LMAO....the 97% claim was taken from ONE study!!!

[Old Rocks]

Progressives/Demcorats has no problems LYING if it's for THEIR AGENDA

the sad part is. When the American people can't tell or care about it and regurgitates back AT US AS if it's the TRUTH

They know there are many sheep out there

You said what? LOL

 

[Billy_Bob]

Progressives/Demcorats has no problems LYING if it's for THEIR AGENDA

the sad part is. When the American people can't tell or care about it and regurgitates back AT US AS if it's the TRUTH

They know there are many sheep out there

You said what? LOL

Essentially she stated that liberals and democrats will lie to forward their agenda even thought the empirical evidence shows them liars.. just like you... Your models, which are not empirical evidence of any kind and which fail 100% of the time are your basis for pushing your agenda, you dont care that they are wrong or if they fail because it supports your control agenda.. You spew the same lie over and over hoping to catch those who do not use critical thinking skills into believing your lies and get them to give up their freedoms and thier rights to their own bodies...

This is the description of the alarmist - socialist - shill's or should I just call you a useful idiot?

 

[jc456]

Ah it's been a while...

Like Ive said s0n..........the science isn't mattering. You cant post up one single link that shows us where the science is mattering!!!




So really................who's the s0n???

It matters to everyone but you rubes, s0n!

But G0d will h@ndle i+ righ+ s0n?

post up that link that shows that percentage friend! Alas, I know you can't. but had to post this anyway.

 

[jc456]

Ah it's been a while...

Like Ive said s0n..........the science isn't mattering. You cant post up one single link that shows us where the science is mattering!!!




So really................who's the s0n???

It matters to everyone but you rubes, s0n!

But G0d will h@ndle i+ righ+ s0n?

link please???

funny right?

 

[jc456]

Ah it's been a while...

Like Ive said s0n..........the science isn't mattering. You cant post up one single link that shows us where the science is mattering!!!




So really................who's the s0n???

It matters to everyone but you rubes, s0n!

But G0d will h@ndle i+ righ+ s0n?

link please???

Wh@t kind of l7nk s0n? Clim@te ch@nge that'$ h@ppening? 0r pe0ple c0ncerned @b0ut clim@te ch@nge?

the one that confirms your post s0nnY

 

[jc456]

There are a lot of Scientific Societies in the world, name one that disputes AGW. All first world nations and most second world nations, and even some third world nations have National Academies of Science. Name one that disputes AGW. Name one major University that does. Looks like the 97% is pretty well covered, and then some.

hmmmm, no!

 

[Billy_Bob]

There are a lot of Scientific Societies in the world, name one that disputes AGW. All first world nations and most second world nations, and even some third world nations have National Academies of Science. Name one that disputes AGW. Name one major University that does. Looks like the 97% is pretty well covered, and then some.

Political policy statements... designed so that the money train doesn't get derailed by actual science.. I believe the fraud you speak of is the worst kind of scientific fraud there is..

 

[ClosedCaption]

Facts do not rule the day with Liberals and environmentals.
Fear and emotion do.

Right! Which explains why you jumped on the OP's bandwagon without needing facts...just suggestions that it COULD be flawed...but once again, a suggestion without proof or a counterpoint

 

[ClosedCaption]

There are a lot of Scientific Societies in the world, name one that disputes AGW. All first world nations and most second world nations, and even some third world nations have National Academies of Science. Name one that disputes AGW. Name one major University that does. Looks like the 97% is pretty well covered, and then some.

what? wait, you cant ask them for a rebuttal!!

Simply saying some studies maybe flawed is good enough for the incurious ignoramuses!

 

[jc456]

There are a lot of Scientific Societies in the world, name one that disputes AGW. All first world nations and most second world nations, and even some third world nations have National Academies of Science. Name one that disputes AGW. Name one major University that does. Looks like the 97% is pretty well covered, and then some.

what? wait, you cant ask them for a rebuttal!!

Simply saying some studies maybe flawed is good enough for the incurious ignoramuses!

here is a rebuttal on why no one believes those folks: Credit Judith Curry:

link from Climate Etc.

APS reviews its Climate Change Statement Climate Etc.

Abstract:

"Context

The text of the 2007 APS Climate Change statement is found [here].

This statement resulted in the public resignations from the APS of several high profile physicists (this was followed closely at WUWT). These resignations prompted additional commentary to be appended to the statement, with some clarifications and mentions of uncertainty."

This is the reason why there is no credibility in any of these sites in the world. The fact is, the published statements aren't exactly what was written and why resignations have occurred.

You can claim until your feet fall off that you have facts, but sir, you and your bunch have zippola!! Most all models are wrong and require manipulation of data to make them more accurate, but still not right. that's as funny as hell btw.

 

[jc456]

one additional abstract from Judith Curry's review on Climate etc.

