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.
But you haven't provided any proof yet.Now you think you're smarter than 97% of scientists. What a moron.
Nope, I just want proof, that you can not provide.
You will change your standard of proof as we provide it. I for one am done with that game.
97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real
LOL, thats 97 out of 100 picked by establishment.
What about the 33,000 who say it is bogus? AGW is a trick of the ruling elite, talked about by the Club of Rome, to bring in UN Agenda 21. Which is about global control of everthing as well as global depopulation
The 97 percent screaming headline for consensus is based on a survey of 1,372 scientists.
Actually, it was based on a survey of only 78 scientists. They were self selected, and the question were phrased in such a way that no one would say "no."
The 97 percent screaming headline for consensus is based on a survey of 1,372 scientists.
Actually, it was based on a survey of only 78 scientists. They were self selected, and the question were phrased in such a way that no one would say "no."
whoo hoo! I was going by the actual article DaGoose linked to.
"The report is based on questions posed to 1,372 scientists" That's from his link. And even that's bogus as all get out.
This info of less than 80 scientists is even better. Can you put up a link to those figures? I'd love to add that to my bookmarks.
Thanks in advance.
Actually, it was based on a survey of only 78 scientists. They were self selected, and the question were phrased in such a way that no one would say "no."
whoo hoo! I was going by the actual article DaGoose linked to.
"The report is based on questions posed to 1,372 scientists" That's from his link. And even that's bogus as all get out.
This info of less than 80 scientists is even better. Can you put up a link to those figures? I'd love to add that to my bookmarks.
Thanks in advance.
Here ya go:
Study claiming 97% of climate scientists agree is flawed « ClimateQuotes.com
Now you think you're smarter than 97% of scientists. What a moron.
Nope, I just want proof, that you can not provide.
You will change your standard of proof as we provide it. I for one am done with that game.
Now you think you're smarter than 97% of scientists. What a moron.
Nope, I just want proof, that you can not provide.
You will change your standard of proof as we provide it. I for one am done with that game.
Nope, I just want proof, that you can not provide.
You will change your standard of proof as we provide it. I for one am done with that game.
Ooohhh that sounds ominous...are you going to round up the non-believers and persecute them for heresy too?
Global warming: red-faced climatologist issues grovelling apology Telegraph Blogs
Global warming: red-faced climatologist issues grovelling apology
Not.
I've just been listening to BBC Radio 4's More Or Less. It was the episode announcing that the Global Warming Policy Foundation's scientific adviser Dr David Whitehouse had won a £100 bet made on the programme four years ago with climatologist Dr James Annan. Annan predicted temperatures would rise in that period; Whitehouse predicted they wouldn't. Annan lost.
But you'd never guess it from his high-handed tone when he was asked why he'd lost. "Just bad luck," Annan explained, going on to insist (contradicting most available real-world data, it must be said) that the trend for global warming remained "robustly positive." He then agreed to another four-year bet. If it went against him a second time would he change his mind, Annan was asked. At first he appeared to agree that it would but then he started backtracking, insisting that it wouldn't change in the slightest his view that carbon dioxide causes global warming .
This "Even though I was wrong I'm still right" syndrome afflicts a lot of people in the climate alarmist community. But then, you can hardly blame them for their wilful self-delusion and glib complacency for they seem to operate in a bubble in which there are no punishments for failure.
The classic example is Paul Ehrlich who lost a famous bet on "scarce resources" with the late economist Julian Simon (aka the "Doomslayer" because he was so good at confounding environmentalists' hysterical scaremongering using actual scientific data as opposed to computer projections).
The interesting part, as I recall in Watermelons, is what happened next:
While Ehrlich continued to be feted as an environmental seer (in 1990, the year he lost the bet, he won a MacArthur Foundation "genius award"), Simon was invariably dismissed during his lifetime as a right-wing crank.
As a profile in Wired put it: "There seemed to be a bizarre reverse-Cassandra effect operating in the universe: whereas the mythical Cassandra spoke the awful truth and was not believed, these days "experts" spoke awful falsehoods, and they were believed. Repeatedly being wrong actually seemed to be an advantage, conferring some sort of puzzling magic glow upon the speaker."
Digging that puzzling magic glow, Dr Annan?
Now you think you're smarter than 97% of scientists. What a moron.
Nope, I just want proof, that you can not provide.
I know you and your moronic arguments too well. No matter what proof is presented you'll say that it's either skewed or not good enough. You're happier living in ignorance.
