Climate Change Already Impacting ‘All Continents’ According To New International Report

Benevolent HereticThat quote isn't from the actual report, it's from the Summary. My point is that people should READ the thing instead of denying it outright because FOX News says they should.

Yes, as we all know the Summary has nothing at all to do with setting up the content of the report. You're right, FOX News told me to read the link that you posted in the forum and find obvious fault with it. When you really have facts get back to me, until then stay in your little kindergarten sandbox.

amazing

beezzer

amazing

beezzer

swanne

amazing
And I, frankly, feel like Galileo here facing the inquisition.

So do we. Do you know how much guts it takes to many of us to question mainstream? Many of us will get ridiculed. But we do it anyway.

How can you deny science?

I am quoting science to show the illogical conclusions which seem to have been made! I criticize the fact that people don't take into account the geological, scientific record of inter-glacial periods!

That's because short-sighted people tend to view "history" from an anthropological stance.

They can't see the big picture in terms of epochs, or billions of years.

If it's warmer than yesterday. . . global warming!
If it's colder than yesterday. . . . global cooling!

I compare some of these climate doomers as taking a temperature at noon and stating that that is the temperature average for a 24 hour cycle.

Scientists take a long view though and that's who I'm reading and listening to. No climate doomers here.

Then show me a study that goes back 1 billion years.
Or 100 million years.
Or 10 million years.

Read the Data.. Read the reports. Study the issue and read the research. I can't do it for you.

I have. And there IS no data that goes back that far.

You can't provide it because it isn't there.

Incomplete data . Yet you people have made it a religion.

jimmyx
oxygen levels were higher during the age of dinosaurs, these studies... geology.com...
have shown that they were able to reach such massive physical size, substantiated by ice core drillings showing a higher level of atmospheric oxygen from eons ago....at our present and future time in history, with the constant increase in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, saturation points will be reached where plants are unable to absorb the increase. less and less oxygen will be available that enriches blood flow to the human brain. functional brain activity will, over time, slowly decrease, leading man to exist only in a survivable, but dulled state of simple actions, I.E. primitive shelter, simple foods, loss of higher levels of intellect, etc..............over thousands of years, as greenhouse gases slowly subside, and absorption of carbon dioxide increases, more and more oxygen will be put back into the atmosphere. over a couple hundred generations of man, increases in oxygenated blood constantly flowing to each new generation will slowly increase intelligence, and thus the learning curve of man will start anew.

And why were oxygen levels higher back then? I already know the answer I'm just asking you because I want to see if you know why.

beezzer

amazing

beezzer

amazing

beezzer

swanne

amazing
And I, frankly, feel like Galileo here facing the inquisition.

So do we. Do you know how much guts it takes to many of us to question mainstream? Many of us will get ridiculed. But we do it anyway.

How can you deny science?

I am quoting science to show the illogical conclusions which seem to have been made! I criticize the fact that people don't take into account the geological, scientific record of inter-glacial periods!

That's because short-sighted people tend to view "history" from an anthropological stance.

They can't see the big picture in terms of epochs, or billions of years.

If it's warmer than yesterday. . . global warming!
If it's colder than yesterday. . . . global cooling!

I compare some of these climate doomers as taking a temperature at noon and stating that that is the temperature average for a 24 hour cycle.

Scientists take a long view though and that's who I'm reading and listening to. No climate doomers here.

Then show me a study that goes back 1 billion years.
Or 100 million years.
Or 10 million years.

Read the Data.. Read the reports. Study the issue and read the research. I can't do it for you.

I have. And there IS no data that goes back that far.

You can't provide it because it isn't there.

Incomplete data . Yet you people have made it a religion.

us people? My people? Those of us in Las Vegas have made it a religion? I don't think so.

But there are studies of climate and geology and really all scientific disciplines that do go all the way back to the beginning of the Universe. There is a lot of Data there. I haven't made a religion of anything...not very religious here but I do look at scientific studies, read lots of articles. But hang on....I need to go out my door and make sure my people aren't forming any other new religions....

beezzer

neo96

beezzer

amazing

beezzer

swanne

amazing
And I, frankly, feel like Galileo here facing the inquisition.

So do we. Do you know how much guts it takes to many of us to question mainstream? Many of us will get ridiculed. But we do it anyway.

How can you deny science?

I am quoting science to show the illogical conclusions which seem to have been made! I criticize the fact that people don't take into account the geological, scientific record of inter-glacial periods!

That's because short-sighted people tend to view "history" from an anthropological stance.

They can't see the big picture in terms of epochs, or billions of years.

If it's warmer than yesterday. . . global warming!
If it's colder than yesterday. . . . global cooling!

I compare some of these climate doomers as taking a temperature at noon and stating that that is the temperature average for a 24 hour cycle.

Scientists take a long view though and that's who I'm reading and listening to. No climate doomers here.

Then show me a study that goes back 1 billion years.
Or 100 million years.
Or 10 million years.

