Various components of climate change. The error bars, particularly on the negative components, are currently the focus of much climate research in order to improve predictive climate models. Denialists probably won't understand this graph.
A scientific consensus is reached when the vast majority of the scientists involved in a discipline broadly agree on the interpretation of the evidence pertaining to a specific scientific question. When this occurs the case can be considered to have been demonstrated and the burden of proof then falls on those who would dispute the consensus. The following national and international organizations are part of the consensus that global warming is a real phenomenon for which humans are responsible:
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
The Royal Society of the UK (RS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
And many more.

Though some have taken non-committal stances, the vast majority of scientific bodies are convinced by the evidence.[19] In addition, those pinko tree-huggers at the Pentagon now rank global warming as a "destabilizing force" (damn enviro-weenies).[20][21]

Despite the clarity of the facts, behavioral/social science science tells us that simply shoving global warming related scientific data into their face simply solidifies their existing beliefs.[22] There's even a college offering free online classes that teaches you both the science of what is going on and how to fight denialism properly.[23]

[edit] National or international scientific bodies that reject anthropogenic global warming

Peer review is not scientific proof some will say




And ice cream isn’t chocolate cake… I don’t think you understand what peer review means When you quote professor Ball Or Harris or anyone else who gets miserble dollars from ExxonMoble

everthings a lie have you not heard this? global warming is just an Excuse Jonh Rose says so they can spray us, Are We Paranoid Yet?
Yeh just a bunch of hot air right Archie
Why worry about the envirment, It will go away



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/07/2017 02:19PM by riverhousebill.

DeSmog

Clearing the PR Pollution that Clouds Climate Science

Oil and Plastic Are Choking The Planet



By David Suzuki • Saturday, June 3, 2017

People who deny that humans are wreaking havoc on the planet’s life-support systems astound me.

When confronted with the obvious damage we’re doing to the biosphere — from climate change to water and air pollution to swirling plastic patches in the oceans — some dismiss the reality or employ logical fallacies to discredit the messengers.

It’s one thing to argue over solutions, but to reject the need for them is suicidal. And to claim people can’t talk about fossil fuels and climate change because they use fossil fuel–derived products, such as plastic keyboards, is nonsensical.

There’s no denying that oil, coal and gas are tremendously useful. They hold super-concentrated energy from the sun and are used to make a variety of products, from medicines to lubricants to plastics. The problems aren’t the resources but our profligate use of them. Using them more wisely is a start. In many cases, we also have alternatives.

Burning oil, coal and gas to propel inefficient automobiles and generate electricity illustrates the problem. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, about 14 to 30 per cent of a gasoline-powered car’s fuel is used to propel the vehicle. That energy is mostly moving a tonne of car, which often holds one 80-kilogram person. That’s a lot of fuel and energy to transport one or two people.

Looked at this way, even electric or hybrid personal vehicles aren’t terribly efficient, but they at least pollute less than gas-powered vehicles — and the EPA notes 74 to 94 per cent of an electric car’s energy goes to moving the vehicle and its passengers. Energy-efficient or electric vehicles are moving in the right direction, but public transit and active transport such as cycling and walking are better alternatives.

Fossil fuel power plants are also inefficient. Only about a third of the power generated reaches consumers. More is lost through wasteful household or business use. A lot of energy is also required to extract, process and transport fuels to power plants. Because of the many methods of generating and supplying electricity with renewable sources such as solar, wind and geothermal, it’s tough to put exact numbers on efficiency, but far less power is wasted. Because the energy sources are inexhaustible and don’t produce emissions, waste isn’t as big a concern as with fossil fuels — although it’s still important.

Most plastics are also made from oil — which presents another set of problems. As with fuels, people started making plastics from oil because it was inexpensive, plentiful and easy for corporations to exploit and sell. Our consume-and-profit economic system meant automakers once designed cars not to be efficient but to burn more fuel than necessary. Likewise, manufacturers create far more plastic products than necessary. Many items don’t serve much purpose beyond making money. Sometimes the packaging is worth more than the contents!

It’s so bad that researchers from Australia’s University of Tasmania and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds recently found 18 tonnes of plastic garbage — 239 items per square metre — scattered across a small South Pacific island 5,000 kilometres from the nearest human occupation. Scientists have also found massive, swirling patches of plastic in the North and South Pacific oceans, each holding around 400,000 plastic particles per square kilometre. University of Tasmania researcher Jennifer Lavers said plastic in the oceans could be as great a threat as climate change. “You put carbon dioxide into the atmosphere or plastic in the oceans and both will stick around,” she told New Scientist.

