97% of scientists believe climate change is caused by humans, study finds

[Thepersona]

This sentence is literally nothing more than naked and misinformed fearmongering. It's baseless and false propaganda. In short, a lie. Your kids won't have less to eat. The infrastructure investment we need to make is needed regardless, to replace crumbling infrastructure that'll fall apart. It isn't a question of "spend a lot more money", it's "spend the same money in a smarter way".

endus, question, you have the data points (for an excel export) in order to do the linear regression?
or where i could get them

[Endus]

endus, question, you have the data points (for an excel export) in order to do the linear regression?
or where i could get them

Data points regarding what, exactly? The person I was responding to in that section wasn't referring to data.

If you mean temperature data, there's a host of different sources to pull from, and a comprehensive study is going to want to pull from as many of those as possible, so there's no one list.

If you mean infrastructure decay, again, no one single source, but I can point you at articles like http://www.britannica.com/topic/Crum...re-The-1961495

Also, a good source I pulled some inspiration from recently is this work produced by Harvard; https://freeassociationdesign.files....-program-s.pdf

[Thepersona]

Data points regarding what, exactly? The person I was responding to in that section wasn't referring to data.

yeah, sorry i misquoted.
data corresponding to median global temperatures by month since the 60s

[Ahhdurr]

yeah, sorry i misquoted.
data corresponding to median global temperatures by month since the 60s

First google result might be what you're looking for.
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Edit: Meh the raw numbers are by year.
http://climate.nasa.gov/system/inter..._Data_File.txt

[Endus]

yeah, sorry i misquoted.
data corresponding to median global temperatures by month since the 60s

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

That's one source, anyway. Has links partway down the page to TXT or CSV download; you probably want the "Global-mean monthly, seasonal, and annual means", which'll cover you from 1880-present. The other links there break it down into northern/southern hemispheres, or zones, which is more detail than I think you wanted.

Some of the data sources used by the IPCC are proprietary and not available for free, but there are plenty (like NOAA's) that are.

[Ahhdurr]

My mistake, you are correct. But, you could save a little bit of time and just say Fox News viewer.

Sorry, I that was an assumed fact when dealing dealing with certain posters.

[Gurluas]

Climate Change has always existed, the Earth has gone through warm and cold periods. What humans are doing is affecting this natural phenomenon and accelerating it.

[Aehl]

This sentence is literally nothing more than naked and misinformed fearmongering

..this coming from a warmist and climate alarmist.

What happened to those projected 7 metre ocean rises..what did the IPCC say later...70 centimetres?

I find yself wondering what will happen to these rock solid "there is no way we can be wrong" assumptions based on models that cant be tested for 100 years when in a few years new data will come along and lo and behold..there is no global warming.

Science, real science NEVER says this is indisputable fact and there is no way we can be wrong" You use what data you have to prove or disprove a hypothesis.

There is no way in Hell you can prove these models are even halfway accurate without having a time machine to go forward 150 years and then come back and say "yup we were right"

Far as I am concerned jury is still out..and btw having doubts doesnt make me a "denier" it means I am keeping an open mind and am prepared, unlike some of you, to entertain the premise that hey "they could be wrong"

Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions…. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.

It was hardly the first time UN bureaucrats had made such dire predictions, only to be proven wrong. On June 30, 1989, the Associated Press ran an article headlined: “UN Official Predicts Disaster, Says Greenhouse Effect Could Wipe Some Nations Off Map.” In the piece, the director of the UNEP’s New York office was quoted as claiming that “entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.” He also predicted “coastal flooding and crop failures” that “would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos.”

Oh this is a classic

Is our climate changing? The succession of temperate summers and open winters through several years, culminating last winter in the almost total failure of the ice crop throughout the valley of the Hudson, makes the question pertinent. The older inhabitants tell us that the Winters are not as cold now as when they were young, and we have all observed a marked diminution of the average cold even in this last decade. - New York Times June 23, 1890

The question is again being discussed whether recent and long-continued observations do not point to the advent of a second glacial period, when the countries now basking in the fostering warmth of a tropical sun will ultimately give way to the perennial frost and snow of the polar regions - New York Times - February 24, 1895,

and this one

"According to these models, ". “And it’s probably going to happen even faster than that,” Professor Louis Fortier - Université Laval, Director ArcticNet - November 16, 2007there will be no sea ice left in the summer in the Arctic Ocean somewhere between 2010 and 2015

“It could even be this year or next year but not later than 2015 there won’t be any ice in the Arctic in the summer,” he said, pulling out a battered laptop to show a diagram explaining his calculations, which he calls “the Arctic death spiral”. - David Vaughan Glaciologist & IPCC scientist - Financial Times Magazine Aug 8, 2012

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot.... Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone... Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. - Washington Post 11/2/1922

Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada, Professor Gregory of Yale University stated that “another world ice-epoch is due.” He was the American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress and warned that North America would disappear as far south as the Great Lakes, and huge parts of Asia and Europe would be “wiped out.” – Chicago Tribune August 9, 1923

The “Settled” Science:

Global Warming means a permanent drought in Australia as per Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery: “so even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems …”

The Reality:

Severe flooding in Australia

The “Settled” Science:

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past as per Dr David Viner “children just aren’t going to know what snow is…”

The Reality:

Record snow

The “Settled” Science:

The Himalayan glaciers are receding quicker than those in other parts of the world and could disappear altogether by 2035 according to the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.

The Reality:

The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years.

So,

Given the plethora of BULLSHIT claims and repeated doomsaying, catastrophes, dogs and cats living together, NONE of which have come to pass and that includes Flannerys repeated failures and dud predictions ...give me one good reason why I should listen to any of these garbage mongers?

