I thought you guys were "winning"...?

[ginwilly]

Did you look at the list?

Global Warming: A Reduced Threat?
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 73, Issue 10, pp. 1563–1577, October 1992)
- Patrick J. Michaels, David E. Stooksbury


A dissenting view on global climate change
(The Electricity Journal, Volume 6, Issue 6, pp. 62-69, July 1993)
- Henry R. Linden



Science does not support consensus' on climate change
(The Electricity Journal, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp. 78-85, February 1994)
- Henry R. Linden


Statistical analysis does not support a human influence on climate
(Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 329-331, July 2002)
- S. Fred Singer

I only went through a few of the THOUSANDS of papers provided.
You didn't look at the list.

So, you can't find ONE eh?

Figured I'd go ahead and get that out of the way.

Devil's Advocate: those are some old studies you linked, I didn't search for any new ones though, it would hurt my argument.

 

[abandonconflict]

Did you look at the list?

Global Warming: A Reduced Threat?
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 73, Issue 10, pp. 1563–1577, October 1992)
- Patrick J. Michaels, David E. Stooksbury


A dissenting view on global climate change
(The Electricity Journal, Volume 6, Issue 6, pp. 62-69, July 1993)
- Henry R. Linden



Science does not support consensus' on climate change
(The Electricity Journal, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp. 78-85, February 1994)
- Henry R. Linden


Statistical analysis does not support a human influence on climate
(Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 329-331, July 2002)
- S. Fred Singer

I only went through a few of the THOUSANDS of papers provided.
You didn't look at the list.

the first study you linked concludes that global warming is a good thing overall

the second study concludes that "alarmists are overstating their position"

the third simply disputes consensus

the fourth study is simply a rebuttal to Wigley 98

you have failed to link a peer reviewed study which concludes that climate change is not caused by humans

 

[reasonevangelist]

So then.


It should be easy to find ONE peer reviewed study supporting the denial position and not simply an inconclusive study which "doesn't support alarmism".

Actually... it's kinda like how atheists often don't feel the need to ask whether a god exists; because they've already analyzed all the precursors and found it to be a waste of their energy to investigate whether something which has zero valid substantiation, is "true."

There are alarmists concluding, and there are those who think it's not worth the effort to rebut the alarmism. The non-alarmists probably think the alarmists are "obviously mistaken," and that given enough time, they'll figure it out for themselves. Kinda like how i think that if you give a theist enough time and facts, they'll figure out their belief is actually a fantasy, instead of actually true. Plus, how do you argue with someone who demands disproof of their unsubstantiable claims, while disregarding their own requirement to first substantiate their claims? Why go out of your way to provide and explain evidence to someone who rejects their own need to produce any? They clearly don't value actual evidence or logic, and they must have been unable to understand what they investigated, or they never would have reached and insisted upon maintaining an errant conclusion in the first place!

Climate change occurred prior to humanity's existence. Therefore, humanity CANNOT be the sole cause of climate change, regardless of whether we have contributed either willingly or otherwise, significantly or otherwise. Plus... humanity IS nature (part of it)... so doesn't that mean "nature is causing climate change," just as has been repeatedly suggested? Maybe humans influencing the earth's conditions should be "a given," and interpreted as "nature taking its course." There is no valid reason to assume that earth's climate should Never change. In fact, on the contrary: we should assume that almost, if not all of Everything, can, does, and will continue to change... and perhaps we should not expect to fully understand or control it?

 

[jahbrudda]

Well then it should not be hard to cite one study that supports the skeptic argument. Just one study, not an article that is not peer reviewed claiming there are hundreds of studies, one study.

CLIMATE RESEARCH
Clim Res
V
ol. 23: 89–110, 2003
Published January 31
1. INTRODUCTION
Are the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period
widespread climatic anomalies? Lamb (1965) wrote,
‘[M]ultifarious evidence of a meteorological nature
from historical records, as well as archaeological,
botanical and glaciological evidence in various parts
of the world from the Arctic to New Zealand . . . has
been found to suggest a warmer epoch lasting several
centuries between about A.D. 900 or 1000 and about
1200 or 1300. . . . Both the ”Little Optimum” in the
early Middle Ages and the cold epochs [i.e. ”Little Ice
Age”], now known to have reached its culminating
stages between 1550 and 1700, can today be substanti-
ated by enough data to repay meteorological investi-
gation. . . . It is high time therefore to marshal the cli-
matic evidence and attempt a quantitative evidence’
(p. 14–15). Research on large-scale patterns of climate
change continued with vigor.
Jones et al. (199 tentatively concluded that while
a Little Ice Age cooling existed, little evidence could
be found to support or reject a medieval warming. But
the updated composite tree-ring summer temperature
curve in Fig. 1 of Briffa (2000) shows evidence for an
anomalously warm interval from about 950 to 1100 in
the northern high-latitude zone, which coincides with
Lamb’s Medieval Warm Period. Also, a similar early
warm period appears prominently in the averaged
tr
ee
ring chronologies carefully selected and processed
fr
om
14 sites spreading over 30 to 70° N (Esper et al.
2002).
Those results are but a few of many that have be-
come available since Lamb’s analysis. Given advance-
ments in retrieval of information from and extension of
surface coverage for the proxies, we review the accu-
mulated evidence on regional climatic anomalies over
the last 1000 yr. We also recommend Ogilvie & Jónsson
(2001), who recently provided the most authoritative
discussion on the historical development of the long-
standing debates on the climatic nature of the Medi-
eval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, especially con-
cerning the North Atlantic, including Iceland.
© Inter-Research 2003 · www.int-res.com
*Email: [email protected]
Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the
past 1000 years
Wi
llie Soon
1, 2,
*
, Sallie Baliunas
1, 2
1
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street, MS 16, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA
2
Mount Wilson Observatory, Mount Wilson, California 91023, USAhttp://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2003/23/c023p089.pdf

