What percentage of AGI did they receive?
About 20%.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
What percentage of AGI did they receive?
SSDD has not produced a single one of these papers he claims exist. Not one. Perhaps you can do your master one better and actually find one. James Powell found a few. A very few. His three studies found that the published literature supports AGW at over 99%.*
What percentage of AGI did they receive?
About 20%.
What percentage of AGI did they receive?
About 20%.
What is the source of your numbers Todd?
Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data, 2016 Update | Tax Foundation?
Your lot seemed to have forked over your wallet so the upper 1% could live life without taxation. How much "reasoned level of thinking" did that involve?
As you've been told multiple times, doing nothing will cost far, far more than doing something. That's a very general rule with problems of all sort. Ignoring them and putting them off is NEVER the best solution. It's the stupid solution or the cowardly solution. How can you not see that?
I get upset with you fools for several reasons, but the biggest are my children, whose lives you seem determined to fuck up.
And skooerashole, NO ONE CARES THAT YOU THINK NO ONE CARES.
Again, no one cares that you think no one cares. Find something else to say: something that might indicate you actually have a functional mass of grey cells on top of your shoulders.
I think it can be stopped. Will it be stopped is an entirely different issue. C02 and Methane will eventually dissipate in the atmosphere, dissolving into the oceans and combining with other substances. So if we actually eliminate man's contribution, greenhouse gas levels will fall and eventually reverse the effect. Of course extinction to animal and plant life can never be reversed.I personally think it may be too late. Considering how much action humans are likely to actually take, it was probably too late 20 years ago.
That's not quite right. The greenhouse effect was first observed in 1827 and expanded on by many scientist. It was widely acceptable in the early 20th century. The theory simply stated is greenhouse gases, in the atmosphere reflect heat back to the earth thus forming a blanket around the earth. Without these gases the planet would go into a deep freeze. Too much and temperature rises to a point of treating life on the planet.97% of all climate scientists,You are saying 95% of all national academies of science, most every national science foundation, 97% of all climate scientists, the vast majority scientists from all disciplines, and ever major scientific organization in the world that studies climate are a cult.
The number of scientists towing the AGW line is growing smaller all the time...more than 500 papers questioning the consensus line last year alone..surely more this year and more the next...you picked pseudoscience over science and sooner or later, you will find that you, and the rest of your cult buddies will have to leave the board because of the peals of laughter over how easily you were duped...
75/77. Who can argue with that?
So when 97% cardiologist tell you you need medical care, you go to the dentist for a second opinion.
I might...Not very long ago, 97% of gastroenterologists would have told you that your stomach ulcers were caused by stress...today, they tell you a different story. Not very long ago 99% of cardiologists would have told you that cholesterol caused heart disease...today, the will tell you something different...and I could go on ad nauesum about all the things across all branches of science that a consensus once believed which is no longer true. That is the nature of science...you keep adding to your knowledge...rejecting and refining hypothesis to get you closer to the truth,
The man made climate change, on the other hand is said to have sprung forth complete and true...settled science right out of the gate...after all these years, and repeated predictive failures, no change has been made to the fundamental hypothesis...and those who "believe" still claim the science is settled...That isn't science...that is a quasi religion...or maybe a full fledged religion...in either case, it isn't science.
Regardless of what branch of science we might discuss, consensus is the cornerstone for acceptance of scientific theory. An accepted scientific theory follows the Scientific Method which begins with a question or an unexplained phenomenon. Observations, data collection, and experiments are conducted to gain more insight into the phenomenon. Ideas we call hypothesis's begin to develop spurring more research. Papers are written showing scientific evidence in support or undermining a hypothesis. As the hypothesis gains support the hypotheses are restated as a new theory with supporting evidence. It moves up through more prestigious scientific groups spurring more research. As acceptance grows, the new theory makes it's way into the academies of science, organizations like NASA, the American Society of Physics, American Medical Association, etc. As the New Theory is endorsed by these groups it becomes a tool used to investigate other areas of Science. People may then accept it as fact but the door is always open to competing ideas. To put it in common terms, scientists run their ideas with supporting research up the flagpole to see who salutes.You are saying 95% of all national academies of science, most every national science foundation, 97% of all climate scientists, the vast majority scientists from all disciplines, and ever major scientific organization in the world that studies climate are a cult.Can you explain why your opinion is at such variance with the scientists of the world?
