97% of scientist agree man cause's global warming.....On second thought, um no..
- Thread starter Rolodawg2011
- Start date
This article doesn't dispute Climate Change or say that it's a hoax at all. It's talking about what is the proper place of consensus in the scientific community. On top of that, it's from a third rate hack that has no clout at all in the scientific community. Just some guy writing a blog. You guys will find any thing to justify your ignorance.
It points out how the Flat earthers promote their hoax. I get the kids believing in this BS, But grown ass ppl? Its the stupidest shit I've ever seen, its just nuts that ppl believe these moonbats, especially with their track record of never getting anything right. Ever!
The article does exactly none of what you just said. And sorry but the 97% number is accurate. This article only questions should consensus be used to validate or better yet push the acceptance of a scientific theory.
The infamous 97% number depends on who you talk to. The fact that the left has trumpeted "NINETY-SEVEN PERCENT" over and over and over, ad nauseum, would lead one to believe that that number is dramatically inflated and that they're using the Goebbels technique of repeating a lie often enough that people will believe it. How do you know that it's 97%. Have you interviewed every single climate scientist in the world, recorded their opinion, and tallied the results? If you haven't, then I tend to doubt your claim. Wanna play the race card now?
Huh?? when 67% express "no opinion" (straight from Cook's data), kinda tough to get to "97% from there. Geez.
See, there you go. Pointing out facts and stuff. You obviously don't care about the earth.
Is Judith Curry, former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, a hack as well? From an April 15th interview with her:
“The so-called 97% consensus is about fairly trivial things: ‘Yes the temperature is warming; Yes, humans are putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and Yes, carbon dioxide does have a greenhouse effect. But that doesn’t tell us whether human caused climate change is dominating over natural climate change and that is where the big debate is about.
On balance, I don’t see any particular dangers from greenhouse warming….[Humans do] influence climate to some extent, what we do with land-use changes and what we put into the atmosphere. But I don’t think its a large enough impact to dominate over natural climate variability."
Lol again you rubs misclassify what the report said. He didn't say "no opinion" but instead "no position" meaning that the paper that they survey'd took no position for or against "CLIMATE CHANGE" and the effect humans are having on it. So it just simply removed that paper or study from the count of peer reviewed material and only counted those that took a definitive position for or against "CLIMATE CHANGE"
Tom I guess we should just ignore these 18 highly respected and well known assosicaitons and you can take the word of a gnat. Go right ahead my friend.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
- Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
- Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
- Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
- Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
- Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
- Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
- Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
- Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
- Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
- Académie des Sciences, France
- Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
- Academy of Athens
- Academy of Science of Mozambique
- Academy of Science of South Africa
- Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
- Academy of Sciences Malaysia
- Academy of Sciences of Moldova
- Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
- Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
- Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
- Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
- Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
- Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
- African Academy of Sciences
- Albanian Academy of Sciences
- Amazon Environmental Research Institute
- American Academy of Pediatrics
- American Anthropological Association
- American Association for the Advancement of Science
- American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
- American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
- American Astronomical Society
- American Chemical Society
- American College of Preventive Medicine
- American Fisheries Society
- American Geophysical Union
- American Institute of Biological Sciences
- American Institute of Physics
- American Meteorological Society
- American Physical Society
- American Public Health Association
- American Quaternary Association
- American Society for Microbiology
- American Society of Agronomy
- American Society of Civil Engineers
- American Society of Plant Biologists
- American Statistical Association
- Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
- Australian Academy of Science
- Australian Bureau of Meteorology
- Australian Coral Reef Society
- Australian Institute of Marine Science
- Australian Institute of Physics
- Australian Marine Sciences Association
- Australian Medical Association
- Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
- Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
- Botanical Society of America
- Brazilian Academy of Sciences
- British Antarctic Survey
- Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
- California Academy of Sciences
- Cameroon Academy of Sciences
- Canadian Association of Physicists
- Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
- Canadian Geophysical Union
- Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
- Canadian Society of Soil Science
- Canadian Society of Zoologists
- Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
- Center for International Forestry Research
- Chinese Academy of Sciences
- Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
- Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
- Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
- Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
- Crop Science Society of America
- Cuban Academy of Sciences
- Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
- Ecological Society of America
- Ecological Society of Australia
- Environmental Protection Agency
- European Academy of Sciences and Arts
- European Federation of Geologists
Look at all these famous and world renowned organizations that state that "CLIMATE CHANGE" is man made. But Tom will take the world of a gnat instead.
which, by definition, means that the "consensus" calculation is bogus. Simple stuff.
No it's called sampling. Enroll into a Statistics class if you don't know what that means. And no it doesn't. He reviewed all the papers that took a stance for or against "CLIMATE CHANGE" being man made and 97% are for it. Not that hard to understand.
LOL, "world renown" Iranian Academy of Sciences, Cuban Academy of Sciences. Get real. Listing various groups that support your position (supposedly) is a useless undertaking in that no one knows who most of them are and if they actually took the position you claim. This is about analysis of hard data from one of your brethren that debunks your propaganda. Sorry that you can't handle it.
Been there, done that. You can define a sample that says the exact opposite if you wished and it would be no more valid than the garbage you spew.
Lol that's where you're wrong Minnesota. You see your side is losing the "Culture War". You've lost the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 presidential elections, approval of gay marriage is at an all time high, legalization of weed is at an all time high, we've got Obamacare here to stay and a recent poll just release said that more Americans view themselves as left leaning instead of right leaning. These are great days we live in my friend. Fundamental Transformation is in full swing!