 

[jahbrudda]

Just to clarify, I supplied 3 citations. 1 was to an article which put forth an argument as to why consensus matters, the other two were peer reviewed studies, each of which compiled thousands of peer reviewed studies on the subject and pointed to a vast majority of those which were conclusive supporting man made climate change.

I call BS

 

[abandonconflict]

if we destroy the planet, it's just nature taking it's course...

 

[abandonconflict]

I call BS

that's nice

I called bs when you claimed that your plants made the cover of high times

 

[reasonevangelist]

if we destroy the planet, it's just nature taking it's course...

Someday the sun will die, and the planets of the solar system will deviate from their orbits and freeze (or be incinerated), and/or collide with other massive objects. That's nature!

 

[abandonconflict]

CLIMATE RESEARCH
Clim Res
V
ol. 23: 89–110, 2003
Published January 31
1. INTRODUCTION
Are the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period
widespread climatic anomalies? Lamb (1965) wrote,
‘[M]ultifarious evidence of a meteorological nature
from historical records, as well as archaeological,
botanical and glaciological evidence in various parts
of the world from the Arctic to New Zealand . . . has
been found to suggest a warmer epoch lasting several
centuries between about A.D. 900 or 1000 and about
1200 or 1300. . . . Both the ”Little Optimum” in the
early Middle Ages and the cold epochs [i.e. ”Little Ice
Age”], now known to have reached its culminating
stages between 1550 and 1700, can today be substanti-
ated by enough data to repay meteorological investi-
gation. . . . It is high time therefore to marshal the cli-
matic evidence and attempt a quantitative evidence’
(p. 14–15). Research on large-scale patterns of climate
change continued with vigor.
Jones et al. (199 tentatively concluded that while
a Little Ice Age cooling existed, little evidence could
be found to support or reject a medieval warming. But
the updated composite tree-ring summer temperature
curve in Fig. 1 of Briffa (2000) shows evidence for an
anomalously warm interval from about 950 to 1100 in
the northern high-latitude zone, which coincides with
Lamb’s Medieval Warm Period. Also, a similar early
warm period appears prominently in the averaged
tr
ee
ring chronologies carefully selected and processed
fr
om
14 sites spreading over 30 to 70° N (Esper et al.
2002).
Those results are but a few of many that have be-
come available since Lamb’s analysis. Given advance-
ments in retrieval of information from and extension of
surface coverage for the proxies, we review the accu-
mulated evidence on regional climatic anomalies over
the last 1000 yr. We also recommend Ogilvie & Jónsson
(2001), who recently provided the most authoritative
discussion on the historical development of the long-
standing debates on the climatic nature of the Medi-
eval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, especially con-
cerning the North Atlantic, including Iceland.
© Inter-Research 2003 · www.int-res.com
*Email: [email protected]
Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the
past 1000 years
Wi
llie Soon
1, 2,
*
, Sallie Baliunas
1, 2
1
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street, MS 16, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA
2
Mount Wilson Observatory, Mount Wilson, California 91023, USAhttp://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2003/23/c023p089.pdf

yes, there have been cold periods, thanks for trying

 

[abandonconflict]

Someday the sun will die, and the planets of the solar system will deviate from their orbits and freeze (or be incinerated), and/or collide with other massive objects. That's nature!

cool, thanks I guess...

idgaf, that's nature too

 

[jahbrudda]

yes, there have been cold periods, thanks for trying

That's a peer reviewed study against AGW, dipshit.

 

[NLXSK1]

the first study you linked concludes that global warming is a good thing overall

the second study concludes that "alarmists are overstating their position"

the third simply disputes consensus

the fourth study is simply a rebuttal to Wigley 98

you have failed to link a peer reviewed study which concludes that climate change is not caused by humans

Climate change happened before humans. End of study...

 

[abandonconflict]

American Geophysical Union statement:
http://sites.agu.org/

“Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.

While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic changes than anticipated."

American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America joint statement:
https://www.agronomy.org/ https://www.crops.org/ https://www.soils.org/

A comprehensive body of scientific evidence indicates beyond reasonable doubt that global climate change is now occurring and that its manifestations threaten the stability of societies as well as natural and managed ecosystems. Increases in ambient temperatures and changes in related processes are directly linked to rising anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere.