The number of scientists towing the AGW line is growing smaller all the time...more than 500 papers questioning the consensus line last year alone..surely more this year and more the next...you picked pseudoscience over science and sooner or later, you will find that you, and the rest of your cult buddies will have to leave the board because of the peals of laughter over how easily you were duped...
Bwhahahahahaha!!!
What YOU are showing is strong evidence of a POLITICAL behavior, since consensus and authority doesn't advance science research at all, it is REPRODUCIBLE research that matters.
Meanwhile you and another warmists are ignoring the utter failures of the IPPC prediction/projection that have been made since day one in 1990.
SSDD is correct there have been HUNDREDS of new science papers THIS YEAR, that doesn't support the AGW conjecture. Many hundreds last year and the year before that means that over 2,000 papers have been published against the AGW conjecture, in the last few years.
Consensus doesn't publish papers, that is why your argument is dead on arrival.
So you see, acceptance of new ideas and theories is always about getting a consensus, yet no theory is every written in stone. It will always be a theory subject to change.
Consensus of peers is how we arrive at accepted and discarded theories. We need accepted theories so they can be used as tools until disproved. Without accepted theories to use as tools the researcher would have to evaluate competing hypotheses making his job somewhere between more difficult and impossible.Regardless of what branch of science we might discuss, consensus is the cornerstone for acceptance of scientific theory.
You couldn't possibly be more wrong...repeatable evidence is the cornerstone for acceptance of a scientific theory. Science is about evidence...consensus doesn't carry an ounce of authority.
Can you point to any other branch of science in which a consensus opinion is offered up in support of the present prevailing theory rather than evidence gathered via the best adherence to the scientific method possible? Any at all?
An accepted scientific theory follows the Scientific Method which begins with a question or an unexplained phenomenon. Observations, data collection, and experiments are conducted to gain more insight into the phenomenon. Ideas we call hypothesis's begin to develop spurring more research. Papers are written showing scientific evidence in support or undermining a hypothesis.
True enough..but that isn't how climate science operates. You believe that CO2 causes warming and that most of the warming we have experienced has been due to our CO2 emissions...and yet, there has never been a paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses....Not a single paper....and yet, that is precisely what you believe. How did you arrive at that conclusion when there are no published scientific studies which make that claim and show clear observed, measured evidence to support the claim?
You believe...that is all. You haven't been convinced by the body of evidence...you haven't been convinced by the repeatable experiments, you haven't been convinced by the scientific method...You believe...and neither belief, nor consensus has any place in actual science.
Consensus of peers is how we arrive at accepted and discarded theories. We need accepted theories so they can be used as tools until disproved. Without accepted theories to use as tools the researcher would have to evaluate competing hypotheses making his job somewhere between more difficult and impossible.Regardless of what branch of science we might discuss, consensus is the cornerstone for acceptance of scientific theory.
You couldn't possibly be more wrong...repeatable evidence is the cornerstone for acceptance of a scientific theory. Science is about evidence...consensus doesn't carry an ounce of authority.
Can you point to any other branch of science in which a consensus opinion is offered up in support of the present prevailing theory rather than evidence gathered via the best adherence to the scientific method possible? Any at all?
An accepted scientific theory follows the Scientific Method which begins with a question or an unexplained phenomenon. Observations, data collection, and experiments are conducted to gain more insight into the phenomenon. Ideas we call hypothesis's begin to develop spurring more research. Papers are written showing scientific evidence in support or undermining a hypothesis.
True enough..but that isn't how climate science operates. You believe that CO2 causes warming and that most of the warming we have experienced has been due to our CO2 emissions...and yet, there has never been a paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses....Not a single paper....and yet, that is precisely what you believe. How did you arrive at that conclusion when there are no published scientific studies which make that claim and show clear observed, measured evidence to support the claim?
You believe...that is all. You haven't been convinced by the body of evidence...you haven't been convinced by the repeatable experiments, you haven't been convinced by the scientific method...You believe...and neither belief, nor consensus has any place in actual science.
