97% Lie Explained.....

[skookerasbil]

The 97% AGW climate crusader myth is long dead. Gained traction in the early 2000's but by 2010, most people had learned that the 97% put into context made it total bs. It was a typical progressive ghey stunt.......throw out bgus statistical information and bet on a large % of the public never checking the details and just relying on experts. Like I said...................ghey.

The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'


Progressives ( 100% of true believers are progressives ) are always fabricating everything to do with climate change. They do it with solar energy "growth" for example ( solar has grown 136% over the past year"). One will notice..........any time a true believer makes a post in here, you always see terms like "increased" .......... "more quickly" ........... "happening a lot" ......... "biggest" .......... "decline" ......... "reduction" ........... "grown"

ALWAYS VAGUE TERMS that are not operationally defined.

The height of gheyness..............but works on the minds of the clueless and dim witted.

Put these statements where they are compared to something and they turn out to be laughable!!!


These people are born frauds.

 

[skookerasbil]

With progtards "nice" left the building long ago, they want to act like a bunch of Fascists they'll be treated as such

With the track record of mass murder and genocide committed by leftists in the last hundred years, there can be no doubt that if Americans were not well armed socialist history would repeat itself here.

Instead 1774 may have to be repeated.

may happen Pete............to me, we are sprinting to a time where choosing up sides is most definitely going to happen!!! There are tens of millions out there...........well armed I might add.........that have just about had it with the fascists. I talk to many, many all the time.( a bunch of cops today by chance btw )

Pete......I had to go to a major university hospital today and on the way, drove through the college campus I attended 35 years ago. Hadnt been in there in decades.............shocked to see big signs THIS IS A SMOKE FREE COLLEGE CAMPUS

Thought.......yep.......the days of the fascists are numbered............

 

[Billy_Bob]

Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change: A Response to Legates, Soon and Briggs - Springer
Abstract
Agnotology is a term that has been used to describe the study of ignorance and its cultural production (Proctor in Agnotology: the making and unmaking of ignorance. Stanford University Press, Stanford, 2008). For issues that are contentious in the societal realm, though largely not in the scientific realm, such as human evolution or the broad basics of human-induced climate change, it has been suggested that explicit study of relevant misinformation might be a useful teaching approach (Bedford in J Geogr 109(4):159–165, 2010). Recently, Legates et al. (Sci Educ. doi:10.1007/s11191-013-9588-3, 2013) published an aggressive critique of Bedford’s (J Geogr 109(4):159–165, 2010) proposals. However, the critique is based on a comprehensive misinterpretation of Bedford’s (J Geogr 109(4):159–165, 2010) paper. Consequently, Legates et al. (Sci Educ. doi:10.1007/s11191-013-9588-3, 2013) address arguments not actually made by Bedford (J Geogr 109(4):159–165, 2010). This article is a response to Legates et al. (Sci Educ. doi:10.1007/s11191-013-9588-3, 2013), and demonstrates their errors of interpretation of Bedford (J Geogr 109(4):159–165, 2010) in several key areas: the scientific consensus on climate change; misinformation and the public perception of the scientific consensus on climate change; and agnotology as a teaching tool. We conclude by arguing that, although no single peer-reviewed publication on climate change, or any other scientific issue, should be accepted without due scrutiny, the existence of a scientific consensus—especially one as overwhelming as exists for human-induced climate change—raises the level of confidence that the overall findings of that consensus are correct.

Daniel Bedford, John Cook

Using Cook and Bedford as some sort of credible scientists is dam funny... The lie they purport of 97% is a gross misrepresentation of the facts and that second paper trying to justify the shoddy work on the first is hilarious.. Its like calling a convicted felon up in prison and asking him if he's guilt of the crime... and then believing him without a shred of evidence..

The circular logic of the AGW loons is comical to watch..

 

[Crick]

A thought for you Billy Bob, if Legates numbers are right, by orders of magnitude, Cook could not physically have found as many climate scientists agreeing with the IPCC as he found. Got an explanation?

Using Cook and Bedford as some sort of credible scientists is dam funny.

