GOP Senate candidates among global warming's biggest skeptics

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

I just don't get how you can be so absolute in your statements about a scientific topic that is largely still under intense research and debate.

You were the one that brought bodies of science into it and stated that ALL bodies were in agreement- I am stating that ALL bodies are not in agreement on this subject, not in the absolute sense you are seemingly understanding.

What part do they disagree with? Which ones are doubting the significant impact CO2 emissions are having on the earth's climate? What data is being questioned? Do you have any reports by bodies of climate scientists which dissents from the consensus that CO2 emissions are not the most significant contributing factor in tipping the Carbon Cycle out of balance and warming the planet?

[tmma 467]

It was a joke, but I see you still don't have a sense of humor.

Oh I have a sense of humour......It's just that your comment was old, worn out and not funny. I apologize for not laughing [insert sympathy chuckle here].

[The_Dude 1,142]

Oh I have a sense of humour......It's just that your comment was old, worn out and not funny. I apologize for not laughing [insert sympathy chuckle here].

Nope, you have no sense of humor. I thought it was just from expats, but you seem to be the same miserable malcontent here.

[tmma 467]

What part do they disagree with? Which ones are doubting the significant impact CO2 emissions are having on the earth's climate? What data is being questioned? Do you have any reports by bodies of climate scientists which dissents from the consensus that CO2 emissions are not the most significant contributing factor in tipping the Carbon Cycle out of balance and warming the planet?

With all due respect-are you even reading what i am writing? How simple do i have to make it?

-I do not understand how YOU can possibly state "ALL" scientists are in agreement. when this topic is still intensely researched and so vunerable to political influence ( which is wrong but politics is always in the way of science).

-Tipping the natural carbon cycle and cyclical nature of our climate is what I was mentioning in my 1st post..

[tmma 467]

Nope, you have no sense of humor. I thought it was just from expats, but you seem to be the same miserable malcontent here.

Ah-so we to characterize others based solely on posts at EP...?

That's interesting....If I did that my POV of some people would be far different - but I'm not like you. I don't judge based on EP.

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

With all due respect-are you even reading what i am writing? How simple do i have to make it?

-I do not understand how YOU can possibly state "ALL" scientists are in agreement. when this topic is still intensely researched and so vunerable to political influence ( which is wrong but politics is always in the way of science).

-Tipping the natural carbon cycle and cyclical nature of our climate is what I was mentioning in my 1st post..

I've stated unequivocally that there is NO debate among the bodies of science on climate, that CO2 emissions are warming our planet. You've implied that the jury is still out among the bodies and science and that's utterly false. I've asked you several times to name one body of science that studies climate which has made any conclusions to the contrary and you've shown me none. To put this in scale, there are 20,000 climate scientists worldwide, hundreds of bodies of science, all coming to the same conclusion.

Here's just an example:

Union of Concerned Scientists

Global warming is one of the most serious challenges facing us today. To protect the health and economic well-being of current and future generations, we must reduce our emissions of heat-trapping gases by using the technology, know-how, and practical solutions already at our disposal."

¹

Woods Hole Research Center

"We may recall the extensive and incredibly successful campaign of the American tobacco companies to conceal the link between cancer and the use of tobacco products. For decades, they knew the reality of the addictive nature of nicotine and the carcinogenic effects of tobacco use. For decades, they successfully kept that reality hidden from the American public. The oil, coal, gas, and mining industries stand to lose tremendously if the truth about global warming becomes accepted by American society. As the tobacco industry invested millions in keeping its deadly secret, so also have the oil, coal, gas, and mining industries attempted to hide and discredit the link between CO2 emissions and a warming earth."

¹

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 [snip]The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus

represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (www.ipcc.ch/), and the Joint National Academies’ statement (

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

)

American Meteorological Society

The American Meteorological Society endorses the "Joint Academies' Statement: Global Response to Climate Change"

released

by the national academies of science of 11 countries, including the U.S., on 7 June 2005.”

¹

"

Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases and other trace constituents

... [that] interact strongly with the Earth's energy balance, resulting in the prospect of significant global warming. ... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems. It is a long-term problem that requires a long-term perspective. Important decisions confront current and future national and world leaders." -

Bull. Amer. Met. Soc.

, 84, 508—515

National Research Council

"

Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.

Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century. ... The impacts of [climate change] will be critically dependent on the magnitude of the warming and the rate with which it occurs." -

Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questiosn, 2001

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

"CMOS endorses the process of periodic climate science assessment carried out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (

IPCC

) and supports the conclusion, in its Third Assessment Report, which states that the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate."

¹

American Geophysical Union

Because human activities are contributing to and accelerating climate change, we have a collective responsibility to develop and undertake carefully considered response actions.”

¹

"Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate.

These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century. ... A particular concern is that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may be rising faster than at any time in Earth's history, except possibly following rare events like impacts from large extraterrestrial objects. ... Moreover, research indicates that increased levels of carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years. It is virtually certain that increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will cause global surface climate to be warmer. ... The unprecedented increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, together with other human influences on climate over the past century and those anticipated for the future, constitute a real basis for concern." -

Human Impacts on Climate, 2003

Geological Society of America

"The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing;

the climate changes are due in part to human activities

; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur require active, effective, long-term planning. ... GSA strongly encourages that the following efforts be undertaken internationally: (1) adequately research climate change at all time scales, (2) develop thoughtful, science-based policy appropriate for the multifaceted issues of global climate change, (3) organize global planning to recognize, prepare for, and adapt to the causes and consequences of global climate change, and (4) organize and develop comprehensive, long-term strategies for sustainable energy, particularly focused on minimizing impacts on global climate."-

Position Statement, Global Climate Change, 2006

[The_Dude 1,142]

Ah-so we to characterize others based solely on posts at EP...?

That's interesting....If I did that my POV of some people would be far different - but I'm not like you. I don't judge based on EP.

Maybe you should actually read what people post before posting, you might not look quite so foolish. I think of EP as a place where people's behavior is an exagerration of reality. You are a raging malcontent on there, and I figured you were a lesser version of that on VJ, or even real life. You have proved me wrong though.

[tmma 467]

Maybe you should actually read what people post before posting, you might not look quite so foolish. I think of EP as a place where people's behavior is an exagerration of reality. You are a raging malcontent on there, and I figured you were a lesser version of that on VJ, or even real life. You have proved me wrong though.

+1 because I feel sorry for you & I really don't want to argue with you on here or anywhere- I came on this thread because it's about the climate & being a climatologist/meteorologist-naturally i am interested. i didn't come here to answer your digs at me brought over from another site.

[The_Dude 1,142]

+1 because I feel sorry for you & I really don't want to argue with you on here or anywhere- I came on this thread because it's about the climate & being a climatologist/meteorologist-naturally i am interested. i didn't come here to answer your digs at me brought over from another site.

LoL, I only called you a malcontent after your reaction to a joke. Humor, look it up sometime. I did read your legit responses in the thread too. You really should continue posting. I believe you said somewhere on some website that you had a degree (and masters too If I recall correctly) in meteorology. Threads like this one could use some actual expertise rather than speculation and copy and pasting.

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

[tmma 467]

LoL, I only called you a malcontent after your reaction to a joke. Humor, look it up sometime. I did read your legit responses in the thread too. You really should continue posting. I believe you said somewhere on some website that you had a degree (and masters too If I recall correctly) in meteorology. Threads like this one could use some actual expertise rather than speculation and copy and pasting.

This topic has been rampant on VJ ( and everywhere else) for ages and ages. It's the same copy and paste and the same arguement. Differing POV are good with regards to the atmospheric composition and the effect of humans on the natural cycles of the Earth. the problem is that alot of information is politically influenced which is bad. Alot of ' bodies' of scientists world wide will contour or word their findings to either cater to those funding the research or to the more alarmist sections of society. Either way- discussion,debate & individual research ( like El B has done) is good overall especially in the science of climatology and meteorology & is required professionally( most Weather Service Offices have numerous met meetings everyday between the on shift staff).

For every c/p saying one thing on the interwebz-we will find another that says the opposite. I've only ever c./p one thing on here about climate and that was a piece explaining the difference between climate and weather because folks were all ' OMGZ it's hotter than all heck today-we're meltinggggggggg...global warming-yikes'.

Also IMO the term ' Global Warming' is erroneous scientifically because it gives the impression the it's the Earth warming and not the temperature of the gases composing the atmosphere which is totally different with different effects. In fact a warmign of the atmosphere could result in an ice ages given the correct combinations of the other variables ( SST . land water distribution...etc).

I've babbles about the weather-yep i am a weather geek ( math too).