Calm down, big guy. Take a look at Congress, State legislatures and Governors and you might, if you're honest, reach a different conclusion. And, BTW, according to ABC/Wpost polling, support for Obamacare is at all time lows (39%). Got to go to work. Always pleasure, ShoNuff. Go Dawgs!
Did I mention that Judith Curry serves on NASA Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee whose mission is to provide advice and recommendations to NASA on issues of program priorities and policy, and that she is a recent member of the NOAA Climate Working Group and a former member of the National Academies Space Studies Board and Climate Research Group? She is hardly a gnat, and hardly the only one. You can put Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at MIT, and others along with her. The fact is that there is very little evidence that humans are the main reason for climate change. That's why climate scientists are now trying to figure out where all the heat that should have been causing global temperatures to rise has gone. But until they figure that out, sheep like you will keep bleating the party line.
LOL, R us serious? No, its a made up number, just like their data. Can you sight a single thing they've ever go right? You know they have a history of these nutty predictions. Their history didn't just start today. Does that kinda thing matter to you? You know, being wrong all the time?
Does it matter to you that they've been caught admitting to changing the datat to get the desired results?
Does it matter they were caught deleting data that would discount their loony BS? Hockey stick anyone?
No, you have to be a useful idiot to believe this shit. The Climate has been changing for thousands of years, but if we don't do what the democRATS tell us to do , we'll all die by Thursday,
Please explain
There is a 50 year history of environmental alarmism that has failed every single prediction. From the end the oil supply to vast famine that was supposed to occur in the 90's to the destruction caused by acid rain to the ever expanding deserts to the current Global Warming mantra that is almost 30 years old with no real change. Remember Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb? How'd that work out?
What about Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring that launched the environmental movement by campaigning against DADT which the effect of banning only saved the lives of birds at the expense of hundreds of thousands of humans by reversing the eradication of malaria. Forget Charlie Sheen, that's WINNING like an environmentalist!!!
Go back and review Jimmy Carter's Global 2000 Report and see how accurate that was....
If anything has been constant, it is the failure of the alarmists. We don't have to check back in 20 years, they have been failing for 50 already....unless you just enjoy the idea of a 70 year trend of bullshit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. David Viner, 2000
Within a few years "children just aren't going to know what snow is." Snowfall will be "a very rare and exciting event.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Oppenheimer, 1990
[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lester Brown, 1981
....the period of global food security is over. As the demand for food continues to press against supply, inevitably real food prices will rise. The question no longer seems to be whether they will rise, but how much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lester Brown, 1994
The world's farmers can no longer be counted on to feed the projected additions to the world's population.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Norman Myers, The Sinking Ark, 1979
40,000 species per year were going extinct and that 1 million species would be gone by the year 2000.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Ehrlich, 1971
By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people ... If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, Secretary of Smithsonian Institute,1970
....in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ehrlich, Earth Day, 1970
In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish."
LOL....
Quote:
Al Gore, 1988
We have only 10 years to react.
Quote:
Al Gore, 1998
We have only 10 years to react.
Quote:
Al Gore, 2008
We have only 10 years to react.
Yup, keep repeating....
Oh man, why is it you moonbats have to change what science is to make your point? Consensus is not science,....its not up for a vote . LOL
No, it doesn't matter, because that's what he's TOLD to believe. Here's the plan: Find some obscure scientists who have cooked up a doom and gloom scenario, based on flawed data and scientific method. Figure out a way to profit from it, and at the same time, siphon money from the good ol USA to some tin pot ditatorships. Scream from the mountaintops that said cockamamy prediction is "settled science", endorsed by NINETY SEVEN PERCENT of all scientists, until the uesful idiots believe it and can parrot the party line. Unfortunately, along the way, some clown left some incriminating e-mails out there, and the credible scientific community spoke up to say that the theory is BS. Now the useful idiots are left out there to argue a de-bunked theory and to look like ................oh yeah, useful idiots.
It's a cold dose of reality they can't deal with. Imagine, one minute you're saving the planet, the next, you're an errant buffoon
You sure do get wound up about all this .... I don't think i believe the global warmer climate changers any more than I believe the oil industry telling us fracking is safe .....
I just figure we should take care of our environment and continue to make it harder for misuse of natural resources
Cracking is safe, the resources are here for us to use. The climate hoax cost us billions thrown down a democrat slush fund.......that's why Im worked up over it
There are real concerns with Fracking that can't be ignored. Look at Oklahoma, right now it has more earthquakes over 3.5 then California. This correlates in location and time with the increase in Fracking.
Don't be blinded by the oil industry just because of the economic impact it could have. If the concerns are ignored the economic impacts can quickly swing from the positive to the negative.
Also remember the lead industry said for years there's noting wrong with lead paint and leaded gas. Tobacco industry said for years that there is no harm fro cigarettes and second hand smoke. Don't be a sheep to big business and think for yourself.
Don't be blinded by the oil industry just because of the economic impact it could have. If the concerns are ignored the economic impacts can quickly swing from the positive to the negative.
Also remember the lead industry said for years there's noting wrong with lead paint and leaded gas. Tobacco industry said for years that there is no harm fro cigarettes and second hand smoke. Don't be a sheep to big business and think for yourself.
There was far more evidence linking smoking and lead paint to health problems than there is for anthropogenic global warming. AGW is a nice theory, but the evidence just isn't there to support it. Plenty of credible scientists will tell you that. Just because Obama says there is doesn't make it so.
Last edited:
