AGW failed again

[westwall]

bought and paid for scientists

You realize you're referring to almost all scientists, right? Incredibly few actual scientists don't agree with AGW. They're all bought and paid for? How is a conspiracy that big even contained? Do scientists by and large have no intellectual integrity?

That's not factually correct. The reality is there are very few scientists who support the now failed theory of AGW. That's why they have to trot out "consensus" to try and prop up their lies.

 

[Confounding]

That's not factually correct. The reality is there are very few scientists who support the now failed theory of AGW. That's why they have to trot out "consensus" to try and prop up their lies.

97%

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

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.

 

[westwall]

That's not factually correct. The reality is there are very few scientists who support the now failed theory of AGW. That's why they have to trot out "consensus" to try and prop up their lies.

97%

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

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.

Show us where the term "consensus" is mentioned in the Scientific Method. I'll wait.

 

[Confounding]

Show us where the term "consensus" is mentioned in the Scientific Method. I'll wait.

A consensus is not proof, but you really should give it some consideration when 97% of people that are educated about this matter are saying the same thing. The study shows that the strength of the consensus is directly correlated with how educated people are about the topic. You're shitting all over people that have spent their lives researching the topic in question simply because they haven't come to your preferred conclusion. Do you really think there is a climate conspiracy that involves 97% of the scientists? That's insane.

 

[TNHarley]

That's not factually correct. The reality is there are very few scientists who support the now failed theory of AGW. That's why they have to trot out "consensus" to try and prop up their lies.

97%

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

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.

Is that why so many authors of those papers said he was wrong?

 

[TNHarley]

Show us where the term "consensus" is mentioned in the Scientific Method. I'll wait.

A consensus is not proof, but you really should give it some consideration when 97% of people that are educated about this matter are saying the same thing. The study shows that the strength of the consensus is directly correlated with how educated people are about the topic. You're shitting all over people that have spent their lives researching the topic in question simply because they haven't come to your preferred conclusion. Do you really think there is a climate conspiracy that involves 97% of the scientists? That's insane.

Here you go bro
'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Tree rings tell tale of drought in Mongolia over the last 2,000 years
A new analysis is shedding light on drought in Mongolia, both past and future.

By studying the rings of semifossilized trees, researchers constructed a climate history for the semiarid Asian nation spanning the last 2,060 years — going 1,000 years further back than previous studies.

It was suspected that a harsh drought from about 2000 to 2010 that killed tens of thousands of livestock was unprecedented in the region’s history and primarily the result of human-caused climate change. But the tree ring data show that the dry spell, while rare in its severity, was not outside the realm of natural climate variability, researchers report online March 14 in Science Advances.

The recent dry spell was the severest in recorded history. But the rings showed that an even more severe drought took place around the year 800, long before anthropogenic climate change began.

We STILL have to fill in the unknown with SOMETHING. We just cant accept we cant know everything.
When will we grow up?

This new evidence pushes back the date of the invention of the internal combustion engine to the time of Christ

 

[TNHarley]

 

[TNHarley]

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

 

[Confounding]

Show us where the term "consensus" is mentioned in the Scientific Method. I'll wait.

A consensus is not proof, but you really should give it some consideration when 97% of people that are educated about this matter are saying the same thing. The study shows that the strength of the consensus is directly correlated with how educated people are about the topic. You're shitting all over people that have spent their lives researching the topic in question simply because they haven't come to your preferred conclusion. Do you really think there is a climate conspiracy that involves 97% of the scientists? That's insane.

Here you go bro
'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong

Did you read the article?

there is nothing remotely in the literature saying 97% agree we should ban most fossil fuel use.

Of course not, because that's insane and we don't have anything close to the means to do that. Anybody that says that is ignorant.

Also...

If you look at the literature, the specific meaning of the 97% claim is: 97 percent of climate scientists agree that there is a global warming trend and that human beings are the main cause--that is, that we are over 50% responsible.

97% of scientists agree that humans beings are the main cause. It's in your own article.

 

[TNHarley]

Show us where the term "consensus" is mentioned in the Scientific Method. I'll wait.

A consensus is not proof, but you really should give it some consideration when 97% of people that are educated about this matter are saying the same thing. The study shows that the strength of the consensus is directly correlated with how educated people are about the topic. You're shitting all over people that have spent their lives researching the topic in question simply because they haven't come to your preferred conclusion. Do you really think there is a climate conspiracy that involves 97% of the scientists? That's insane.

Here you go bro
'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong

Did you read the article?

there is nothing remotely in the literature saying 97% agree we should ban most fossil fuel use.

Of course not, because that's insane and we don't have anything close to the means to do that. Anybody that says that is ignorant.

Also...

