SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS REGARDING CLIMATE CHANGE
The consensus of the scientific community is "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. . . . the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability."
1. As a matter of FACT, "consensus" IS used regarding scientific judgment:
[QUOTE]
Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.[1]
Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others) and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the 'normal' debates through which science progresses may seem to outside...
&
The consensus of the scientific community is "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. . . . the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability."
1. As a matter of FACT, "consensus" IS used regarding scientific judgment:
[QUOTE]
Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.[1]
Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others) and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the 'normal' debates through which science progresses may seem to outside...
&
SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS REGARDING CLIMATE CHANGE
The consensus of the scientific community is "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. . . . the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability."
1. As a matter of FACT, "consensus" IS used regarding scientific judgment:
[QUOTE]
Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.[1]
Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others) and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the 'normal' debates through which science progresses may seem to outsiders as contestation.[2]
Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which may not be controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution[3][4] or the claimed linkage of MMR vaccinations and autism.[2]
[END QUOTE - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ]
2. Further, as a matter of fact, SCIENTISTS use the term "consensus" regarding climate change:
[QUOTE]
Scientific consensus on Climate Change
A question that frequently arises in popular discussion of climate change is whether there is a scientific consensus on climate change.[125] Several scientific organizations have explicitly used the term "consensus" in their statements:
American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2006: "The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National Academies' statement."[32]
US National Academy of Sciences: "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the National Academies’ reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science..."[126]
Joint Science Academies' statement, 2005: "We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."[127]
Joint Science Academies' statement, 2001: "The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus."[13]
American Meteorological Society, 2003: "The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus.... IPCC assessment reports are prepared at approximately five-year intervals by a large international group of experts who represent the broad range of expertise and perspectives relevant to the issues. The reports strive to reflect a consensus evaluation of the results of the full body of peer-reviewed research.... They provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the degree of consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that can be placed on the various statements and conclusions."[128] -
[END QUOTE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
3. As a matter of FACT, scientific consensus is irrefutable. The list of concurring scientific organizations includes:
American Geophysical Union: http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/po...
American Physical Society: http://www.aps.org/policy/sta...
The Royal Society: http://royalsociety.org/polic...
European Academy of Sciences and Arts: http://royalsociety.org/polic...
American Association for the Advancement of Science: http://www.aaas.org/news/pres...
American Chemical Society: http://www.aaas.org/news/pres...
American Institute of Physics: http://www.aip.org/fyi/2004/0...
Australian Institute of Physics: http://www.aip.org.au/about.p...
American Geophysical Union: http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/po...
American Public Health Association: http://www.apha.org/advocacy/...
Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences: http://geoscience.ca/_ARCHIVE...
European Science Foundation:
American Medical Association: http://www.ama.com.au/node/44...
World Health Organization: http://www.who.int/world-heal...
American Statistical Association: http://www.amstat.org/news/cl...
American Association of Petroleum Geologists: http://dpa.aapg.org/gac/state...
American Association of State Climatologists: http://www.stateclimate.org/p...
NASA: http://climate.nasa.gov/evide...
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/...
4. As a matter of FACT, dissenting opinion is relegated to the fringe:
[QUOTE]
No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[2][3] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.
[END QUOTE - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ]
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them." - Galileo Galilei (1564 - 1642)
(more)The consensus of the scientific community is "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. . . . the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability."
1. As a matter of FACT, "consensus" IS used regarding scientific judgment:
[QUOTE]
Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.[1]
Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others) and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the 'normal' debates through which science progresses may seem to outsiders as contestation.[2]
Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which may not be controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution[3][4] or the claimed linkage of MMR vaccinations and autism.[2]
[END QUOTE - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ]
2. Further, as a matter of fact, SCIENTISTS use the term "consensus" regarding climate change:
[QUOTE]
Scientific consensus on Climate Change
A question that frequently arises in popular discussion of climate change is whether there is a scientific consensus on climate change.[125] Several scientific organizations have explicitly used the term "consensus" in their statements:
American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2006: "The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National Academies' statement."[32]
US National Academy of Sciences: "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the National Academies’ reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science..."[126]
Joint Science Academies' statement, 2005: "We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."[127]
Joint Science Academies' statement, 2001: "The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus."[13]
American Meteorological Society, 2003: "The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus.... IPCC assessment reports are prepared at approximately five-year intervals by a large international group of experts who represent the broad range of expertise and perspectives relevant to the issues. The reports strive to reflect a consensus evaluation of the results of the full body of peer-reviewed research.... They provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the degree of consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that can be placed on the various statements and conclusions."[128] -
[END QUOTE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
3. As a matter of FACT, scientific consensus is irrefutable. The list of concurring scientific organizations includes:
American Geophysical Union: http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/po...