Daniel Bedford

• Professor of Physical Geography and Climate Science
• Weber State University, Utah

Daniel Bedford has been studying climate and climate change since his undergraduate days in the 1980s. After receiving a BA in geography from Oxford University in the UK, he moved to the USA for Master’s and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Colorado at Boulder, where he worked with renowned climatologist Roger Barry. Bedford’s main interests are the effective teaching and communication of climate science. He teaches undergraduate classes in physical geography and climate science at Weber State University, in Ogden, Utah.

AND

John Cook has a bachelor's degree in physics and a year in post grad honors study of solar physics. So, far more educated than you.

David Legates, while possessing an impressive CV, is a signatory of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation's "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming".[10]

The declaration states:

"We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."

clearly indicating that the man couldn't think his way out of a wet paper bag.

 

[jc456]

Wonderful bunch of idiotic flap yap here. So, since only a few of those papers specifically mention global warming, this crackpot thinks if you write a paper concerning the shrinkage of the alpine glaciers, but do not mention spectifically global warming, then he believes that the paper has nothing to say concernng global warming.

Virtually every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is a fact, and that it is a clear and present danger.

Climate Change - American Meteorological Society

Climate Change
An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society
(Adopted by AMS Council 20 August 2012)


The following is an AMS Information Statement intended to provide a trustworthy, objective, and scientifically up-to-date explanation of scientific issues of concern to the public at large.

Background

This statement provides a brief overview of how and why global climate has changed over the past century and will continue to change in the future. It is based on the peer-reviewed scientific literature and is consistent with the vast weight of current scientific understanding as expressed in assessments and reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the U.S. Global Change Research Program. Although the statement has been drafted in the context of concerns in the United States, the underlying issues are inherently global in nature.

How is climate changing?

Warming of the climate system now is unequivocal, according to many different kinds of evidence. Observations show increases in globally averaged air and ocean temperatures, as well as widespread melting of snow and ice and rising globally averaged sea level. Surface temperature data for Earth as a whole, including readings over both land and ocean, show an increase of about 0.8°C (1.4°F) over the period 1901?2010 and about 0.5°C (0.9°F) over the period 1979–2010 (the era for which satellite-based temperature data are routinely available). Due to natural variability, not every year is warmer than the preceding year globally. Nevertheless, all of the 10 warmest years in the global temperature records up to 2011 have occurred since 1997, with 2005 and 2010 being the warmest two years in more than a century of global records. The warming trend is greatest in northern high latitudes and over land. In the U.S., most of the observed warming has occurred in the West and in Alaska; for the nation as a whole, there have been twice as many record daily high temperatures as record daily low temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century.

The effects of this warming are especially evident in the planet’s polar regions. Arctic sea ice extent and volume have been decreasing for the past several decades. Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have lost significant amounts of ice. Most of the world’s glaciers are in retreat.

including readings over both land and ocean, show an increase of about 0.8°C (1.4°F) over the period 1901?2010 and about 0.5°C (0.9°F) over the period 1979–2010 (the era for which satellite-based temperature data are routinely available).
so your own posts show less warm over the period of 1979 -2010. Do you read?

I know that it is difficult for you all on your greater too's and less than's. Like 58 is greater than 62 and all. But that represents cooling, not warming. DOH!!!!!

 

[Crick]

including readings over both land and ocean, show an increase of about 0.8°C (1.4°F) over the period 1901?2010 and about 0.5°C (0.9°F) over the period 1979–2010 (the era for which satellite-based temperature data are routinely available).
so your own posts show less warm over the period of 1979 -2010. Do you read?

I know that it is difficult for you all on your greater too's and less than's. Like 58 is greater than 62 and all. But that represents cooling, not warming. DOH!!!!!

"Doh!!" is right. That is the stupidest statement I have seen in ages. Do you actually think that makes sense? 2010 is warmer than 1979 and even warmer than 1901. Where the FUCK do you see COOLING, you ignorant FOOL?

 

[Billy_Bob]

WOW...

The faithful will remain dolts even in the face of irrefutable evidence..

 

[Crick]

Wow, you have no explanation. Again, if Legates numbers are correct, Cook could not have found more than a handful that would have told him they agreed with the IPCC. Please explain.