By consensus, I mean consensus of peers in academies of science, scientific societies, and research groups. Methods and conclusions have to be defended with solid scientific evidence.Regardless of what branch of science we might discuss, consensus is the cornerstone for acceptance of scientific theory. An accepted scientific theory follows the Scientific Method which begins with a question or an unexplained phenomenon. Observations, data collection, and experiments are conducted to gain more insight into the phenomenon. Ideas we call hypothesis's begin to develop spurring more research. Papers are written showing scientific evidence in support or undermining a hypothesis. As the hypothesis gains support the hypotheses are restated as a new theory with supporting evidence. It moves up through more prestigious scientific groups spurring more research. As acceptance grows, the new theory makes it's way into the academies of science, organizations like NASA, the American Society of Physics, American Medical Association, etc. As the New Theory is endorsed by these groups it becomes a tool used to investigate other areas of Science. People may then accept it as fact but the door is always open to competing ideas. To put it in common terms, scientists run their ideas with supporting research up the flagpole to see who salutes.You are saying 95% of all national academies of science, most every national science foundation, 97% of all climate scientists, the vast majority scientists from all disciplines, and ever major scientific organization in the world that studies climate are a cult.
The number of scientists towing the AGW line is growing smaller all the time...more than 500 papers questioning the consensus line last year alone..surely more this year and more the next...you picked pseudoscience over science and sooner or later, you will find that you, and the rest of your cult buddies will have to leave the board because of the peals of laughter over how easily you were duped...
Bwhahahahahaha!!!
What YOU are showing is strong evidence of a POLITICAL behavior, since consensus and authority doesn't advance science research at all, it is REPRODUCIBLE research that matters.
Meanwhile you and another warmists are ignoring the utter failures of the IPPC prediction/projection that have been made since day one in 1990.
SSDD is correct there have been HUNDREDS of new science papers THIS YEAR, that doesn't support the AGW conjecture. Many hundreds last year and the year before that means that over 2,000 papers have been published against the AGW conjecture, in the last few years.
Consensus doesn't publish papers, that is why your argument is dead on arrival.
So you see, acceptance of new ideas and theories is always about getting a consensus, yet no theory is every written in stone. It will always be a theory subject to change.
Bullcrap.
The entire community has made it toxic to not agree.
That's not quite right. The greenhouse effect was first observed in 1827 and expanded on by many scientist. It was widely acceptable in the early 20th century. The theory simply stated is greenhouse gases, in the atmosphere reflect heat back to the earth thus forming a blanket around the earth. Without these gases the planet would go into a deep freeze. Too much and temperature rises to a point of treating life on the planet.
Consensus of peers is how we arrive at accepted and discarded theories. We need accepted theories so they can be used as tools until disproved. Without accepted theories to use as tools the researcher would have to evaluate competing hypotheses making his job somewhere between more difficult and impossible.
Consensus of peers is how we arrive at accepted and discarded theories. We need accepted theories so they can be used as tools until disproved. Without accepted theories to use as tools the researcher would have to evaluate competing hypotheses making his job somewhere between more difficult and impossible.Regardless of what branch of science we might discuss, consensus is the cornerstone for acceptance of scientific theory.
You couldn't possibly be more wrong...repeatable evidence is the cornerstone for acceptance of a scientific theory. Science is about evidence...consensus doesn't carry an ounce of authority.
Can you point to any other branch of science in which a consensus opinion is offered up in support of the present prevailing theory rather than evidence gathered via the best adherence to the scientific method possible? Any at all?
An accepted scientific theory follows the Scientific Method which begins with a question or an unexplained phenomenon. Observations, data collection, and experiments are conducted to gain more insight into the phenomenon. Ideas we call hypothesis's begin to develop spurring more research. Papers are written showing scientific evidence in support or undermining a hypothesis.
True enough..but that isn't how climate science operates. You believe that CO2 causes warming and that most of the warming we have experienced has been due to our CO2 emissions...and yet, there has never been a paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses....Not a single paper....and yet, that is precisely what you believe. How did you arrive at that conclusion when there are no published scientific studies which make that claim and show clear observed, measured evidence to support the claim?
You believe...that is all. You haven't been convinced by the body of evidence...you haven't been convinced by the repeatable experiments, you haven't been convinced by the scientific method...You believe...and neither belief, nor consensus has any place in actual science.
Oh dear another terrible consensus babble, since it is reproducible papers that drives science, NOT how many people believe in it. Surely you are aware of how often "consensus" positions have been wrong, wrong because they didn't rely on reproducible research, they had relied on a belief system that can last for many years, and resist the true understanding.
