Consensus

[Old Rocks]

Climate Change: A Consensus Among Scientists? | Information Is Beautiful


Climate Change: A Consensus Among Scientists?
December 23, 2009
Off the back of the recent Climate Skeptics vs The Consensus image, we were curious how many scientists might make up ‘The Consensus’.

The Skeptical side claims at least 31,486 dissenters in their ranks, according to the PetitionProject.org. That sounds like a lot. But is it?

 

[uscitizen]

You have got me, however it is still better than "the decider" method.

 

[xsited1]

Climate Change: A Consensus Among Scientists? | Information Is Beautiful


Climate Change: A Consensus Among Scientists?
December 23, 2009
Off the back of the recent Climate Skeptics vs The Consensus image, we were curious how many scientists might make up ‘The Consensus’.

The Skeptical side claims at least 31,486 dissenters in their ranks, according to the PetitionProject.org. That sounds like a lot. But is it?

The first graphic and his attempt at an explanation is utterly useless.

Next.

 

[uscitizen]

How many scientists do we have that are qualified on climate stuff?

I would not take the word of a bioligist type of scientist on globull worming.

I have a scientist friend on another board and I think she would be the first to say she is not qualified to decide on climatology.

 

[Big Black Dog]

You can pretty much find statistics to support just about anything you want to believe in if you look on the web long enough. Seems to me like when the scientists were busted for feeding out false facts concerning the climate change data just to keep this hoax alive they shot themselves in the foot. I didn't believe any of the claims before that event and I certainly don't believe any of it now that it's been brought to light how false this whole thing about climate change is. I think you're pissing up a rope.

 

[Oddball]

"Consensus" is one of the biggest semantic tip-offs that the globalclimatecoolerwarmering scam is...well...as scam.

Nobody needs any trumped-up "consensus" to physically prove that the planets revolve around the sun or that water runs downhill.

 

[uscitizen]

My thoughts on globull worming:

1. Air pollution is bad.
2. Mankind may be having an effect on the climate. Not only thru CO2 emissions but general pollution, deforestation, etc.
3. If our climate is impacted by what we do undoing that will be massive and long term.
4. If we are impacting our climate nothing says that is has to be a gradual thing. We may experience non linear changes. The climate of the earth may be a fragile balance and not take much to tip the scales.
5. Yes the earth does experience non manmade climate change.

 

[uscitizen]

"Consensus" is one of the biggest semantic tip-offs that the globalclimatecoolerwarmering scam is...well...as scam.

Nobody needs any trumped-up "consensus" to physically prove that the planets revolve around the sun or that water runs downhill.

Tell that to Galalieo.

Faith often trumps fact.

 

[Oddball]

Who is Galileo and who is the orthodoxy which claims to have all the "knowledge" in this scenario, Scooter?

 

[uscitizen]

This from your post:
"Nobody needs any trumped-up "consensus" to physically prove that the planets revolve around the sun or that water runs downhill."

On the water the discussion would be WHY it runs downhill.

 

[Oddball]

Gravity.

Which, despite the fact that it cannot be explained at the molecular level (neither can electricity), CAN be measured, quantified, falsified and acts as advertised every single time. None of which is equally true of AGW hokum.

Try again.

 

[uscitizen]

Now back to Galileo and the planets revolving around the sun.
You do know he had to recant that or die didn't you?

 

[Oddball]

Yeah...And scientists who've taken a skeptical view on AGW have been blackballed, had their funding terminated, threatened to have their journals put out of business and have been excluded from the IPCC processes.

And your point is?

 

[Big Black Dog]

So what does all the crap about Galileo have to do with all the false claims by the scientist to keep the climate change hoax alive? The two big differences I see here is that Galileo was correct and not telling us lies. The scientist beating their chests about how fucked up we are making the earth with the climate change nonsense are all telling lies. You even have the Polar Bears laughing their hind ends off at you. Do you sit around and chant climate change and wack off? Seems like climate change is the only thing you ever talk about and it's always the same old song and dance. Just a different day. Do you have a schedule made up or something about what days to post about climate change?

 

[Oddball]

So what does all the crap about Galileo have to do with all the false claims by the scientist to keep the climate change hoax alive? The two big differences I see here is that Galileo was correct and not telling us lies. The scientist beating their chests about how fucked up we are making the earth with the climate change nonsense are all telling lies. You even have the Polar Bears laughing their hind ends off at you. Do you sit around and chant climate change and wack off? Seems like climate change is the only thing you ever talk about and it's always the same old song and dance. Just a different day. Do you have a schedule made up or something about what days to post about climate change?

The point of it is to try and install the AGW hoaxers in the role of Galileo, when the circumstances of the situation are clearly 180° opposite.

It is the AGW scaremongers who are the orthodoxy, who control all the "sacred knowledge", while all those who question them can expect to be mocked and derided at least, and have their careers ruined at worst.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Why do we need a reason to not pollute in addition to the smell?

Good (insert your preferred Deity here) people... we must look incredibly stupid from space!​

 

[Oddball]

CO2 isn't a pollutant in trace quantities....And there is absolutely no threat of it becoming anything more than a hundredths-of-a-percent trace element.

 

[Big Black Dog]

So what does all the crap about Galileo have to do with all the false claims by the scientist to keep the climate change hoax alive? The two big differences I see here is that Galileo was correct and not telling us lies. The scientist beating their chests about how fucked up we are making the earth with the climate change nonsense are all telling lies. You even have the Polar Bears laughing their hind ends off at you. Do you sit around and chant climate change and wack off? Seems like climate change is the only thing you ever talk about and it's always the same old song and dance. Just a different day. Do you have a schedule made up or something about what days to post about climate change?

The point of it is to try and install the AGW hoaxers in the role of Galileo, when the circumstances of the situation are clearly 180° opposite.

It is the AGW scaremongers who are the orthodoxy, who control all the "sacred knowledge", while all those who question them can expect to be mocked and derided at least, and have their careers ruined at worst.

I completely agree with you, dude. Hitler said if you lie to them long enough, and strong enough, sooner or later they will believe you. Same way with this climate change bull crap.

 

[Zoom-boing]

A consensus doesn't make AGW true or false, the facts do. What do the facts say? That much information was manipulated to skew the facts in favor of AGW. Now that's a consensus!

 

[AVG-JOE]

CO2 isn't a pollutant in trace quantities....And there is absolutely no threat of it becoming anything more than a hundredths-of-a-percent trace element.

That is absolutely an absolute statement about something you have absolutely no personal control over my friend.

Dude's got stones.