 

[skookerasbil]

Wow, you have no explanation. Again, if Legates numbers are correct, Cook could not have found more than a handful that would have told him they agreed with the IPCC. Please explain.

And the science as presented by the IPCC has impacted the real world exactly how? ( outside the realm of internet banter?)

More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!










Renewable energy in decline, less than 1% of global energy

 

[jc456]

including readings over both land and ocean, show an increase of about 0.8°C (1.4°F) over the period 1901?2010 and about 0.5°C (0.9°F) over the period 1979–2010 (the era for which satellite-based temperature data are routinely available).
so your own posts show less warm over the period of 1979 -2010. Do you read?

I know that it is difficult for you all on your greater too's and less than's. Like 58 is greater than 62 and all. But that represents cooling, not warming. DOH!!!!!

"Doh!!" is right. That is the stupidest statement I have seen in ages. Do you actually think that makes sense? 2010 is warmer than 1979 and even warmer than 1901. Where the FUCK do you see COOLING, you ignorant FOOL?

well I don't know, you all and your lack of math skills, but here I'll try:

What is the larger of these two figures, 0.8 C or 0.5 C? I'll leave it there for your answer.

 

[Crick]

Yo, Stupid, the subject of this thread is the 97% consensus. Do you have anything pertinent to add?

 

[jc456]

Yo, Stupid, the subject of this thread is the 97% consensus. Do you have anything pertinent to add?

yeppers, you still haven't answered what figure is greater, so I supposed you should apologize for incorrectly stating that I didn't know what I wrote. It's ok, I know how you see 97% and you lose control of your faculties.

 

[mamooth]

New multi-author study out, confirming the 97+% consensus yet another time.

Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming - IOPscience

At this point, denying the consensus is just plain embarrassing for those who try. It instantly marks them as a kook.

 

[Billy_Bob]

New multi-author study out, confirming the 97+% consensus yet another time.

Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming - IOPscience

At this point, denying the consensus is just plain embarrassing for those who try. It instantly marks them as a kook.

Another Cook paper trying to justify the first paper... LOL

Alarmist circular logic at its best... 'My first paper failed cause I lied, but I got a new paper covering up that lie with another better lie...'

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

And what the fuck does ANY of that have to do with 97% of climate scientists accepting AGW as valid and agreeing with the IPCC's conclusions that the dominant cause of global warming is human GHG emissions and deforestation?

They don't.

The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'

 

[skookerasbil]

Hate to bust some bubbles here but.........its 2016.........nobody gives rats ass about the 97%. Twenty years of the AGW k00k community blabbering about the 97% has yielded them what?

I'll tell you what...............

zErO

If it mattered, we'd see far more than the measily less than 1% of America powered by solar!! Wind? Also a joke.

Its another talking point for the AGW nutters that fell flat on its face......just like the "deniers" campaign which hasn't yielded them dick either!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

God, are you people stupid. And if you think we should pay to read Murdoch's WSJ opinion on any matter of science, you're more stupid than stupid.

We are stoopid???

s0n....you're a smart guy but definitely have connect the dots issues. There is a difference between intelligence and thought processing.

Science only matters in the real world for how much any area of science impacts the lives of societies. Otherwise, its just science. For example, the science of ballistics has greatly impacted how ammunition has been produced over the years. Weapons now are far more deadly now than they were 100 years ago. Practical application of the science led to those innovations.

Where has the "climate science" mattered? 40 years of this stoopid stuff and its greatest impact in the real world is in text books. WOW........... The "science" of climate science has emerged for one single purpose and one purpose only........to urge the free world about the importance of banning fossil fuels and going to 100% renewables.


So.......hows that working out for you s0n???

But the skeptics are stoopid!!!


s0n........at the end of the day, its all about connecting the dots. There are a million assholes out there with all kinds of advanced degrees that never did dick with it.........its called fAiL at connecting the dots!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

So............much..............winning!!!

 

[jc456]

And what the fuck does ANY of that have to do with 97% of climate scientists accepting AGW as valid and agreeing with the IPCC's conclusions that the dominant cause of global warming is human GHG emissions and deforestation?

They don't.

The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'

so, I expect honesty from the moderators in here, so, do you have the total number of scientists in that 97% figure? Just want to see where you're at as far as honesty goes.