Texas Form Declaration 2015: Fill & Download for Free

First, no need to polarize anything. The US is not the world. All the world agrees on AGW.The following are 198 scientific organizations that hold the position that Climate Change has been caused by human action:List of Worldwide Scientific OrganizationsScientific consensus: Earth's climate is warmingMembers of the National Academy of Sciences Publish Open Letter On Climate ChangeProfessor Granger Morgan joined 375 other members of the National Academy of Sciences, including 30 Nobel laureates, to publish an open letter meant to draw attention to the serious risks of climate change.Read it and decide for yourself:Members of the National Academy of Sciences Publish Open Letter On Climate Change - Engineering and Public Policy - College of Engineering - Carnegie Mellon UniversityOn the final day of the at the 65th Nobel Laureate Meeting, 36 Nobel laureates signed the Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change, an emphatic appeal for climate protection, stating that “that the nations of the world must take the opportunity at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in December 2015 to take decisive action to limit future global emissions” In the months thereafter, 35 additional laureates joined the group of supporters of the declaration.As of February 2016, a total of 76 Nobel laureates endorse the Mainau Declaration 2015.Many studies confirms the 97% + consensus:Authors of seven climate consensus studies — including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook — co-authored a paper that should settle this question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.Jo, det store flertallet av verdens klimaforskere er enige om at mennesket påvirker klimaetWHAT ABOUT THOSE 3% PAPERS WHICH DO NOT AGREE ON AGW?The researchers tried to replicate the results of those 3% of papers—a common way to test scientific studies—and found biased, faulty results. Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech University, worked with a team of researchers to look at the 38 papers published in peer-reviewed journals in the last decade that denied anthropogenic global warming.“Is there such a strong consensus in the scientific community on climate change simply because anyone proposing alternate explanations is black-balled and suppressed?This is one of the most frequent questions I get here on Facebook.It's a lot easier for someone to claim they've been suppressed than to admit that maybe they can't find the scientific evidence to support their political ideology that requires them to reject climate solutions and, to be consistent, 150 years of solid, peer-reviewed science, too.But over the last 10 years, at least 38 papers were published in peer-reviewed journals, each claiming various reasons why climate wasn't changing, or if it was, it wasn't humans, or it wasn't bad. They weren't suppressed. They're out there, where anyone can find them.So we took those papers and - thanks to the superhuman efforts of my colleague Rasmus Benestad - recalculated all their analyses. From scratch.And you know what we found?“Every single one of those analyses had an error—in their assumptions, methodology, or analysis—that, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus.”It's real, it's us, it's serious.”Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A review found them all flawedSecondly, it’s not cow flatulence.It’s the burps coming out of their mouths.That thing coming out of cows rear end, is normally called fossil fuel propaganda, climate denier pseudo science and conspiracy theories.Global greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture is about 11%:https://agriregionieuropa.univpm.it/it/content/article/31/41/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-agriculture-forestry-and-other-land-useThird, NASA got it covered:NASA Confirms Methane Spike Is Tied to Oil and Gas“So how did the NASA team find evidence of rising methane emissions from oil and gas exploration? The reduction in the world's area burned between 2006 and 2014 resulted in a reduction in methane emissions well above that predicted by scientists. Thus, fire-related methane pollution has dropped twice as much as previously thought, according to the study published in Nature Communications.Combining isotopic evidence from ground surface measurements with the newly calculated fire emissions, the NASA team showed that about 17 teragrams per year of the increase is due to fossil fuels, another 12 is from wetlands or rice farming, while fires are decreasing by about 4 teragrams per year. The three numbers combine to 25 teragrams a year -- the same as the observed increase.Worden and his team have applied new ground-based satellite data analysis to more accurately identify all methane exchanges.The findings underscore the need for the world to rapidly transition to renewable sources of energy, notably wind and solar power, in order to achieve the central goal of the Paris Climate Change Agreement, which is to limit the global average temperature rise to well below 2 degrees Celsius.”Its all covered by science:https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/...Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to What are the causes of climate change?

