Climate continues to change.

[Hard_Rom]

Google will lead you to articles and videos that will show categorically that the Earth is hollow. And the inside is populated by Nazi super-saurian.

The internet has done wonders for bringing knowledge of somewhat obscure or specialized science to the masses. But it has also allowed bloggers, conspiracy theorists and just plain whackos to proliferate. Vested interest can also put out all sorts of nonsense that appears to substantiate their profit driven motives and ideas.

You have to apply critical thinking to most of what the WWW supplies. Being an airhead just looking to absorb all sorts of nonsense is just plain stupid. If we all did that then smoking and cancer would be unrelated, fossil fuel burning and climate change would have nothing to do with one another, that there is a racial hierarchy, that the Holocaust did not happen, that the Earth is flat or only 7000 years old.

Think! And think critically!

 

[water505]

Google will lead you to articles and videos that will show categorically that the Earth is hollow. And the inside is populated by Nazi super-saurian.

The internet has done wonders for bringing knowledge of somewhat obscure or specialized science to the masses. But it has also allowed bloggers, conspiracy theorists and just plain whackos to proliferate. Vested interest can also put out all sorts of nonsense that appears to substantiate their profit driven motives and ideas.

You have to apply critical thinking to most of what the WWW supplies. Being an airhead just looking to absorb all sorts of nonsense is just plain stupid. If we all did that then smoking and cancer would be unrelated, fossil fuel burning and climate change would have nothing to do with one another, that there is a racial hierarchy, that the Holocaust did not happen, that the Earth is flat or only 7000 years old.

Think! And think critically!

Actually, that Google link contains articles from qualified sources that factually demonstrate the 97% fraud. But in order to find that out you'd have to read them, wouldn't you? But you didn't, because they proved it's a lie and it would destroy your mindless narrative.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Actually, that Google link contains articles from qualified sources . . .

Neither Forbes nor Skeptical Science would be that. Which are you referring to?

 

[water505]

As a point of fact they do not. Please read what people are telling you, 97% of publishing climate scientists agree than humans are causing the climate to change.

Your first link is to Forbes magazine, publishing climate scientists don't write for Forbes magazine.

Your next link says people who are not publishing climate scientists don't have a consensus on climate change, which is understandable because they're not climate scientists.

Do you have a single cite that shows anything disagreeing by a publishing climate scientist?

You keep parroting the big lie and just can't stop.

Do 97% of scientists agree that GW is man made?

Yes or no.

Don't dodge the answer by asking another question or changing the subject. It's a simple question you should be able to answer just as easily as the time of day.

 

[KingOrfeo]

You keep parroting the big lie and just can't stop.

Do 97% of scientists agree that GW is man made?

Maybe, maybe not; but 97% of publishing climate scientists do.

 

[water505]

As a point of fact they do not. Please read what people are telling you, 97% of publishing climate scientists agree than humans are causing the climate to change.

Your first link is to Forbes magazine, publishing climate scientists don't write for Forbes magazine.

Your next link says people who are not publishing climate scientists don't have a consensus on climate change, which is understandable because they're not climate scientists.

Do you have a single cite that shows anything disagreeing by a publishing climate scientist?

Tell me who arrived at this number and the methodology used to make the determination.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Tell me who arrived at this number and the methodology used to make the determination.

These guys, using surveys.

 

[water505]

"In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

Mr. Cook’s work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found “only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse” the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work."

https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/myth-busted-climate-change-consensus-of-scientists-is-idiotic/

 

[water505]

Cook’s 97% climate consensus paper crumbles upon examination"

 

[water505]

Debunking The “97%” Consensus Claims

 

[KingOrfeo]

"In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

Mr. Cook’s work was quickly debunked. . .

Cook's work has been criticized but never debunked.

Nor has this more recent paper.

Abstract

The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.

 

[phrodeau]

Tell me who arrived at this number and the methodology used to make the determination.

Tell me how you arrived at your claim, if you are at all able.

 

[water505]

None of these links which demonstrate the fraud will change any of your minds, anyway. Facts are their kryptonite, and leftists continually refuse to accept the fact that their narrative may be wrong.

There is nothing a Democrat, liberal, or leftist could ever do or say to make you people criticize them.

Open minded....HA!

http://loralucero.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/deaf_dumb_blind.jpg

 

[water505]

Tell me how you arrived at your claim, if you are at all able.

Dude....shut the fuck up. You seem to be on a Mission from God to prove to the world that you're a moron.

 

[Hard_Rom]

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

see page 15

http://www.climatechange2013.org/spm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific and intergovernmental body under the auspices of the United Nations,[1][2] set up at the request of member governments, dedicated to the task of providing the world with an objective, scientific view of climate change and its political and economic impacts.[3] It was first established in 1988 by two United Nations organizations, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and later endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly through Resolution 43/53.

The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself. The IPCC bases its assessment on the published literature, which includes peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources.[7]

Thousands of scientists and other experts contribute (on a voluntary basis, without payment from the IPCC)[8] to writing and reviewing reports, which are then reviewed by governments. IPCC reports contain a "Summary for Policymakers", which is subject to line-by-line approval by delegates from all participating governments. Typically this involves the governments of more than 120 countries.[9]

 

[water505]

So what?

That has absolutely nothing to do with the fraudulent 97% claim. It came from a
BLOGGER. That report is from something entirely different.

Jesus, dude. You're a real pip.

 

[Chelz789]

lets just all love each other and oralise

 

[phrodeau]

Dude....shut the fuck up. You seem to be on a Mission from God to prove to the world that you're a moron.

All you've been able to show us is that you can Google shit.

 

[Conager]

Google will lead you to articles and videos that will show categorically that the Earth is hollow. And the inside is populated by Nazi super-saurian.

The internet has done wonders for bringing knowledge of somewhat obscure or specialized science to the masses. But it has also allowed bloggers, conspiracy theorists and just plain whackos to proliferate. Vested interest can also put out all sorts of nonsense that appears to substantiate their profit driven motives and ideas.

You have to apply critical thinking to most of what the WWW supplies. Being an airhead just looking to absorb all sorts of nonsense is just plain stupid. If we all did that then smoking and cancer would be unrelated, fossil fuel burning and climate change would have nothing to do with one another, that there is a racial hierarchy, that the Holocaust did not happen, that the Earth is flat or only 7000 years old.

Think! And think critically!

In the time it took you to write that condescending screed you could have read any number of Articles explaining the flawed methodology of a couple of students looking through a stack of papers and deciding for themselves what the papers did or did not mean.

It would be like giving Frodo a stack of weather reports and having him report back on whether the weather shows global warming or not he's going to find gman-caiused global warming.

 

[KingOrfeo]

In the time it took you to write that condescending screed you could have read any number of Articles explaining the flawed methodology of a couple of students looking through a stack of papers and deciding for themselves what the papers did or did not mean.

See post #1786.

 

[Libsam]

As for the "sky map," that rests on the assumption that a carving of a scorpion corresponds to the constellation Scorpius. It's a pretty big assumption to make, without any other evidence that the carvers recognized the same constellations as the Babylonians.

So you agree with climatologists' theoretical models, but you disagree with the astrologists theoretical models?

 

[phrodeau]

So you agree with climatologists' theoretical models, but you disagree with the astrologists theoretical models?

Where?

The guys who wrote, "What does the fox say?" aren't astrologists. They're chemical engineers. But beyond that, their hypothesis needs a lot more evidence. They haven't done too well up to now.

The same can be said for some climate models too, because there are plenty of amateurs around.

 

[water505]

In the time it took you to write that condescending screed you could have read any number of Articles explaining the flawed methodology of a couple of students looking through a stack of papers and deciding for themselves what the papers did or did not mean.

It would be like giving Frodo a stack of weather reports and having him report back on whether the weather shows global warming or not he's going to find gman-caiused global warming.

They are so emotionally invested in the phony narrative that nothing will ever change their narrow minds.

They live in a fantasy world of unicorns and rainbows. Irrefutable facts mean nothing to them. They are totally incapable of admitting they may be wrong.

 

[water505]

Where?

The guys who wrote, "What does the fox say?" aren't astrologists. They're chemical engineers. But beyond that, their hypothesis needs a lot more evidence. They haven't done too well up to now.

The same can be said for some climate models too, because there are plenty of amateurs around.

DING!

Guess what....amateurs invented the 97% claim. That's a fact, and there is nothing you can say to change what the truth is.

 

[phrodeau]

DING!

Guess what....amateurs invented the 97% claim. That's a fact, and there is nothing you can say to change what the truth is.

What truth are you referring to? You haven't ever posted anything backed up by evidence.