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

This topic has been rampant on VJ ( and everywhere else) for ages and ages. It's the same copy and paste and the same arguement. Differing POV are good with regards to the atmospheric composition and the effect of humans on the natural cycles of the Earth. the problem is that alot of information is politically influenced which is bad. Alot of ' bodies' of scientists world wide will contour or word their findings to either cater to those funding the research or to the more alarmist sections of society. Either way- discussion,debate & individual research ( like El B has done) is good overall especially in the science of climatology and meteorology & is required professionally( most Weather Service Offices have numerous met meetings everyday between the on shift staff).

For every c/p saying one thing on the interwebz-we will find another that says the opposite. I've only ever c./p one thing on here about climate and that was a piece explaining the difference between climate and weather because folks were all ' OMGZ it's hotter than all heck today-we're meltinggggggggg...global warming-yikes'.

Also IMO the term ' Global Warming' is erroneous scientifically because it gives the impression the it's the Earth warming and not the temperature of the gases composing the atmosphere which is totally different with different effects. In fact a warmign of the atmosphere could result in an ice ages given the correct combinations of the other variables ( SST . land water distribution...etc).

I've babbles about the weather-yep i am a weather geek ( math too).

There you go again. You imply that the jury is still out in terms of any conclusive evidence as to whether or not CO2 emissions are having a significant impact on warming the planet when the fact remains, there is a worldwide consensus among the bodies of science that study climate, that we are in fact warming our planet from the burning of fossil fuels. Dismissing that as simply a matter of internet searching for the right material is intellectually dishonest.

Again, I ask you to find ONE body of climate science that says anything to the contrary? You won't find one, which is why haven't bothered to answer the question. You continue to pretend there is a scientific debate when there is none.

[tmma 467]

There you go again. You imply that the jury is still out in terms of any conclusive evidence as to whether or not CO2 emissions are having a significant impact on warming the planet when the fact remains, there is a worldwide consensus among the bodies of science that study climate, that we are in fact warming our planet from the burning of fossil fuels. Dismissing that as simply a matter of internet searching for the right material is intellectually dishonest.

Again, I ask you to find ONE body of climate science that says anything to the contrary? You won't find one, which is why haven't bothered to answer the question. You continue to pretend there is a scientific debate when there is none.

El B- i didn't say that the jury was out in terms of CO2 being a significant contributor to climate changes. CO2 IS a significant contributor...What i said was I disagreed with your statement that ALL scientific bodies globally were in agreement the man made CO2 is warming the atmosphere. I already stated that it would be more accurate to say that there is debate on the amount of impact or acceleration of natural phenomenon is a result of man made CO2 emmissions imo .

But you and I are actually agreeing with more than we are disagreeing. I wish you could see that.

But I still say as part of the scientific community ( albeit locally) that YOUR statement of ALL scientists in agreement that it's man made CO2 warmign the Earth is, actually wrong- I am disagreeing with what YOU said and how you phrased it with the absolute wording you used.

. Not your internet c/ping.

Thanks for the discussion. I have House TiVo'd.

catch ya later

Edited October 29, 2010 by tmma

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

El B- i didn't say that the jury was out in terms of CO2 being a significant contributor to climate changes. CO2 IS a significant contributor...What i said was I disagreed with your statement that ALL scientific bodies globally were in agreement the man made CO2 is warming the atmosphere. I already stated that it would be more accurate to say that there is debate on the amount of impact or acceleration of natural phenomenon is a result of man made CO2 emmissions imo .

But you and I are actually agreeing with more than we are disagreeing. I wish you could see that.

But I still say as part of the scientific community ( albeit locally) that YOUR statement of ALL scientists in agreement that it's man made CO2 warmign the Earth is, actually wrong- I am disagreeing with what YOU said and how you phrased it with the absolute wording you used.

. Not your internet c/ping.

Thanks for the discussion. I have House TiVo'd.

catch ya later

Here's my original statement: (post #5 of this thread)

ALL bodies of science throughout the world that study the climate unanimously agree that the burning of fossil fuels is warming our planet. Only denialist fools can't reading the writing on the wall.

If you or someone else can find ONE body of science that studies climate which disagrees with that consensus, then I'll stand corrected. In the meantime, I stand behind that statement.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Those scientists will shortly lose their funding to say anything unless they change the subject.

Dems will lose!

It is possible the Dems could keep a slim majority in the Senate but definitely not enough to overcome a filibuster AND all tax legislation (Cap ad Trade) must start in the House which will be controlled by the Repubs.

In less than a week. Global Warming will be fixed

Edited October 29, 2010 by Gary and Alla