Alfred Wegener-- Continental Drift
J. Harlan Bretz-- The Missoula floods
Barry Marshall-- Ulcers
Each one had bucked the consensus position, with reproducible research. It was research that destroys consensus because it was reliance on data/evidence and reality. There are many more examples of failed consensus that even killed people because they were barking up the wrong tree, in the wrong country.
Those three men went out there into the physical world, getting their hands dirty, which is why they found the answers, while Consensus are the lazy kids laying around the pool, who drinks kool aid all day, without doing reproducible research to back them up.
You need to drop that dumb consensus argument, as it is devoid of cogent usefulness and doesn't provide any wisdom either.
Consensus of peers is how we arrive at accepted and discarded theories. We need accepted theories so they can be used as tools until disproved. Without accepted theories to use as tools the researcher would have to evaluate competing hypotheses making his job somewhere between more difficult and impossible.Regardless of what branch of science we might discuss, consensus is the cornerstone for acceptance of scientific theory.
You couldn't possibly be more wrong...repeatable evidence is the cornerstone for acceptance of a scientific theory. Science is about evidence...consensus doesn't carry an ounce of authority.
Can you point to any other branch of science in which a consensus opinion is offered up in support of the present prevailing theory rather than evidence gathered via the best adherence to the scientific method possible? Any at all?
An accepted scientific theory follows the Scientific Method which begins with a question or an unexplained phenomenon. Observations, data collection, and experiments are conducted to gain more insight into the phenomenon. Ideas we call hypothesis's begin to develop spurring more research. Papers are written showing scientific evidence in support or undermining a hypothesis.
True enough..but that isn't how climate science operates. You believe that CO2 causes warming and that most of the warming we have experienced has been due to our CO2 emissions...and yet, there has never been a paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses....Not a single paper....and yet, that is precisely what you believe. How did you arrive at that conclusion when there are no published scientific studies which make that claim and show clear observed, measured evidence to support the claim?
You believe...that is all. You haven't been convinced by the body of evidence...you haven't been convinced by the repeatable experiments, you haven't been convinced by the scientific method...You believe...and neither belief, nor consensus has any place in actual science.
Oh dear another terrible consensus babble, since it is reproducible papers that drives science, NOT how many people believe in it. Surely you are aware of how often "consensus" positions have been wrong, wrong because they didn't rely on reproducible research, they had relied on a belief system that can last for many years, and resist the true understanding.
Alfred Wegener-- Continental Drift
J. Harlan Bretz-- The Missoula floods
Barry Marshall-- Ulcers
Each one had bucked the consensus position, with reproducible research. It was research that destroys consensus because it was reliance on data/evidence and reality. There are many more examples of failed consensus that even killed people because they were barking up the wrong tree, in the wrong country.
Those three men went out there into the physical world, getting their hands dirty, which is why they found the answers, while Consensus are the lazy kids laying around the pool, who drinks kool aid all day, without doing reproducible research to back them up.
You need to drop that dumb consensus argument, as it is devoid of cogent usefulness and doesn't provide any wisdom either.
It is you, Tommy, that are mistaken about the value of consensus among experts. That past consensuses (consensi?) were overcome by new evidence is a marvelous confirmation of the scientific method. It is not a repudiation of consensus. If someone actually falsifies AGW, its consensus will disappear in short order. But that it is currently held as correct by a huge majority of the experts in the field DOES mean it is the dominant theory, that it is "very widely accepted" and that there is no debate among those experts on its validity.
If it were NOT held correct by a large majority of the experts in the field, it would NOT be the dominant theory, it would NOT be widely accepted and there WOULD be debate among the experts on its validity.
Consensus of peers is how we arrive at accepted and discarded theories. We need accepted theories so they can be used as tools until disproved. Without accepted theories to use as tools the researcher would have to evaluate competing hypotheses making his job somewhere between more difficult and impossible.Regardless of what branch of science we might discuss, consensus is the cornerstone for acceptance of scientific theory.
You couldn't possibly be more wrong...repeatable evidence is the cornerstone for acceptance of a scientific theory. Science is about evidence...consensus doesn't carry an ounce of authority.
Can you point to any other branch of science in which a consensus opinion is offered up in support of the present prevailing theory rather than evidence gathered via the best adherence to the scientific method possible? Any at all?