American Physical Society: http://www.aps.org/policy/sta...
The Royal Society: http://royalsociety.org/polic...
European Academy of Sciences and Arts: http://royalsociety.org/polic...
American Association for the Advancement of Science: http://www.aaas.org/news/pres...
American Chemical Society: http://www.aaas.org/news/pres...
American Institute of Physics: http://www.aip.org/fyi/2004/0...
Australian Institute of Physics: http://www.aip.org.au/about.p...
American Geophysical Union: http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/po...
American Public Health Association: http://www.apha.org/advocacy/...
Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences: http://geoscience.ca/_ARCHIVE...
European Science Foundation:
American Medical Association: http://www.ama.com.au/node/44...
World Health Organization: http://www.who.int/world-heal...
American Statistical Association: http://www.amstat.org/news/cl...
American Association of Petroleum Geologists: http://dpa.aapg.org/gac/state...
American Association of State Climatologists: http://www.stateclimate.org/p...
NASA: http://climate.nasa.gov/evide...
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/...
4. As a matter of FACT, dissenting opinion is relegated to the fringe:
[QUOTE]
No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[2][3] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.
[END QUOTE - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ]
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them." - Galileo Galilei (1564 - 1642)
No looking at the Ecosphere going to crap and saying "Ok,.. it's real,.. how do we reverse this", because these kind of "engines" are like trying to stop a tank AFTER it's gone off a cliff.
I'm saying exactly why don't we Erre on the side of the possibility that it is real instead of get stuck on stupid and require planatary extiction before we try to do anything?
It is real but exaggerated, there have been many studies that show co2 emmisions do increase the acidity of the oceans and do raise the temperature of the earth slightly. Yet the earth does have a natural warmong and cooling cycle. So the emmissions are increasing the acidity of the oceans causeing algea to die out and produce less O2, and it increases the rate at which the earth is warming but co2 is not the sole cause of it.
Remember the Chinese Olympics:
http://online.wsj.com/article...
Would you really like America to become like China where people have to wear masks to go outside?
I like the lie about the hole in the Ozone found in 1985... so in 1993 we were forced to change vehicle A/C, remove other floral carbons like in paint cans. Even my Albuteral inhaler had to chance the propellant which is way less effective than the old system
+
+
Read more: 31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=64...
There is a task force to educate the populous about Agenda 21 the global warming hoax, and the evil people behind it all. Please, everyone do some homework, and visit web sites like www.freedomadvocates.org www.PostSustainablilityinstit... ... Then spread the word. Time is running out.
( edited for spelling)
+
NASA is predicting that the coming solar maximum could produce very energetic solar flares and coronal mass ejecta. These events have the potential to cause significant damage to our power grid as well as our orbiting satellites. But how do we know what to expect? We do have indicators from Previous Solar Storms.
Should a solar storm eruption happen next year, it could release a massive amount of high energy charged particles streaming toward Earth. Such a storm occurred in 1859.
Shortly after the Sun reached solar maximum in 1859, the Sun experienced a significant increase in sun spot activity as well as a sequence of intense solar flares. The largest solar flare on record during the maximum was then observed by British astronomer Richard Carrington. The result of the flare was a coronal mass ejection that sent charged particles streaming toward Earth, reaching the atmosphere only 18 hours after the ejection. This is startlingly quick given that the trip normally takes several days.
Once the particles reach the Earth they caused a series of phenomena to occur, the likes of which the Earth has not experien...
NASA is predicting that the coming solar maximum could produce very energetic solar flares and coronal mass ejecta. These events have the potential to cause significant damage to our power grid as well as our orbiting satellites. But how do we know what to expect? We do have indicators from Previous Solar Storms.
