Liar Loan said:
inv0ke-epipen said:
That is incorrect according to most climate scientists. Are you going off the popular John Christy chart for those facts? It misrepresents the data in a number of ways.
I'm not aware of John Christy's popular chart. It must not be very popular. My conclusions are based on looking at model projections individually and in aggregate, studying the data, and comparing them to the actual temperature records.
The source you linked to for that animated graphic is a blog with an agenda (Skeptical Science), not a dispassionate commentator. For instance, the blog's founder conducted the very unscientific "survey" that concluded 97% of scientists are in agreement about man made global warming, a false conclusion that many of the scientists he lumped in to the statistic vehemently disagreed with.
He created that made up statistic to empower Democrat politicians, and the sheep that follow them, to bludgeon those of us that are capable of using our heads to think about the science for ourselves. There's nothing scientific or consensus building about that. He is a partisan hack masquerading as an authority on this subject.
Here's a statement by one of the scientists that he mischaracterized:
Cook et al. (2013) is based on a straw man argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission,? Scafetta responded. ?What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.?
?What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. ? They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face. ? And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006,? Scafetta added.
Here's a quote from another:
Asked if Cook and colleagues accurately represented his paper, Shaviv responded, ?Nope... it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitivity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century [warming] should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1?C).?
?I couldn't write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don't have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper," Shaviv added.
Here's another:
?I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works,? Soon emphasized.
Not only that, but the author of Skeptical Science is
not a climate scientist.
You warned earlier on this thread against trusting those that don't work in the field of climate science to understand the complexities of it... Hmm... Yet here you are linking to a blog by just such an individual.
Perhaps you should reread the quotes I posted above from three actual climate scientists commenting about your non-climate scientist blogger.
I'll have to look into that blog more, just thought it was a good animation
. I'll agree to not use him\that site as a source.
How about the comments of actual researchers?
http://weatherwest.com/archives/6252
Or prestigious academies of sciences?
https://rsc-src.ca/sites/default/fi...ent on Climate Change - 12 March 2018 - 2.pdf
Or NASA?
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/They seem to be pretty good at what they do.
Or these prestigious scientific societies?
American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3
American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4
American Geophysical Union
"Human?induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5
American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6
American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7
American Physical Society
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth?s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8
The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse?gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9
