CLIMATE CHANGE 'FRAUD'[

[Danno 1,228]

Al Gore again gives Danno a Hard On.

HAL, I bet you are having a hard time even getting a hard-on with things turning out that way they are.

You promised me this CLimate-Gate was nothing... meaningless.

Danno is being proven right again.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Al Gore again gives Danno a Hard On.

BTW here's a better link...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle6943447.ece

So much for your sinking sh!t bait.

Dude you be a masterbaiter! To bad you aint got no aim!

[HAL 9000 96]

Al Gore again gives Danno a Hard On.

HAL, I bet you are having a hard time even getting a hard-on with things turning out that way they are.

You promised me this CLimate-Gate was nothing... meaningless.

Danno is being proven right again.

Where have I been proven wrong?

Danno, it might be past your bedtime.

You must have missed that Nature editorial huh?

(Try reading it and then we can talk about hard ons.)

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Marc, I'll buy you a 6 pack of your favorite beer, or Danno, I'll buy you one of those large containers of sweetened Koolaid if you can prove any of this to not be factual accurate.

Put up or shut up, you tools...

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, 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.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

....

Edited December 4, 2009 by Galt's gallstones

[HAL 9000 96]

I promise there won't be a quiz Danno.

(You are supposed to click on that previous line)

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

FvCKIN ..........................................YELLOW HAIRD BEAUTY! Keep tellin eachother FAIRYTALES!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Wipe your chaffed inner thighs with this!!! FOOLZ!!

[HAL 9000 96]

Raawwwrrrrr

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Raawwwrrrrr

[HAL 9000 96]

*Doors open to more idiotic, partisan commentary?*

Who knows?

Hitting the gym.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Hitting the gym.

Good choice.

[SuperDuper! 230]

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Hal, your like a young child falling from a tree. Grabbing limbs as you fall. Give it up! Your gonna hit the ground HARD! You can either admit or keep denin. I will just keep watchin. What you gonna do wit out your govament HELP?

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

He will never do it! Same old fvckin STORY!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Marc, I'll buy you a 6 pack of your favorite beer, or Danno, I'll buy you one of those large containers of sweetened Koolaid if you can prove any of this to not be factual accurate.

Put up or shut up, you tools...

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, 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.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

....

No answer from either tool? Figures.

Here's what you should be listenin to, TOOLZ!!!