Should a solar storm eruption happen next year, it could release a massive amount of high energy charged particles streaming toward Earth. Such a storm occurred in 1859.
Shortly after the Sun reached solar maximum in 1859, the Sun experienced a significant increase in sun spot activity as well as a sequence of intense solar flares. The largest solar flare on record during the maximum was then observed by British astronomer Richard Carrington. The result of the flare was a coronal mass ejection that sent charged particles streaming toward Earth, reaching the atmosphere only 18 hours after the ejection. This is startlingly quick given that the trip normally takes several days.
Once the particles reach the Earth they caused a series of phenomena to occur, the likes of which the Earth has not experienced since. First of all, charged particles are usually captured by the Earth’s magnetic field, and primarily get funneled to the poles. There, they interact with the Earth’s atmosphere creating brilliant colors known as aurorae.
In the case of 1859, however, the flux of particles was so high that the magnetic field could not shield the Earth from them all. So instead of aurorae only being created near the poles, they came into existence throughout the Earth. Reports of aurorae were common over the Caribbean, as well as the central United States. At one point the glow in the Rocky Mountains was such that it awoke the sleeping miners, causing them to begin getting prepared for the day, believing that it was in fact dawn.
Another, and perhaps more significant, problem was that the charged particle flux began to wreak havoc on electronic systems. Specifically, failure of telegraph systems world wide were reported.
Knowing that such an event has happened in our planet’s history would surely lead the world’s leaders to prepare for another such event, right? With all of today’s advanced technology we must be prepared.
Well, no. In fact a report commissioned by the office of the President showed that in fact such a storm would not only cause problems for electronic devices, but could potentially bring down the entire power grid. And not just here, but around the world. The kind of damage that would be caused could take months or, more likely, years to repair.
Could you imagine? No electricity for years? No phones, no computers, no internet? That is the possibility that we are facing. However, this would take a massive storm like the one in 1859 to even approach such cataclysmic events, but it is something that people need to be aware of. In another report Astrologers stated;
These recent events, though very significant, are not actually the largest solar flares ever recorded. That honor goes to a flare that happened on September 1, 1859. This has become known as the Carrington event after Richard Carrington, the young English astronomer who saw the event as it happened from his private observatory.
It was a remarkable piece of luck that he happened to be observing the sun at the particular moment that the flare erupted, because the event lasted for less than five minutes. In that time, a huge knot of sunspots appeared and generated a plume that was by far the biggest observed in the 160 years records have been kept.
Before dawn on the following day, a huge firework display of auroral lights bathed Earth, reaching as far south as the Caribbean. The rainbow-hued lights were so brilliant that it was said to be possible to read by them as if it were daylight. The Carrington event also caused major disruption to the telegraph system worldwide.
Conventional astronomy suggests that a flare of this size may only happen once every 500 years or so, but even greater flares have been observed on other stars. Some of these stellar megaflares have emitted quantities of radiation that would be likely to cause major loss of life on Earth.
Nevertheless, large storm or not, here is the global warming cause, and I have never heard of any group of men that have controlled the sun to cause anything, and I doubt that Gore and crew has even the slightest idea of what is actually going on.
A team from the Siberian Russian Academy of Sciences has been investigating changes in the heliosphere, the electromagnetic envelope that surrounds our solar system. The heliosphere acts like a giant protective sheath surrounding our sun and the entire solar system as we travel through space. Normally, it functions as a giant deflector, protecting us from a potentially harmful influx of cosmic radiation and keeping conditions within the inner solar system relatively stable. However, it is now being bombarded with so much radiation that an unprecedented amount is breaking through. This is reaching our sun and all of the planets of the solar system, including our own.
The quantity of plasma we encounter in the LISM is a critical variable for what happens in the wider behavior of our solar system. This increased influx of energy is, according to the research of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the fundamental cause of the multiple magnetic and climatic changes that have recently been observed in the sun and across all of the planets. Dmitriev even goes as far as to say the consequence of the increase in this interstellar plasmic energy is far more important, in his opinion, than human greenhouse gas emissions are in the creation of our planet's current glob...