"JC reflections

I have been harshly critical of the statements on climate change made by various professional societies, and the process by which those statements were crafted and approved (see my post (Ir)responsible advocacy). I give the APS an A+ for the process in preparing their statement. The thoroughness and transparency is unprecedented. And I like the idea of having relatively objective people write the statement, people without a dog in this particular fight."

 

[jc456]

and finally, her comments after the draft statement was submitted for review:

abstract;
"JC reflections

Well, their paragraph on Climate Science is a rather astonishing take on the APS Workshop. Their paragraph on Climate Change seems to come from the Guardian. Their statement on Climate Action reiterates their rather crazy statement in 2007

Apart from the issue that no one on the POPA seems to understand any of these issues beyond a superficial level (after Koonin and Rosner departed from the POPA), and that their statements are naive and unprofessional, here is my real problem with this. This is an egregious misuse of the expertise of the APS. Their alleged understanding of issues like spectroscopy and fluid dynamics are not of any direct relevance to the issues they write about in this statement. The statement is an embarrassment to the APS."

Link;Draft APS Statement on Climate Change Climate Etc.

 

[ClosedCaption]

There are a lot of Scientific Societies in the world, name one that disputes AGW. All first world nations and most second world nations, and even some third world nations have National Academies of Science. Name one that disputes AGW. Name one major University that does. Looks like the 97% is pretty well covered, and then some.

what? wait, you cant ask them for a rebuttal!!

Simply saying some studies maybe flawed is good enough for the incurious ignoramuses!

here is a rebuttal on why no one believes those folks: Credit Judith Curry:

link from Climate Etc.

APS reviews its Climate Change Statement Climate Etc.

Abstract:

"Context

The text of the 2007 APS Climate Change statement is found [here].

This statement resulted in the public resignations from the APS of several high profile physicists (this was followed closely at WUWT). These resignations prompted additional commentary to be appended to the statement, with some clarifications and mentions of uncertainty."

This is the reason why there is no credibility in any of these sites in the world. The fact is, the published statements aren't exactly what was written and why resignations have occurred.

You can claim until your feet fall off that you have facts, but sir, you and your bunch have zippola!! Most all models are wrong and require manipulation of data to make them more accurate, but still not right. that's as funny as hell btw.

Is there something in that link that shows...yanno, a rebuttal or facts that disprove...anything?

 

[IanC]

I think you hit the nail on the head, jc.

Curry was impressed that the APS used in house expertise to assess what the statement should say. And then pissed off when the politically influenced leadership decided to ignore it.

 

[jc456]

There are a lot of Scientific Societies in the world, name one that disputes AGW. All first world nations and most second world nations, and even some third world nations have National Academies of Science. Name one that disputes AGW. Name one major University that does. Looks like the 97% is pretty well covered, and then some.

what? wait, you cant ask them for a rebuttal!!

Simply saying some studies maybe flawed is good enough for the incurious ignoramuses!

here is a rebuttal on why no one believes those folks: Credit Judith Curry:

link from Climate Etc.

APS reviews its Climate Change Statement Climate Etc.

Abstract:

"Context

The text of the 2007 APS Climate Change statement is found [here].

This statement resulted in the public resignations from the APS of several high profile physicists (this was followed closely at WUWT). These resignations prompted additional commentary to be appended to the statement, with some clarifications and mentions of uncertainty."

This is the reason why there is no credibility in any of these sites in the world. The fact is, the published statements aren't exactly what was written and why resignations have occurred.

You can claim until your feet fall off that you have facts, but sir, you and your bunch have zippola!! Most all models are wrong and require manipulation of data to make them more accurate, but still not right. that's as funny as hell btw.

Is there something in that link that shows...yanno, a rebuttal or facts that disprove...anything?

it is our rebuttal to the facts of the accuracy of the societies mentioned. From a very qualified rep, one Judith Curry. See, anyone can print anything they want and put a header on it, that doesn't mean jack sh1t if it doesn't report factual data.

 

[Stephanie]

What gets me: is you watch these grown ups so called adults going around calling people: DENIERS

I mean for crying out loud. it's like the stupid of :birthers.

who sits around and thinks up this stupidity ?

they figure they can call you enough names to SHAME you into to bowing to them

they can go to hell and wish for Globull cooling

 

[Old Rocks]

Well Staph, you people deny obvious facts, you are deniers. And, when in the face of all the evidence, you insist that the President was not born in Hawaii, birther is the nicest thing you can be called.

As the changes in the climate become more evident to all, the willful ignorance and lies of you 'Conservatives' will become more and more evident to all citizens, and that will reflect on the rest of your agenda. You wish to live in an alternative reality, don't expect to be given the reins of government. Most of us do not care for the idea of the mentally incompetent leading the nation.

 

[jc456]

Well Staph, you people deny obvious facts, you are deniers. And, when in the face of all the evidence, you insist that the President was not born in Hawaii, birther is the nicest thing you can be called.