There are no “two sides”.There is only the side which have all the science.The other side is just an 75 year old and ongoing disinformation campaign which follows the playbook of tobacco denial.A decades old technique perfected by the tobacco industry is to manufacture the appearance of a continued debate through fake experts. Climate change is a complicated, multi-disciplinary science and yet many of the leading voices who purport to know better than the experts have never published a single piece of climate research.The professional climate deniers are using the same playbook as the tobacco industry used to play down the hazards of tobacco smoking. A playbook which was created by the lead polluters. Some of the climate denial think tanks are in fact still denying the hazards of tobacco smoking.Its called denial for profit."As early as the 1950s, the groups shared scientists and publicists to downplay dangers of smoking and climate change".Tobacco and Oil Industries Used Same Researchers to Sway PublicClimate change has been verified by almost every nation-state today in some form; why is everyone standing behind it? Because the science is easily attainable and verified – and supported by 99% of climate scientists, with the rest having no single, coherent and verified an alternative theory. You can check the data and the science right now if you want to.Evidence for man-made global warming hits ‘gold standard’:Scientists are 99.9999 percent sure humans caused climate changeAGW is proven by basic physics - the greenhouse effect.Every scientific body, org and institution of the world, every National Academy of Sciences of the world, every government, over 99% of the peer reviewed papers + most oil companies ALL agree on AGW theory.The following are 198 scientific organizations that hold the position that Climate Change has been caused by human action:List of Worldwide Scientific OrganizationsScientific consensus: Earth's climate is warmingMembers of the National Academy of Sciences Publish Open Letter On Climate ChangeProfessor Granger Morgan joined 375 other members of the National Academy of Sciences, including 30 Nobel laureates, to publish an open letter meant to draw attention to the serious risks of climate change.Read it and decide for yourself:Members of the National Academy of Sciences Publish Open Letter On Climate Change - Engineering and Public Policy - College of Engineering - Carnegie Mellon UniversityOn the final day of the at the 65th Nobel Laureate Meeting, 36 Nobel laureates signed the Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change, an emphatic appeal for climate protection, stating that “that the nations of the world must take the opportunity at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in December 2015 to take decisive action to limit future global emissions” In the months thereafter, 35 additional laureates joined the group of supporters of the declaration.As of February 2016, a total of 76 Nobel laureates endorse the Mainau Declaration 2015.Many studies confirms the 97% + consensus:Authors of seven climate consensus studies — including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook — co-authored a paper that should settle this question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.Jo, det store flertallet av verdens klimaforskere er enige om at mennesket påvirker klimaetWHAT ABOUT THOSE 3% PAPERS WHICH DO NOT AGREE ON AGW?The researchers tried to replicate the results of those 3% of papers—a common way to test scientific studies—and found biased, faulty results. Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech University, worked with a team of researchers to look at the 38 papers published in peer-reviewed journals in the last decade that denied anthropogenic global warming.“Is there such a strong consensus in the scientific community on climate change simply because anyone proposing alternate explanations is black-balled and suppressed?This is one of the most frequent questions I get here on Facebook.It's a lot easier for someone to claim they've been suppressed than to admit that maybe they can't find the scientific evidence to support their political ideology that requires them to reject climate solutions and, to be consistent, 150 years of solid, peer-reviewed science, too.But over the last 10 years, at least 38 papers were published in peer-reviewed journals, each claiming various reasons why climate wasn't changing, or if it was, it wasn't humans, or it wasn't bad. They weren't suppressed. They're out there, where anyone can find them.So we took those papers and - thanks to the superhuman efforts of my colleague Rasmus Benestad - recalculated all their analyses. From scratch.And you know what we found?“Every single one of those analyses had an error—in their assumptions, methodology, or analysis—that, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus.”It's real, it's us, it's serious.”Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A review found them all flawedHere’s what happens when you try to replicate climate contrarian papers | Dana NuccitelliRoger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to What are the causes of climate change?