A team from the Siberian Russian Academy of Sciences has been investigating changes in the heliosphere, the electromagnetic envelope that surrounds our solar system. The heliosphere acts like a giant protective sheath surrounding our sun and the entire solar system as we travel through space. Normally, it functions as a giant deflector, protecting us from a potentially harmful influx of cosmic radiation and keeping conditions within the inner solar system relatively stable. However, it is now being bombarded with so much radiation that an unprecedented amount is breaking through. This is reaching our sun and all of the planets of the solar system, including our own.
The quantity of plasma we encounter in the LISM is a critical variable for what happens in the wider behavior of our solar system. This increased influx of energy is, according to the research of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the fundamental cause of the multiple magnetic and climatic changes that have recently been observed in the sun and across all of the planets. Dmitriev even goes as far as to say the consequence of the increase in this interstellar plasmic energy is far more important, in his opinion, than human greenhouse gas emissions are in the creation of our planet's current global warming crisis.
Plasma is a partially ionized gas and is sometimes called the fourth state of matter. The behavior of plasma is quite unlike those of solids, liquids, and gases. In nature, plasmas are usually found in gas-like clouds, as in the case of interstellar nebulae. Other examples of plasmas include ball lightning and the phenomenon of the aurora borealis.
What's funny is your ignorance and misunderstanding/ misrepresentation of science. Now is that clear enough for you or should I simplify and post definitions, diagrams and/or pictures?
But problems with science will always remain in the mind of mankind, because of several reasons, but one is the fact that scientific reasoning and scientific observation can only hold good so long and in so far as the Law of Causality holds good. We must assume a pre-existing state of affairs which has given rise to the observed effect; we must assume that this observed effect is itself antecedent to a subsequent state of affairs. These facts also includes the self-proclaimed Creationist. Neither their science nor any science of mankind can go back to the absolute beginnings of things, or forward to the absolute ends of things. It cannot reason about the way matter and energy came into existence, or how they might cease to exist; it cannot reason about time or space, as such, but only in the relations of these to phenomena that can be observed. It does not deal with things themselves, but only with the relations between things.
Science indeed can only consider the universe as a great machine which is in “working order,” and it concerns itself with the relations which some parts of the m...
But problems with science will always remain in the mind of mankind, because of several reasons, but one is the fact that scientific reasoning and scientific observation can only hold good so long and in so far as the Law of Causality holds good. We must assume a pre-existing state of affairs which has given rise to the observed effect; we must assume that this observed effect is itself antecedent to a subsequent state of affairs. These facts also includes the self-proclaimed Creationist. Neither their science nor any science of mankind can go back to the absolute beginnings of things, or forward to the absolute ends of things. It cannot reason about the way matter and energy came into existence, or how they might cease to exist; it cannot reason about time or space, as such, but only in the relations of these to phenomena that can be observed. It does not deal with things themselves, but only with the relations between things.
Science indeed can only consider the universe as a great machine which is in “working order,” and it concerns itself with the relations which some parts of the machine bear to other parts, and with the laws and manner of the “working” of the machine in those parts. The relations of the various parts, one to the other, and the way in which they work together, may afford some idea of the design and purpose of the machine, but it can give no information as to how the material of which it is composed came into existence, nor as to the method by which it was originally constructed. This includes the “Cell”, the “Atom” and all the parts and counterparts that have been discovered through medical research. Like the Universe, the Body is a machine, though that may offend many, nevertheless, it is the truth. Once started, the machine comes under the scrutiny of science, but the actual starting lies outside its scope. And here we find a great difference between the science of God, and the science of man. God has the far greater power of understanding that man cannot comprehend, because God knows how to perform cosmic scientific creation as easily as folding a piece of material (Hebrews 1:12)
Men therefore cannot find out for themselves how the worlds were originally made, how the worlds were first moved, or how the spirit of man was first formed within him; and this, not merely because these beginnings of things were of necessity outside his experience, but also because beginnings, as such, must lie outside the law by which he reasons. Mankind is told;
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. (Isaiah 55:8-9)
By no process of research, therefore, could man find out for himself the facts that are stated in the first chapter of Genesis. They have been revealed, but mankind's science cannot inquire into them for the purpose of checking their accuracy; it must accept them, as it accepts the fundamental law that governs its own working, without the possibility of proof other thand can be seen with the eye, which God also created, and man cannot.