If you look at the literature, the specific meaning of the 97% claim is: 97 percent of climate scientists agree that there is a global warming trend and that human beings are the main cause--that is, that we are over 50% responsible.

97% of scientists agree that humans beings are the main cause. It's in your own article.

Come on bro.. read the WHOLE article?
I thought you were open minded about this?

 

[Confounding]

Come on bro.. read the WHOLE article?
I thought you were open minded about this?

I didn't say anything about restricting access to fossil fuels or anything about any should be policy. I simply said that AGW is real and that 97% of people educated on the topic agree. Your own article reinforced my claim. AGW is not bogus, and 97% of people that have dedicated their lives to studying the climate agree with that claim.

 

[TNHarley]

Come on bro.. read the WHOLE article?
I thought you were open minded about this?

I didn't say anything about restricting access to fossil fuels or anything about any should be policy. I simply said that AGW is real and that 97% of people educated on the topic agree. Your own article reinforced my claim. AGW is not bogus, and 97% of people that have dedicated their lives to studying the climate agree with that claim.

No it didnt! Read the whole dang article, mr. Open mind!

 

[Confounding]

No it didnt! Read the whole dang article, mr. Open mind!

I see what you're saying now. So basically the author is saying that it's not accurate to say 97% believe humans are between 50 and 100% responsible. What that does mean, however, is that 97% do believe that humans have some level of impact, and are to some extent responsible for the warming, with a large majority still believing humans are mostly responsible. It's still true to say 97% believe to varying degrees that humans are impacting the environment, and that most believe that humans are mostly responsible. It's still a figure worth giving serious consideration to. Even with that adjustment to the figure can you really say with confidence that AGW isn't real?

 

[TNHarley]

No it didnt! Read the whole dang article, mr. Open mind!

I see what you're saying now. So basically the author is saying that it's not accurate to say 97% believe humans are between 50 and 100% responsible. What that does mean, however, is that 97% do believe that humans have some level of impact, and are to some extent responsible for the warming, with a large majority still believing humans are mostly responsible. It's still true to say 97% believe to varying degrees that humans are impacting the environment, and that most believe that humans are mostly responsible. It's still a figure worth giving serious consideration to. Even with that adjustment to the figure can you really say AGW isn't real with confidence?

You arent bothering to think about it. Read the article and THINK.
No, i dont act like i know whats going on when there is no actual truth to justify it. Im not a dishonest hack. So i can say with certainty that i am comfortable with my stance
Im done fucking with you. Hacks bore me.

 

[Confounding]

No, i dont act like i know whats going on when there is no actual truth to justify it. Im not a dishonest hack. So i can say with certainty that i am comfortable with my stance
Im done fucking with you. Hacks bore me.

Is my analysis of what the author said wrong? It's still accurate to say that 97% of climate scientists believe AGW is real to some extent. It's still accurate to say that the large majority of climate scientists believe that humans are mostly responsible for it. It's not accurate to say that 97% have concluded that humans are mostly responsible.

It seems that they did fudge the numbers a bit, but the general idea is still true. A large majority of experts think we are mostly responsible, and a vast majority (97%) believe we are at least somewhat responsible.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

bought and paid for scientists

You realize you're referring to almost all scientists, right? Incredibly few actual scientists don't agree with AGW. They're all bought and paid for? How is a conspiracy that big even contained? Do scientists by and large have no intellectual integrity?

75/77 is very impressive!

 

[Old Rocks]

bought and paid for scientists

You realize you're referring to almost all scientists, right? Incredibly few actual scientists don't agree with AGW. They're all bought and paid for? How is a conspiracy that big even contained? Do scientists by and large have no intellectual integrity?

Delete all the so called scientists who are not on the government grant dole then get back to us.

So what you are saying is that all the scientists in all the countries in the world that have reported on AGW are lying and in on some kind of conspiracy? And all the governments are also? Are you truly that fucking stupid?

 

[Old Rocks]

bought and paid for scientists

You realize you're referring to almost all scientists, right? Incredibly few actual scientists don't agree with AGW. They're all bought and paid for? How is a conspiracy that big even contained? Do scientists by and large have no intellectual integrity?

75/77 is very impressive!

All the Scientific Societies in the world, all the National Academies of Science of all the advanced nations, and all the major Universities have policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. People like you have an obese junkie on the AM radio, and a fake British Lord.

 

[Old Rocks]

Human-Induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action

Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.

Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.

Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These observations show large-scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers, snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with longunderstood physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to human-caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences.

https://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2018/02/AGU-Climate-Change-Position-Statement-Final-2013.pdf

Policy position statement of the American Geophysical Union, the largest and most influential geological scientific society in the world.