[Ahhdurr]

Good job posting shit from almost 100 years ago and pretending like you're making a point ?

Oh and newspaper articles at that. Obviously a hand full of newspaper acticles a century old are comparable to thousands of modern data sets across over a dozen fields conducted by thousands of scientists across the world.

As for your last few points which may actually have some validity, I'm sure someone will respond to them before I can.

[Garnier Fructis]

He's posting news reports from the infant period of the science and thinks that it means anything. A time period when we understood almost jack shit about humanity's influence on the climate and the climate system in general.

I've seen some shit on this forum but that takes the cake.

[Spectral]

It has absolutely nothing to do with being socially acceptable. Scientists don't align themselves with left-aligned politics to fit in...

Many scientists are pretty anti-social, but not so anti-social that they ignore social norms. Don't be silly.

...but rather its that being a scientist generally requires a left-type mind set. Science requires open-mindedness, an openness to change, and a complete rejection of ignorance even if you don't like the result, all of which is the anti-thesis of being conservative. Conservatives are vastly more resistant to change, much more closed-minded and like things just the way they are/were (look at how they want to roll back the social aspects of the country to the 1950's), and literally revel in ignorance (creationism, global warming denial, belief in trickle down economics, etc, etc). To be a scientist and a conservative at the same time requires mental gymnastics that most are not capable of, they cannot reconcile these two fundamentally opposed mental outlooks.

Pretty much all of this is silly. It's nice and high-minded sounding, but doesn't really seem all that close to a plausible explanation for how people behave in practice. Most of science is pretty narrow in focus. There's nothing about looking at DNA methylation or antibody formation that suggests that one can't prefer conservative policies. Molecular geneticists, biochemists, and physicists rejecting conservatism probably has a lot more to do with the Red Tribe being fucking irritating to highly educated people than it does with anything specific about policy prescriptions.

[hellinter201]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...-a6982401.html

If it is really true (which it obviously isn't, because I'm not retarded and neither are any of my colleagues, so I'm pretty sure we aren't only 3%), then 97% of the world's scientists are a bunch of useless (or useful) fools.

[Aehl]

He's posting news reports from the infant period of the science and thinks that it means anything. A time period when we understood almost jack shit about humanity's influence on the climate and the climate system in general.

Shall we then discuss Flannerys latest predictions...all of them duds?

We still dont understand jack shit about cliomate systems in general. What we do know is dwarfed by what we dont know.

I've seen some shit on this forum but that takes the cake.

Theres an old tale about a boy that cried wolf that might help you understand better.

“entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.”

*checks newspapers*

Nope. I got nothing here about that.

[Garnier Fructis]

Shall we then discuss Flannerys latest predictions...all of them duds?

We still dont understand jack shit about cliomate systems in general. What we do know is dwarfed by what we dont know.

These statements are always nonsensical because you have to know what we don't know in order to be able to say that what we do is dwarfed by what we don't. You cannot quantify what you do not know, and this statement implies that not only is that possible, but that it has been done.

If we didn't understand jack shit about climate we wouldn't be able to reconstruct past climate conditions with our models.

Theres an old tale about a boy that cried wolf that might help you understand better.

You're not understanding, and that's why you can't even see that that's a completely untenable comparison.

You're presenting things from an era where essentially nobody (and I'm talking about scientists) thought we had any influence on the climate. Climate change theory didn't exist. How do you even ascribe 'boy who cried wolf' type statements to something that had yet to coalesce?

[Elestia]

good thing someone was able to round up all the worlds scientists and get an answer to this once and for all!!

There's been a 97% consensus for two decades now.

[Aehl]

You're not understanding, and that's why you can't even see that that's a completely untenable comparison.

It is perfectly tenable. They cried wolf, they were wrong, so why should I listen?

You're presenting things from an era where essentially nobody thought we had any influence on the climate.

Okay then, this is from 2009

In March, Flannery said: “The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009.”

In fact, Adelaide’s reservoirs are now 75 per cent full, just weeks from 2009.

In June last year, Flannery warned Brisbane’s “water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months”.

In fact, 18 months later, its dams are 46 per cent full after Brisbane’s wettest spring in 27 years.

In 2005, Flannery predicted Sydney’s dams could be dry in just two years.

In fact, three years later its dams are 63 per cent full, not least because June last year was its wettest since 1951.

In 2004, Flannery said global warming would cause such droughts that “there is a fair chance Perth will be the 21st century’s first ghost metropolis”.

In fact, Perth now has the lowest water restrictions of any state capital, thanks to its desalination plant and dams that are 40 per cent full after the city’s wettest November in 17 years.

How do you even ascribe 'boy who cried wolf' type statements to something that had yet to coalesce?

Do you really want a list of all the climate disaster predictions that havent come true in the last thirty years?

[breadisfunny]

Our politicians are trying to destroy the us economy and the rest of the world is going right along with it in the name of global warming.

okay there dale gribble.

[Sylv_]

No, you spouted a few lines of moronic shit as if it meant something.

Considering I 4.0'd my stats class, and by 4.0, I received 105%, so keep speaking, please.

[Halicia]

http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/0...-speech/208905

The statement "talking about the weather" convinces me that some people refuse to acknowledge or understand what the climate is, period.

Yeah, its Fox, but they wouldn't be spewing this !@#$ if people didn't swallow it.

[Aehl]

And another one

NO SNOW.How about Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of University of East Anglia who said:

Within a few years children just aren't going to know what snow is. Snowfall will be a very rare and exciting event.

What happened? Just last winter:LONG-RANGE weather forecasters have warned that Britain should prepare for heavy and persistent snow for up to THREE MONTHS with winter 2013 set to be the worst in more than 60 years.

Is 2013 recent enough for you?