Unless the emissions of GHGs are curbed significantly, their concentrations will continue to rise, leading to changes in temperature, precipitation, and other climate variables that will undoubtedly affect agriculture around the world.

Climate change has the potential to increase weather variability as well as gradually increase global temperatures. Both of these impacts have the potential to negatively impact the adaptability and resilience of the world’s food production capacity; current research indicates climate change is already reducing the productivity of vulnerable cropping systems.

American Meteorological Society position statement:
http://www.ametsoc.org/

There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate. To inform decisions on adaptation and mitigation, it is critical that we improve our understanding of the global climate system and our ability to project future climate through continued and improved monitoring and research. This is especially true for smaller (seasonal and regional) scales and weather and climate extremes, and for important hydroclimatic variables such as precipitation and water availability.

Technological, economic, and policy choices in the near future will determine the extent of future impacts of climate change. Science-based decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. National and international policy discussions should include consideration of the best ways to both adapt to and mitigate climate change. Mitigation will reduce the amount of future climate change and the risk of impacts that are potentially large and dangerous. At the same time, some continued climate change is inevitable, and policy responses should include adaptation to climate change. Prudence dictates extreme care in accounting for our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life.

Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Position statement:
http://www.amos.org.au/

Global climate change and global warming are real and observable ... It is highly likely that those human activities that have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have been largely responsible for the observed warming since 1950. The warming associated with increases in greenhouse gases originating from human activity is called the enhanced greenhouse effect. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased by more than 30% since the start of the industrial age and is higher now than at any time in at least the past 650,000 years. This increase is a direct result of burning fossil fuels, broad-scale deforestation and other human activity

Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences position statement:
http://www.climateforum.ca/

We concur with the climate science assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001 ... We endorse the conclusions of the IPCC assessment that 'There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities'. ... There is increasingly unambiguous evidence of changing climate in Canada and around the world. There will be increasing impacts of climate change on Canada’s natural ecosystems and on our socio-economic activities. Advances in climate science since the 2001 IPCC Assessment have provided more evidence supporting the need for action and development of a strategy for adaptation to projected changes.

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society letter to Canadian parliament:
http://www.cmos.ca/

Rigorous international research, including work carried out and supported by the Government of Canada, reveals that greenhouse gases resulting from human activities contribute to the warming of the atmosphere and the oceans and constitute a serious risk to the health and safety of our society, as well as having an impact on all life.

U.S. Global Change Research Program report:
http://www.globalchange.gov/

Observations show that warming of the climate is unequivocal. The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with important contributions from the clearing of forests, agricultural practices, and other activities. Climate-related changes have already been observed globally and in the United States. These include increases in air and water temperatures, reduced frost days, increased frequency and intensity of heavy downpours, a rise in sea level, and reduced snow cover, glaciers, permafrost, and sea ice. A longer ice-free period on lakes and rivers, lengthening of the growing season, and increased water vapor in the atmosphere have also been observed. Over the past 30 years, temperatures have risen faster in winter than in any other season, with average winter temperatures in the Midwest and northern Great Plains increasing more than 7°F. Some of the changes have been faster than previous assessments had suggested.

American Association for the Advancement of Science official statement on climate change:
http://www.aaas.org/

The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society....The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.

Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies official statement on climate change:
http://scienceandtechnologyaustralia.org.au/

Global climate change is real and measurable...To reduce the global net economic, environmental and social losses in the face of these impacts, the policy objective must remain squarely focused on returning greenhouse gas concentrations to near pre-industrial levels through the reduction of emissions. The spatial and temporal fingerprint of warming can be traced to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, which are a direct result of burning fossil fuels, broad-scale deforestation and other human activity.

Royal Society of New Zealand position statement regarding climate change:
http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/

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 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.

There are dozens more...

 

[abandonconflict]

That's a peer reviewed study against AGW, dipshit.

no.

it doesn't even mention it

were you born stupid or have you just always been stupid?

 

[jahbrudda]

If there is one guy on this forum I trust when it comes to climate change science, it's Heckler.
He told you to drop the 97% crap because you were either stupid or stirring shit, my opinion is, you honestly believe it.

 

[abandonconflict]

If there is one guy on this forum I trust when it comes to climate change science, it's Heckler.
He told you to drop the 97% crap because you were either stupid or stirring shit, my opinion is, you honestly believe it.

What do you not understand about the fact that of all of the peer reviewed studies with a drawn conclusion, 97% affirm?

 

[abandonconflict]

still waiting for a citation...

just one peer reviewed study concluding that climate change is not caused by humans

just one

 

[jahbrudda]

still waiting for a citation...

just one peer reviewed study concluding that climate change is not caused by humans

just one

You haven't cited one, why should anyone else

 

[abandonconflict]

You haven't cited one, why should anyone else

of course I haven't

now go sit in the corner dumb ass

 

[jahbrudda]

of course I haven't

now go sit in the corner dumb ass

Not a single person on the site is defending your dumb ass, can't take a fucking hint.