As the changes in the climate become more evident to all, the willful ignorance and lies of you 'Conservatives' will become more and more evident to all citizens, and that will reflect on the rest of your agenda. You wish to live in an alternative reality, don't expect to be given the reins of government. Most of us do not care for the idea of the mentally incompetent leading the nation.

you are the ones denying facts, and we've proven it. To date you haven't proved your point or claim. Anyday, BTW.

 

[IanC]

I think you hit the nail on the head, jc.

Curry was impressed that the APS used in house expertise to assess what the statement should say. And then pissed off when the politically influenced leadership decided to ignore it.

here is the latest letter disapproving of the APS position -

Samuel Aronson
President, American Physical Society
One Physics Ellipse College Park, MD 20740-3844

Dear Dr. Aronson,

As three members of the American Physical Society, we are writing on behalf of the nearly 300 other members who signed our 2009 and 2010 petitions to the APS taking strong exception to the 2007 Statement on Climate Change. Those petitions called for an objective assessment of the underlying science, leading to a more scientifically defensible Statement.

We wish to call attention to important issues relating to the processes that led to the 2007 Statement and the Draft 2015 Statement. In developing both the 2007 Statement and the current Draft, the Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) failed to follow traditional APS Bylaws. In particular, regarding APS statements the Bylaws state: “The Chair of POPA has the responsibility for ensuring that the statement draft incorporates appropriate APS member expertise” (XVI.B.2), and, “Anyone, particularly POPA and Council members, who can reasonably be perceived to have a conflict of interest, shall recuse themselves from all aspects of the Statement process, including drafting, commentary, and voting. The President of the APS shall be the final arbiter of potential conflicts of interest” (XVI.E). Examples of relevant process exceptions include:

1. APS email records show that the original 2007 Statement was rewritten “on the fly, over lunch” by a small group of firebrands who arbitrarily inserted themselves in the process, thereby overruling the prerogatives of POPA and the APS Council. Thus, in "reaffirming" the 2007 Statement, the current Draft is referring to one that was produced by a bogus process and led to much ridicule of the APS, especially for its use of the infamous “incontrovertible.” In an attempt to disown this public relations fiasco, in 2012 APS (presumably POPA) quietly introduced a new paragraph break in the 2007 Statement so as to alter the original intent of the passage. Thus, the description of the Statement presented today as “Adopted by Council on November 18, 2007” is untrue and a violation of APS Guidelines for Professional Conduct (APS Guidelines for Professional Conduct paragraph two).

2. In the process of developing a Draft 2015 Statement, APS failed to consult any of at least 300 members, including Nobel Laureates, NAS members, and many Fellows, who were deeply dissatisfied with the 2007 Statement. Thus POPA deliberately failed to seek and incorporate interested and appropriate member input, as required in the Bylaws.

3. In the process of developing a Draft 2015 Statement, POPA failed to take into account the findings of the broad-based workshop, chaired by Steve Koonin, which faithfully and expertly executed its charge to assess the state of the science in global warming. The Koonin committee did the APS proud, conducting the only serious review of global warming science by a major American scientific society that we know of, while simultaneously realizing the objectives of our 2009 and 2010 petitions. Having thus advanced the interests of physics and the Society, POPA subsequently ignored the Koonin workshop and its product. POPA once again returned to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as its sole source of authority on the science, thereby abrogating its responsibility to the membership to properly conduct independent scientific assessments.

4. The Chair of the POPA committee has failed to identify serious conflicts of interests by its members. For example, a few years ago, one member of POPA, representing himself as an agent of a politically active nongovernmental organization, demanded that a Cleveland-area television station fire its meteorologist for expressing some doubt about IPCC statements on global warming. On every scientific point, the meteorologist was right, and we are glad to say that he retained his job.

These process exceptions by POPA cloud the legitimacy, objectivity, and content of the current Draft. In considering this, along with the strong basis for continuing investigations of unresolved key scientific questions in the global warming issue, it is clear that the best course of APS action is simply to archive the 2007 Statement without further attempts to replace it. We ask that you take this step in the interests of the Society and its membership.

We trust that you will share this letter with the APS Council. This is a very serious matter, and we intend to pursue it. We look forward to your response. Please respond to Roger Cohen, [address redacted].

Sincerely,

Roger W. Cohen
Laurence I. Gould
William Happer



c. Presidential-Line Officers:
Malcolm R. Beasley, Past President
Laura Greene, Vice President
Homer Neal, President Elect

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well Staph, you people deny obvious facts, you are deniers. And, when in the face of all the evidence, you insist that the President was not born in Hawaii, birther is the nicest thing you can be called.

As the changes in the climate become more evident to all, the willful ignorance and lies of you 'Conservatives' will become more and more evident to all citizens, and that will reflect on the rest of your agenda. You wish to live in an alternative reality, don't expect to be given the reins of government. Most of us do not care for the idea of the mentally incompetent leading the nation.

Deniers is an AGWCult secret handshake word, its how they can identify themselves as fellow cult members.

Check through all the annals is scientific history, you won't find a single scientist in any field calling skeptics "deniers"