97 percent myth

[ding]

Have they stopped?

No. GHG emissions are still increasing the last time I checked.

 

[Crick]

No. GHG emissions are still increasing the last time I checked.

Then why did you ask?

 

[ding]

Then why did you ask?

To counter your silly belief that they are attempting to slow and stop GHG emssions. When actions don't match words, it's what they do that tells you what they really believe.

 

[Crick]

To counter your silly belief that they are attempting to slow and stop GHG emssions. When actions don't match words, it's what they do that tells you what they really believe.

The police aren't trying to stop crime. The military isn't trying to protect us from our enemies. Our schools aren't attempting to educate our children. Your parents weren't attempting to raise a good boy. Got it.

 

[ding]

The police aren't trying to stop crime. The military isn't trying to protect us from our enemies. Our schools aren't attempting to educate our children. Your parents weren't attempting to raise a good boy. Got it.

Your head is buried in the sand and your logic is that of an elderly dementia patient. The police do make arrests. The military does fight conflicts. Children do get educated. And most kids learn right from wrong as they experience it.

If everyone really believed as you do CO2 emissions would be declining. No one gives weather a second thought except to dress for it. And some don't even do that.

 

[skookerasbil]

Just saying it's crap doesn't mean shit. What you need is some evidence. Your problem is that there isn't any because these numbers are facts.

From your link

The graphic below comes via our friends at skepticalscience, assuring us that while 97% of "climate scientists think that global warming is 'significantly' due to human activity," a shocking 72% of news coverage does not reflect this "consensus" and similarly 74% of the public are not convinced.​

Here is the actual graphic from Skeptical Science

View attachment 880265

The Skeptical Science article examined the disconnect between what scientists actually believe, what the news reports and what the public thinks. There is no doubt that an overwhelming majority of climate scientists accept that the Earth is warming and that the primary cause is human GHG emissions.

Don't you find it a little embarrassing that with over 21 studies on the topic available for review, AGW deniers CONSISTENTLY single out a single, small scale study, done over twenty years ago, that statistically was completely valid? The problem is that the general public and, apparently AGW deniers in particular, are grossly unfamiliar with the tenets of statistical sampling. And then there's their propensity to just lie.

Hey man, where is there any evidence that your side is winning?!!

The "debate"...if the science fails to transcend outside the science argument, it's nothing more than a group navel contemplation session.

I've been watching science debate in here for 14 years now....and what has changed on the energy landscape?!!

Dick

Energy policymakers could not possibly care less about the 97%...which we know because fossil fuels continue to DOMINATE the world energy landscape. Not debatable btw....

So for the sceptics it's

 

[Crick]

Your head is buried in the sand and your logic is that of an elderly dementia patient. The police do make arrests. The military does fight conflicts. Children do get educated. And most kids learn right from wrong as they experience it.

If everyone really believed as you do CO2 emissions would be declining. No one gives weather a second thought except to dress for it. And some don't even do that.

Jesus dude, are you ALWAYS a step behind? When someone makes a series of absurd statement as may be seen in the first line of post #84, take a big step and look to see if maybe they didn't INTEND to be absurd.

 

[ding]

Jesus dude, are you ALWAYS a step behind? When someone makes a series of absurd statement as may be seen in the first line of post #84, take a big step and look to see if maybe they didn't INTEND to be absurd.

Nope, I'm actually 50 steps ahead of you. If everyone really believed as you do CO2 emissions would be declining. No one gives weather a second thought except to dress for it. And some don't even do that.

 

[Crick]

Nope, I'm actually 50 steps ahead of you.

Bold words considering you failed to see a blitheringly obvious joke.

If everyone really believed as you do CO2 emissions would be declining.

Perhaps. But so what? If everyone believed as you do, CO2 emissions would still be accelerating and the sciences would be locked into something resembling the mid 1700s but with more mistakes.

No one gives weather a second thought except to dress for it. And some don't even do that.

Recall this thread's actual topic. The vast majority of the world's climate scientists concur with the conclusions of the IPCC which should surprise no one since the IPCC's conclusions are based on the work of those very scientists.

 

[Grumblenuts]

What the data says about Americans’ views of climate change​

BY ALEC TYSON, CARY FUNK AND BRIAN KENNEDY

 

[Crick]

What the data says about Americans’ views of climate change​

BY ALEC TYSON, CARY FUNK AND BRIAN KENNEDY

The topic is not the public's opinion about climate science. The topic is the consensus of climate scientists towards the conclusions of the IPCC assessment reports.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The topic is not the public's opinion about climate science. The topic is the consensus of climate scientists towards the conclusions of the IPCC assessment reports.

True. My post was in direct response to ding's post #88 idiocy, as was yours prior to mine. Spank me? Spank you!

 

[Crick]

True. My post was in direct response to ding's post #88 idiocy, as was yours prior to mine. Spank me? Spank you!