No.The consensus is over 97-99%.Climate change has been verified by almost every nation-state today in some form; why is everyone standing behind it? Because the science is easily attainable and verified – and supported by 99% of climate scientists, with the rest having no single, coherent and verified an alternative theory. You can check the data and the science right now if you want to.Evidence for man-made global warming hits ‘gold standard’:Scientists are 99.9999 percent sure humans caused climate changeAGW is proven by basic physics - the greenhouse effect.Every scientific body, org and institution of the world, every National Academy of Sciences of the world, every government, over 99% of the peer reviewed papers + most oil companies ALL agree on AGW theory.The following are 198 scientific organizations that hold the position that Climate Change has been caused by human action:List of Worldwide Scientific OrganizationsScientific consensus: Earth's climate is warmingMembers of the National Academy of Sciences Publish Open Letter On Climate ChangeProfessor Granger Morgan joined 375 other members of the National Academy of Sciences, including 30 Nobel laureates, to publish an open letter meant to draw attention to the serious risks of climate change.Read it and decide for yourself:Members of the National Academy of Sciences Publish Open Letter On Climate Change - Engineering and Public Policy - College of Engineering - Carnegie Mellon UniversityOn the final day of the at the 65th Nobel Laureate Meeting, 36 Nobel laureates signed the Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change, an emphatic appeal for climate protection, stating that “that the nations of the world must take the opportunity at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in December 2015 to take decisive action to limit future global emissions” In the months thereafter, 35 additional laureates joined the group of supporters of the declaration.As of February 2016, a total of 76 Nobel laureates endorse the Mainau Declaration 2015.Many studies confirms the 97% + consensus:Authors of seven climate consensus studies — including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook — co-authored a paper that should settle this question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.Jo, det store flertallet av verdens klimaforskere er enige om at mennesket påvirker klimaetWHAT ABOUT THOSE 3% PAPERS WHICH DO NOT AGREE ON AGW?The researchers tried to replicate the results of those 3% of papers—a common way to test scientific studies—and found biased, faulty results. Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech University, worked with a team of researchers to look at the 38 papers published in peer-reviewed journals in the last decade that denied anthropogenic global warming.“Is there such a strong consensus in the scientific community on climate change simply because anyone proposing alternate explanations is black-balled and suppressed?This is one of the most frequent questions I get here on Facebook.It's a lot easier for someone to claim they've been suppressed than to admit that maybe they can't find the scientific evidence to support their political ideology that requires them to reject climate solutions and, to be consistent, 150 years of solid, peer-reviewed science, too.But over the last 10 years, at least 38 papers were published in peer-reviewed journals, each claiming various reasons why climate wasn't changing, or if it was, it wasn't humans, or it wasn't bad. They weren't suppressed. They're out there, where anyone can find them.So we took those papers and - thanks to the superhuman efforts of my colleague Rasmus Benestad - recalculated all their analyses. From scratch.And you know what we found?“Every single one of those analyses had an error—in their assumptions, methodology, or analysis—that, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus.”It's real, it's us, it's serious.”Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A review found them all flawedBONUS.WHY IS THERE EVEN A DEBATE?New study confirms;Yes, this is like fighting the tobacco industry again. The only reason we have not fixed the climate crisis, as we fixed the problems with acid rain and the ozone layer, is because the industry spends billions on disinformation - and blocking climate actions.This is the same disinformation, the same conspiracy theories and pseudo-science that climate deniers, ignorantly, see as "healthy skepticism" and / or "evidence" against climate science.“The report, which was published by scientists at Harvard, George Mason and Bristol universities, draws parallels between the campaigns launched by tobacco companies and oil industries to mislead the public about their products, both with a goal of delaying government policies and regulations that could cut into their profits.”“The authors highlight the tactics used by the campaigns, including trotting out fake experts, promoting conspiracy theories and cherry-picking evidence. And they point to specific examples employed by ExxonMobil, including a 2004 New York Times advertisement that read like an editorial. It employed traditional disinformation techniques such as questioning scientific consensus and advocating for a “balanced” scientific approach to climate change, giving weight to those skeptical of the prevailing research.”Report details how ExxonMobil and fossil fuel firms sowed seeds of doubt on climate changehttps://www.climatechangecommuni...