They can't the only thing they can do is 'show' a computer model based off incomplete data.

Since temperature records only go back 150 years.

Scientists, climatologists can't even predict (with any accuracy) what the weather will be like this weekend.

But they can state with all certainty, what will happen 1000 years from now. And their synchophants eat it up!

(oh, bring an umbrella this Saturday, it might rain!

)

The sad part it is not even about the science.

It is all about politics now since politicians are going on, and on about it.

To get paid, and to get another vote.

neo96

beezzer

neo96

beezzer

amazing

beezzer

swanne

amazing
And I, frankly, feel like Galileo here facing the inquisition.

So do we. Do you know how much guts it takes to many of us to question mainstream? Many of us will get ridiculed. But we do it anyway.

How can you deny science?

I am quoting science to show the illogical conclusions which seem to have been made! I criticize the fact that people don't take into account the geological, scientific record of inter-glacial periods!

That's because short-sighted people tend to view "history" from an anthropological stance.

They can't see the big picture in terms of epochs, or billions of years.

If it's warmer than yesterday. . . global warming!
If it's colder than yesterday. . . . global cooling!

I compare some of these climate doomers as taking a temperature at noon and stating that that is the temperature average for a 24 hour cycle.

Scientists take a long view though and that's who I'm reading and listening to. No climate doomers here.

Then show me a study that goes back 1 billion years.
Or 100 million years.
Or 10 million years.

They can't the only thing they can do is 'show' a computer model based off incomplete data.

Since temperature records only go back 150 years.

Scientists, climatologists can't even predict (with any accuracy) what the weather will be like this weekend.

But they can state with all certainty, what will happen 1000 years from now. And their synchophants eat it up!

(oh, bring an umbrella this Saturday, it might rain!

)

The sad part it is not even about the science.

It is all about politics now since politicians are going on, and on about it.

To get paid, and to get another vote.

This report is about science though.

reply to post by amazing

This report is about science though.

Is it ?

The first report, released last September in Stockholm, found humans were the "dominant cause" of climate change, and warned that much of the world's fossil fuel reserves would have to stay in the ground to avoid catastrophic climate change.

Sounds like the same old political agenda to me.

So what are governments around the world going to do to replace the cash they make off of regulation, and taxation they get off of 'fossil fuels'.

eccentriclady
if sea levels rise by 10 foot, i will live in a seafront property! That's why i keep an open fire, ;-)

It's bad enough when the councils don't clear the drains of Autumn leaves, and the entire road floods to a depth of six inches of water. Then walking down to the gate to go out and get a pizza becomes like a weird dream when you suddenly find dry land disappears at the edge of your garden.

reply to post by the2ofusr1

Just as a note for any one to consider ..."The fastest supra-decadal warming rate ever recorded was during the 40 years 1694-1733, before the industrial revolution began. Then the Central England record, the world’s oldest and a demonstrably respectable proxy for global temperature change, showed warming at a rate equivalent to 4.3 K/century. Nothing like it has been seen since.

Even if that rapid post-Little-Ice-Age naturally-drive rate of naturally-occurring warming were to commence at once and persist till 2100, there would only be 3.75 Cº global warming this century."

Despite IPCC doom report, this dataset of datasets shows no warming this millennium wattsupwiththat.com...-106749

And the ability of the models to even be close is off the mark .."Meanwhile, the discrepancy between prediction and observation continues to grow. Here is the IPCC’s predicted global warming trend since January 2005, taken from Fig. 11.25 of the Fifth Assessment Report, compared with the trend on the dataset of datasets since then. At present, the overshoot is equivalent to 2 Cº/century"

Like I said , throwing bones on the ground would or could give as good of a prediction ....peace

neo96
reply to post by amazing

 

This report is about science though.

Is it ?

The first report, released last September in Stockholm, found humans were the "dominant cause" of climate change, and warned that much of the world's fossil fuel reserves would have to stay in the ground to avoid catastrophic climate change.

Sounds like the same old political agenda to me.

So what are governments around the world going to do to replace the cash they make off of regulation, and taxation they get off of 'fossil fuels'.

But that's another issue or the same issue but further down the road. First we need to agree that there is a problem. The steps to correct the problem is the issue. Scientists agree after decades and decades of study that the Globe is Warming that it is man made. They all agree that it's a problem. The next steps are the issue. The BIG problem is that as long as we're having this is it or is it not real debate...throwing out scientific data...we will do nothing. Isn't it funny how this debate has turned into a right vs left thing? They always turn whatever issue we have into this two sided debate.

There is no debate though. The problem is real and we need to do something. The powers that be are fooling us into believing that there really is a debate in the first place.

reply to post by amazing

But that's another issue or the same issue but further down the road.

No it isn't

It is the same reason they created carbon taxes, and they get to trade credits.

They are going to repeat what they did with mortgaged back deriviatives.

