand the difference between climate and weather... and you prove that with every post.

There is really no sense continuing this particular discussion. As in every other instance where you are proven wrong, you steadfastly refuse to admit it. That hasn't changed once in all the years I have known you.

[red states rule]

all you have is insults, RSR. The fact remains: you don't understand the difference between climate and weather... and you prove that with every post.

There is really no sense continuing this particular discussion. As in every other instance where you are proven wrong, you steadfastly refuse to admit it. That hasn't changed once in all the years I have known you.

Right MM, you are right and yet 31,000 (9,000 PHD's) of the brightest scientists are wrong



31,000 Signatures Prove ‘No Consensus’ About Global Warming

May 22, 2008


“Half the world will be hungry.”

Presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Monday that “we have to get used to the idea that we can’t keep our houses at 72, drive our SUVs and eat all we want.” Arthur B. Robinson, president and professor of chemistry at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, has a different response.

“I don’t want to give up eating all I want because of a failed hypothesis,” said Robinson at the National Press Club here on May 19. Robinson said global warming is not a threat to America. He said that the global temperature increased by just .5 degrees in the last century.

Robinson spoke about his petition signed by 31,000 U.S. scientists who reject the claims that “human release of greenhouse gases is damaging our climate.”

“World temperatures fluctuate all the time,” said Robinson. “The temperature of the Earth has risen many times, far more times than carbon dioxide could drive it. There is no experimental evidence that humans are changing the environment…”

Robinson said that in recent years the U.N. and a group of 600 scientists, representing less than one percent of the scientific population, reached a “consensus” that global warming is happening. This has never been done before, Robinson insists.

Dennis Avery, Director for the Center of Global Food Issues at the Hudson Institute, agrees with Robinson. “Nobody can do science by a committee. You do science by testing,” said Avery. “To me it is appalling that an international organization of the stature of the U.N. would ignore the evidence of past climate changing.”

The signers of Robinson’s petition, including 9,000 Ph.Ds, all have one thing in common. They believe that human rights are being taken away.

When the U.N. and others want to limit hydrocarbons, which account for 85% of the current United States energy supplies, the consequences are disastrous, Robinson said.

“America is buying 30 percent of its energy abroad... Now we’re getting to the point where we can’t afford energy abroad,” said Robinson. “The problem was created by state and federal taxation against…now they want to [make]…further regulations that will stop these hydrocarbons.”

Robinson said that the results of high taxation and regulation of energy is evident in America right now with gas prices hitting over four dollars per gallon. When you take away energy, you lose critical technology, he said.

http://www.aim.org/briefing/31000-signatures-prove-no-consensus-about-global-warming/

[maineman]

are you really suggesting that the majority of the scientific community does NOT believe in global warming?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

but nonetheless.... your link does not change the fact that YOU - RSR - do NOT understand the difference between climate and weather.

[Kathianne]

Most of the 'petitions' regarding the dire consequences of 'global warming' or whatever they are pushing today are liberal arts doctorates.

Those with meteorologists tend to call the 'science aspects of the models-squishy':

http://www.m4gw.com:2005/m4gw/2008/05/wcco_meteorologist_urges_cauti.html

http://www.startribune.com/nation/19095579.html

[maineman]

Most of the 'petitions' regarding the dire consequences of 'global warming' or whatever they are pushing today are liberal arts doctorates.

Those with meteorologists tend to call the 'science aspects of the models-squishy':

http://www.m4gw.com:2005/m4gw/2008/05/wcco_meteorologist_urges_cauti.html

http://www.startribune.com/nation/19095579.html

a TV weather guy. very impressive. the fact remains... overwhelmingly, the international scientific community tends to disagree with the TV weather guy on this one.

[Kathianne]

a TV weather guy. very impressive. the fact remains... overwhelmingly, the international scientific community tends to disagree with the TV weather guy on this one.

Not true from anything I've read, but feel free to post your links with cv's of signers.

[maineman]

Not true from anything I've read, but feel free to post your links with cv's of signers.

start by reading the wikipedia article I posted on the subject.

I'll wait.

[maineman]

from the article:

Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009
A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement. A summary from the survey states that:

"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."[84]

[edit] STATS, 2007
In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years; 84% 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; and 84% believe global climate change poses a moderate to very great danger.[85][86]


[edit] Oreskes, 2004
A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[87] The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

[Kathianne]

start by reading the wikipedia article I posted on the subject.

I'll wait.

uh huh, from YOUR site:


...National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 that states:
An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]
Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions...

enough to drive a bus through. On the other hand, the generalities once again do not show the cv's of those pushing, from all I've seen are for the most part liberal science folks.

[maineman]

drive your bus through this hole:

"a poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature."

I have NEVER said that there was UNANIMITY of scientific opinion.... just that there was a sizable majority of the scientific community which stood behind global warming, and man's impact upon it... enough to be taken seriously and not scoffed at while you hang YOUR hat on the minority of the scientific community and act as if THEY alone have the right answer.

[Missileman]

drive your bus through this hole:

"a poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature."

I have NEVER said that there was UNANIMITY of scientific opinion.... just that there was a sizable majority of the scientific community which stood behind global warming, and man's impact upon it... enough to be taken seriously and not scoffed at while you hang YOUR hat on the minority of the scientific community and act as if THEY alone have the right answer.

I'll wager a significant percentage of the folks you're talking about also "believe" there's an old man sitting on a throne in the sky. If there were any real evidence that man is warming the planet, there would be unanimity in the scientific community.

[red states rule]

I'll wager a significant percentage of the folks you're talking about also "believe" there's an old man sitting on a throne in the sky. If there were any real evidence that man is warming the planet, there would be unanimity in the scientific community.

Now MM and his fellow libs will tell you Obama is not that old

Oh, you are talking about the REAL God

Sorry