OOOooooo you naughty boy!!!

Sorry, I didn't even look at your link till now. Good stuff.

 

[ding]

Bold words considering you failed to see a blitheringly obvious joke.

Perhaps. But so what? If everyone believed as you do, CO2 emissions would still be accelerating and the sciences would be locked into something resembling the mid 1700s but with more mistakes.

Recall this thread's actual topic. The vast majority of the world's climate scientists concur with the conclusions of the IPCC which should surprise no one since the IPCC's conclusions are based on the work of those very scientists.

It was a thinly veiled joke at best. CO2 emissions have been increasing at 1 billion tons per year since about the year 2000. So not accelerating but a steady increase of 1 billion tons per year for the past 20 years or so. So apparently everyone does believe like me.

It's not a surprise because the IPCC discourages dissenting opinion to reach their goal of one voice which is decidedly anti-scientific. And if any of those supposed world climate scientists are OK with that, then they aren't scientists. They are politicians. Like you.

 

[Crick]

It was a thinly veiled joke at best.

It was an obvious joke you didn't see and by far not the first time you've failed to see jokes.

CO2 emissions have been increasing at 1 billion tons per year since about the year 2000.

Not in this country

nor in the rest of the world

So not accelerating but a steady increase of 1 billion tons per year for the past 20 years or so. So apparently everyone does believe like me.

The facts say they do not. The science does not.

It's not a surprise because the IPCC discourages dissenting opinion to reach their goal of one voice which is decidedly anti-scientific.

The IPCC does not discourage dissenting opinions.

And if any of those supposed world climate scientists are OK with that, then they aren't scientists. They are politicians. Like you.

You aren't qualified to judge anyone in such regards.

 

[Robert W]

It most assuredly does.

That wuld be a mistake Robert.

The claim of a strong consensus did not originate with President Obama. It originated with a number of scientists, statisticians and surveyors who conducted numerous studies regarding the opinions of climate scientists as to the cause of global warming. The questions that were asked and the methodologies employed were all completely transparent. The results over and over and over again, with larger and larger and larger samples consistently show a very high consensus supporting the conclusions of the IPCC.

Those who agree with the document put their names on it.

Here's a good pseudo-science tipoff: the phrase "even if true", rendered after several paragraphs claiming to completely refute the initial claim.

The conclusions of the IPCC are absolutely NOT consistent with such a view.

If it is so commonly cited, why it is not identified here? Look to see what points the lastest studies examined. They were not trivial and they were not consistent with the absurd claim that climate change is harmless.

Robert, if you can't see that the author of this piece of yours is doing his best to hoodwink you, you need to go back to the school for critical reasoning.

Robert, if you can't see that the author of this piece of yours is doing his best to hoodwink you, you need to go back to the school for critical reasoning.

You are working had to hoodwink us.

List the 3 most vital things you do about climate???

 

[Crick]

You are working had to hoodwink us.

Are you calling me a liar Robert?

List the 3 most vital things you do about climate???

1) Convince doubters like you.
2) Convince doubters like you.
3) Convince doubters like you.

 

[Robert W]

Are you calling me a liar Robert?

1) Convince doubters like you.
2) Convince doubters like you.
3) Convince doubters like you.

You are a very able bullshit artist. Such as your three points you make about you and climate.

Why do you think I am a doubter?

 

[Crick]

You are a very able bullshit artist.

It saddens me to hear you say that.

Such as your three points you make about you and climate.

The denier tactic of attacking the messengers as you did there... THAT is the bullshit Robert. If you think about it for ten seconds you'll realize that is the truth.

Why do you think I am a doubter?

Because you've been listening to ignorant and dishonest sources for too long.

There is no point in discussions with someone who thinks I am lying to them. Goodbye Robert.

 

[ding]

It was an obvious joke you didn't see and by far not the first time you've failed to see jokes.


Not in this country


View attachment 887380

nor in the rest of the world

View attachment 887381

The facts say they do not. The science does not.

The IPCC does not discourage dissenting opinions.

You aren't qualified to judge anyone in such regards.

It was a poor joke. You really do say ridiculous shit like that on a daily basis. The fact that emissions have been increasing at 1 billion tons per year is despite the US and EU's 150 million ton per year decline. So it does not negate what I said. Declining emissions by the US and EU are literally baked into the 1 billion ton per year increase in carbon emissions. Your throwing that out was as idiotic as you claiming emissions aren't accelerating so they must be going down. And the brief pause in emissions was covid related. You make so many disingenuous arguments everything you claim is suspect. You aren't after the truth. You are after political objectives. You are as dishonest as they are. A prime example of your dishonesty is not admitting that by the IPCC not allowing dissenting opinions to be published in their reports they are literally discouraging dissenting opinions and are therefore decidedly anti-science. So I am 100% qualified to say the IPCC and their so called scientists are nothing more than politicians.