On a global scale.

reply to post by amazing


Seeing you state that scientist know AGW to be true then can you show me when it started ? ...peace

reply to post by Goteborg

Goteborg
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

Fine, it wasn't a typo. Whatever.

The 3 was a typo. I meant to hit the 2 and I hit the 3 and you said I was dense.

I see you're not going to answer my question. That's OK.

Goteborg

jimmyx
oxygen levels were higher during the age of dinosaurs, these studies... geology.com...
have shown that they were able to reach such massive physical size, substantiated by ice core drillings showing a higher level of atmospheric oxygen from eons ago....at our present and future time in history, with the constant increase in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, saturation points will be reached where plants are unable to absorb the increase. less and less oxygen will be available that enriches blood flow to the human brain. functional brain activity will, over time, slowly decrease, leading man to exist only in a survivable, but dulled state of simple actions, I.E. primitive shelter, simple foods, loss of higher levels of intellect, etc..............over thousands of years, as greenhouse gases slowly subside, and absorption of carbon dioxide increases, more and more oxygen will be put back into the atmosphere. over a couple hundred generations of man, increases in oxygenated blood constantly flowing to each new generation will slowly increase intelligence, and thus the learning curve of man will start anew.

And why were oxygen levels higher back then? I already know the answer

I'm just asking you because I want to see if you know why.

so why are you asking me?....what would be the point?...are you saying that the carbon build-up in the atmosphere is of no consequence to man? or at some point it will reverse?....because I, at this time, don't really care, I can't change it. burn the crap out of everything you want to, everyone else is, I'll be dead in the next 20 years, so it will have no bearing on my life.

the2ofusr1
reply to post by amazing

 

Seeing you state that scientist know AGW to be true then can you show me when it started ? ...peace

ha. working right now but it's all out there. I'm not a scientist and I can't give you specifics nor can I tell you how life formed or a good evolution summary.. nor can I summarize the theory of relativity or tell you in any scientific way explain to you earths magnetic poles or planetary orbits and so on. That doesn't discount any of that science just because I have a hard time explaining it nor does it show my ignorance because I believe in evolution or that the earth revolves around the sun. I haven't done any research on that, I just believe it when 97% of the earth's scientists or more tell me that it's true. Why are you needing me to explain science to you?

amazing

the2ofusr1
reply to post by amazing

 

Seeing you state that scientist know AGW to be true then can you show me when it started ? ...peace

ha. working right now but it's all out there. I'm not a scientist and I can't give you specifics nor can I tell you how life formed or a good evolution summary.. nor can I summarize the theory of relativity or tell you in any scientific way explain to you earths magnetic poles or planetary orbits and so on. That doesn't discount any of that science just because I have a hard time explaining it nor does it show my ignorance because I believe in evolution or that the earth revolves around the sun. I haven't done any research on that, I just believe it when 97% of the earth's scientists or more tell me that it's true. Why are you needing me to explain science to you?

Are you guys this disbelieving of all science or just climate science and if so, how do you pick and chose what scientific theories to believe or not?

amazing


Are you guys this disbelieving of all science or just climate science and if so, how do you pick and chose what scientific theories to believe or not?

When it is politically motivated, I question everything.

Science is great. Science is accurate, if done correctly.

This is more emotional than science.

beezzer

amazing


Are you guys this disbelieving of all science or just climate science and if so, how do you pick and chose what scientific theories to believe or not?

When it is politically motivated, I question everything.

Science is great. Science is accurate, if done correctly.

This is more emotional than science.

But how can you say that when it's almost every scientist in the world?

If it was just this one report and just the UN group or just some American liberal university studies etc. But it's not...it's everyone.

reply to post by amazing


That 97% scientist is also misleading .I am quite confident that the majority were also pal reviewers for some of the papers produced but they also wont give the data they used to produce their papers .Finding a date to the start of AGW is something that cant be provided just like the data they use because it would reveal the fraudulent nature of their work ....It's become either political or a religion and nothing more ..As far as the other theory's you brought up , that was just a way of avoiding ,giving me the data I asked for .A date ...sad really sad ...

amazing

beezzer

amazing


Are you guys this disbelieving of all science or just climate science and if so, how do you pick and chose what scientific theories to believe or not?

When it is politically motivated, I question everything.

Science is great. Science is accurate, if done correctly.

This is more emotional than science.

But how can you say that when it's almost every scientist in the world?

If it was just this one report and just the UN group or just some American liberal university studies etc. But it's not...it's everyone.

It's NOT almost every scientist in the world!

It is NOT everyone!


Show me, over a course of 10 million years, how there is no fluctuation, there is no dynamic ebb and flow to climate patterns, and I will believe the science.

Show me stable climate patterns prior to man's emergence, then show me climate patterns post man's appearance. Show me the data.

You can't.

Wanna know why?

BECAUSE IT DOESN'T SUPPORT THE RELIGION OF MAN MADE CLIMATE WOOPTIE-DOO!