Long-term warming trend continued in 2017: NASA, NOAA

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. " - NASA

Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

Wow!
The precision in this claim is breathtaking.
For scienctists, that is very significant. As I am sure you know.

No, a claim like that with no numbers in it is not significant at all.
 
"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. " - NASA

Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

Wow!
The precision in this claim is breathtaking.
For scienctists, that is very significant. As I am sure you know.

No, a claim like that with no numbers in it is not significant at all.
Of course, it is, as it is a strong position. As one might expect, you can go more into depth on the topic on the website. Or, continue to follow me around,biting at my ankles. I don't mind.
 
Not even 60% agree on the accuracy of the modeling to make 10, 50, 100 year prediction
False. The models have been surprisingly accurate.
What question do you think has "95% consensus"?
Wait.. you don't even know?

How can you guys prattle on endlessly about this and yet still not be in possession of the most basic of facts regarding it? How embarrassing...

You should start at the NASA site. There you will find the consensus simply stated. You can also go more in depth.

And stop PMing me. You are the one spreading misinformation.

Have never PM'd you. Except for Moderation business. You lie. What is the question that has 95% consensus? How was it arrived at? Does it provide any guidance for mitigation of the EXTENT of damages by 2100? I know the crap you read. I know the "source" for all this consensus crap. And it doesn't represent any scientific means of "divining opinion" on ANYTHING about GW/.CC..

And for the record -- I CONCUR with any "consensus" that says the Earth is warming and man is in SOME PART responsible for the warming. It says NOTHING about the rigor or completeness of all the DOZENS of questions that MUST be answered to get a "total" consensus on Climate Change.
 
What is the question that has 95% consensus? How was it arrived at?
Good grief, look it up yourself! I am not your mommy,!

And I asked you a question first. So stop asking me questions.


So you don’t even know the answer to that? If your purpose here is to demonstrate the sheer impotence of warmers these days....well congratulations....job well done.
 
So you don’t even know the answer to that
Of course I do. What is amazing is you guys, who prattle on endlessly on this topic (yet have zero education, experience, or work in any of the fields) don't know the answer. That level of ignorance, despite the amount of energy you have spent on the topic, is quite a feat.

How would you measure a scientific consensus?
 
What is the question that has 95% consensus? How was it arrived at?
Good grief, look it up yourself! I am not your mommy,!

And I asked you a question first. So stop asking me questions.

You inserted your troll ass into a convo I was having with a Spammer. And you purposely MISINTERPRETED my post and spit out this ridiculous troll bait.. Is THIS the question you want answered?

are you essentially stating that people that who have dedicated their lives to these fields do not know basic atmospheric physics?

How did what I said in any way in your demented troll constitute a criticism of the members of those fields. I ignored this because I was simply DEFENDING science against a fraud poster. And I did nothing but find out this fraud knows NOTHING about radiative physics. A topic for which I studied and PRACTICED for my entire academic and professional career. You're question is just bait.

NOW -- answer my questions.

Not even 60% agree on the accuracy of the modeling to make 10, 50, 100 year predictions. Without THAT consensus -- everything else is pretty questionable. Here's the polling data of real opinions of real climate scientists below. Courtesy of Bray and von Storch circa 2015..

What question do you think has "95% consensus"?? Does it answer the question of temperature or SLRise by 2100??? There IS no 95% consensus on ANY important GW/CC question....

4992-1493923213-136d2533167af5e252635e8b9cbe10cb.png


Can you do the CUMULATIVE response below a SIX on that scale -- Or does your mommy have to do it for you?

And as a bonus -- Do Climate Scientists think tthat their work has been misrepresented to public and policy makers? By and large -- theres something LIKE a consensus on THAT question.. Eat it...

4988-1493923146-436907cbf9cf6719b9fcef3c10636b90.png
 
ALL claims of consensus go out the window if the PRACTITIONERS of the science don't have total faith in the models.
What a ridiculous thing to say. And the models are accurate,and more accurate than scientists had hoped.

Scientists do not think this way. With noisy, complicated subjects, they find ways to constrain their knowledge and shrink the margins of uncertainty. And this process has progressed to the point that there is overwhelming consensus. You don't have to accept it, and nobody gives a shit if you do. But to think you can beat up Mike Tyson, despite not boxing a day in your life...well, that deserves mockery, from sci etists and laymen alike. It just does.

But, you are free to challenge the theories by performing science. No, none of you cackling deniers are presenting any real challenge to the theories. You merely present a challenge to smart policy. Good for you.
 
"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. " - NASA

That wasn't a poll. It was based on studies that read abstracts. And it included the ones with NO expressed opinion into the yes category. The worse place to look for opinion is in the abstract of tech papers. Even if they quoted OTHER scientists -- it was counted as their opinion. Even if all the 4 or 8 authors on the papers didn't agree -- it was counted. It's a sham.