An accepted scientific theory follows the Scientific Method which begins with a question or an unexplained phenomenon. Observations, data collection, and experiments are conducted to gain more insight into the phenomenon. Ideas we call hypothesis's begin to develop spurring more research. Papers are written showing scientific evidence in support or undermining a hypothesis.
True enough..but that isn't how climate science operates. You believe that CO2 causes warming and that most of the warming we have experienced has been due to our CO2 emissions...and yet, there has never been a paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses....Not a single paper....and yet, that is precisely what you believe. How did you arrive at that conclusion when there are no published scientific studies which make that claim and show clear observed, measured evidence to support the claim?
You believe...that is all. You haven't been convinced by the body of evidence...you haven't been convinced by the repeatable experiments, you haven't been convinced by the scientific method...You believe...and neither belief, nor consensus has any place in actual science.
Oh dear another terrible consensus babble, since it is reproducible papers that drives science, NOT how many people believe in it. Surely you are aware of how often "consensus" positions have been wrong, wrong because they didn't rely on reproducible research, they had relied on a belief system that can last for many years, and resist the true understanding.
Alfred Wegener-- Continental Drift
J. Harlan Bretz-- The Missoula floods
Barry Marshall-- Ulcers
Each one had bucked the consensus position, with reproducible research. It was research that destroys consensus because it was reliance on data/evidence and reality. There are many more examples of failed consensus that even killed people because they were barking up the wrong tree, in the wrong country.
Those three men went out there into the physical world, getting their hands dirty, which is why they found the answers, while Consensus are the lazy kids laying around the pool, who drinks kool aid all day, without doing reproducible research to back them up.
You need to drop that dumb consensus argument, as it is devoid of cogent usefulness and doesn't provide any wisdom either.
It is you, Tommy, that are mistaken about the value of consensus among experts. That past consensuses (consensi?) were overcome by new evidence is a marvelous confirmation of the scientific method. It is not a repudiation of consensus. If someone actually falsifies AGW, its consensus will disappear in short order. But that it is currently held as correct by a huge majority of the experts in the field DOES mean it is the dominant theory, that it is "very widely accepted" and that there is no debate among those experts on its validity.
If it were NOT held correct by a large majority of the experts in the field, it would NOT be the dominant theory, it would NOT be widely accepted and there WOULD be debate among the experts on its validity.
That's not quite right. The greenhouse effect was first observed in 1827 and expanded on by many scientist. It was widely acceptable in the early 20th century. The theory simply stated is greenhouse gases, in the atmosphere reflect heat back to the earth thus forming a blanket around the earth. Without these gases the planet would go into a deep freeze. Too much and temperature rises to a point of treating life on the planet.
That isn't quite right either...A greenhouse effect was first thought to have been observed, and was written up in a paper in 1827....shortly afterwards, one professor woods performed a series of experiments and discredited that first paper on the greenhouse effect. He demonstrated that what was thought to have been a greenhouse effect was actually nothing more than blocking of convection by glass panes... The present day climate crisis is based on a failed experiment done in the early 1800's.
No greenhouse effect has ever been observed, or measured in reality...it is all the product of models.
To date, there has not been a single paper published in any scientific journal in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses. That being the case, exactly where does the certainty that we are altering the global climate come from?
That's not quite right. The greenhouse effect was first observed in 1827 and expanded on by many scientist. It was widely acceptable in the early 20th century. The theory simply stated is greenhouse gases, in the atmosphere reflect heat back to the earth thus forming a blanket around the earth. Without these gases the planet would go into a deep freeze. Too much and temperature rises to a point of treating life on the planet.
That isn't quite right either...A greenhouse effect was first thought to have been observed, and was written up in a paper in 1827....shortly afterwards, one professor woods performed a series of experiments and discredited that first paper on the greenhouse effect. He demonstrated that what was thought to have been a greenhouse effect was actually nothing more than blocking of convection by glass panes... The present day climate crisis is based on a failed experiment done in the early 1800's.
No greenhouse effect has ever been observed, or measured in reality...it is all the product of models.
To date, there has not been a single paper published in any scientific journal in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses. That being the case, exactly where does the certainty that we are altering the global climate come from?
The Greenhouse Effect is demonstrated and observed in just about ever high school in the country.No greenhouse effect has ever been observed, or measured in reality...it is all the product of models.