As with fossil fuels, the first step to addressing the problem is to substantially reduce plastics usage. There are also alternatives. To begin, we should recycle everything already produced. Plastics can also be made from renewable resources, such as hemp, or any fast-growing plant that contains cellulose. In fact, plastics were once commonly made from animal products such as horn and tusks, but when those became expensive, people started using plants, switching to oil products when that became more profitable.

We can and must cut down on fossil fuels and plastics. We also have alternatives, and ways to prevent plastics from ending up in the oceans. Those who look away and pretend we don’t have a problem are only slowing solutions and accelerating our self-destruction.

David Suzuki is a scientist, broadcaster, author and co-founder of the David Suzuki Foundation. Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Senior Editor Ian Hanington. David Suzuki’s latest book is Just Cool It!: The Climate Crisis and What We Can Do (Greystone Books), co-written with Ian Hanington.

Learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.

Just wondering Jennifer and Anon
warming related scientific data
Do you think above list from eperts all lies of the leftys from Mars?
And the alt right vacum wing realy knows the score?

The Meaning of "Peer Review" Explained So That Even Breitbart Writers Can Understand

By Alfredo Carpineti

Another day, another dangerous claim from far-right opinion blog Breitbart. Usually, their reporting doesn’t warrant a response article as their unproven allegations are easily and quickly dismissed by fact, but when they begin to threaten scientists with violence, it is obvious that the affable façade of the so-called alt-right is just a front for the unsavoury views of people who want to silence their opponents by any means necessary.

Climate denier James Delingpole wrote an article for Breitbart recently, titled "When You Hear A Scientist Talk About ‘Peer Review’ You Should Reach For Your Browning" – a sentence taken almost word for word from the Nazi play “Schlageter”.

Although the author appears to be familiar with pre-war German plays, he seems to not really get what the peer review process, in terms of scientific research, is all about. So what does peer review mean?

Peer review is an important part of the scientific process. It is an evaluation of a scientist’s work by other experts working in their field. The aim of it is simple, to make sure that what’s written down is correct and well-analyzed.

This doesn’t mean that the peer review process is flawless and shouldn’t be improved upon or challenged, but the argument "I’d rather shoot another human being because they disagree with my view of the peer review process" is not an argument, it's a worrying world view.

He continued by saying that peer review is just a “claim to authority” so people will not question the scientists' work when they hear the phrase “peer reviewed”. It seems to be working, right? No-one has ever questioned the overwhelming evidence for global warming.

Unironically, and in an attempt to plug his book, Delingpole does his own claim to authority by saying "be sure to point out – as I do in my book Watermelons – that neither Watson and Crick nor Einstein were peer reviewed," which is only partly true, so if you take his words at face value you would be misinformed. And in that he forgets how even the most famous scientists can make mistakes, and thus need others to review their work.

For example, Einstein added some fudge terms to his laws of general relativity to make the universe unchanging (it’s actually expanding) but when other scientists showed the evidence against his correction, he dropped it.

Peer review doesn’t guarantee that no mistakes are published but it makes them more unlikely. Science journalists also need to keep a critical eye on what’s released, as we are another quality check in the scientific process of reporting accurate information to the general public. Delingpole has previously declared that it’s not his job to read peer review papers. Sorry, but if you are writing and reporting on science, then it should be.

Science is a communal effort in reducing our shared ignorance. It is about producing an idea, testing if it is correct and then having other people confirm your observations and results. Threatening your opponents with violence only shows that your side has no other argument to support your unproven and untested claims.

So when people quote the likes of Profesor Tim Ball and Profesor Tom Harris who have lied about what their PHD realy is and facts you see the distortion propaganda tactics used by this group of Alt Right and Nazi denialist.
Google the two profesors and you will see the out right lies and also profesors recieving money from the oil industry.
Raw food with a little oil on the side,
Hypocrocy is the greatest luxury,
Desmog the Truth!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/11/2017 02:23AM by riverhousebill.

We don't walk around saying "I believe in a blue sky," or "I believe the ocean has fish." That climate science and human impact on it is up for "debate" is ridiculous. It's been proven as fact. Some debate the rate at which our climate is changing. Some debate the point of no return, but it in itself, it isn't a "belief."

Not Beautiful, the blackened skies,
The fall of acid rain.
The strip mines looming haughtily,
Across the drought parched plains.
America, America, God shed his tears for thee.
We no longer lead, but bow to greed,
From polluted sea to polluted sea.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/04/2017 12:41AM by riverhousebill.