And LIKELY is not a definitely strong qualifier in law or science.
I like my scientific ACTUAL polling on HUNDREDS of questions better. Because it's better science.
 
That wasn't a poll.
Yes, iknow,as it literally says what it was in the post you quoted.
And LIKELY is not a definitely strong qualifier in law or science
Q00% false. When the overwhelonng majority of scientists call something extremely likely, that is significant. You are wrong to say otherwise, and your cherry picking of words and your incorrect statement quickly reveals your superstition.
 
What a ridiculous thing to say. And the models are accurate,and more accurate than scientists had hoped.

Can you not read graphs? What is the percentage of climate scientists that gave the reliability of models a 6 or 7 for that question.. Shows how dishonest you are about this "discussion thingy".. What's the percentage that gave very high marks to the modeling?
 
That wasn't a poll.
Yes, iknow,as it literally says what it was in the post you quoted.
And LIKELY is not a definitely strong qualifier in law or science
Q00% false. When the overwhelonng majority of scientists call something extremely likely, that is significant. You are wrong to say otherwise, and your cherry picking of words and your incorrect statement quickly reveals your superstition.

When the overwhelonng majority of scientists call something extremely likely, that is significant.

75/77. Practically a guarantee.

DERP!
 
Yes. Extremely Likely --- that would be. But just plain LIKELY is not very significant is it?
Irrelevant.

It IS relevant. What you quoted said Likely. Then you bloviated about EXTREMELY likely. When that's NOT what your phony "consensus" said. It didn't say ANYTHING about projections of temperature or sea level rise or weather consequences or public policy or whether they thought their science was being politicized. The studies I'm quoting ASKED ALL of those questions and actually solicited opinion. It didn't "divine" opinion from reading abstracts of papers and then fudging the results.
 
That wasn't a poll.
Yes, iknow,as it literally says what it was in the post you quoted.
And LIKELY is not a definitely strong qualifier in law or science
Q00% false. When the overwhelonng majority of scientists call something extremely likely, that is significant. You are wrong to say otherwise, and your cherry picking of words and your incorrect statement quickly reveals your superstition.

When the overwhelonng majority of scientists call something extremely likely, that is significant.

75/77. Practically a guarantee.

DERP!
Thats adorable how you make up numbers for attention. Oh toddster, my attention comes free, you don't have to embarrass yourself for it.
 
Yes. Extremely Likely --- that would be. But just plain LIKELY is not very significant is it?
Irrelevant.

It IS relevant. What you quoted said Likely. Then you bloviated about EXTREMELY likely. When that's NOT what your phony "consensus" said. It didn't say ANYTHING about projections of temperature or sea level rise or weather consequences or public policy or whether they thought their science was being politicized. The studies I'm quoting ASKED ALL of those questions and actually solicited opinion. It didn't "divine" opinion from reading abstracts of papers and then fudging the results.
It is not relevant, as the language "extremely.likelyy" was the language used.

I look forward to emailing your claims about the models to a climate scientist. I promise to post the response here, where everyone can read it.

How exciting it must be for you to finally go "pro"! You should celebrate.
 
That wasn't a poll.
Yes, iknow,as it literally says what it was in the post you quoted.
And LIKELY is not a definitely strong qualifier in law or science
Q00% false. When the overwhelonng majority of scientists call something extremely likely, that is significant. You are wrong to say otherwise, and your cherry picking of words and your incorrect statement quickly reveals your superstition.

When the overwhelonng majority of scientists call something extremely likely, that is significant.

75/77. Practically a guarantee.

DERP!
Thats adorable how you make up numbers for attention. Oh toddster, my attention comes free, you don't have to embarrass yourself for it.

Thats adorable how you make up numbers for attention.

You think I made up those numbers? LOL!

Wow, and you sounded so knowledgeable in your refusal to give details.
 
That wasn't a poll.
Yes, iknow,as it literally says what it was in the post you quoted.
And LIKELY is not a definitely strong qualifier in law or science
Q00% false. When the overwhelonng majority of scientists call something extremely likely, that is significant. You are wrong to say otherwise, and your cherry picking of words and your incorrect statement quickly reveals your superstition.

When the overwhelonng majority of scientists call something extremely likely, that is significant.

75/77. Practically a guarantee.

DERP!
Thats adorable how you make up numbers for attention. Oh toddster, my attention comes free, you don't have to embarrass yourself for it.

Thats adorable how you make up numbers for attention.

You think I made up those numbers? LOL!

Wow, and you sounded so knowledgeable in your refusal to give details.
As relates to consensus? Yes, you made them up. Your fake lols don't change that.

Grown man typing fake lols = very frustrated.
 

Forum List

Back
Top