Looks Like The Cat's Out Of The Bag....

Discussion in 'Environment' started by PoliticalChic, Jul 21, 2018.

  1. Confounding
    Offline

    Confounding BANNED

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2016
    Messages:
    3,960
    Thanks Received:
    831
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +4,221
    Yes, yes...

    Here, have some breadcrumbs.
     
  2. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    76,786
    Thanks Received:
    22,461
    Trophy Points:
    2,260
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +48,138
    No, they're not, you moron.



    "While real polling of climate scientists and organization memberships is rare, there are a few examples. A 2008 international survey of climate scientists conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch revealed deep disagreement regarding two-thirds of the 54 questions asked about their professional views. Responses to about half of those areas were skewed on the “skeptic” side, with no consensus to support any alarm. The majority did not believe that atmospheric models can deal with important influences of clouds, precipitation, atmospheric convection, ocean convection, or turbulence. Most also did not believe that climate models can predict precipitation, sea level rise, extreme weather events, or temperature values for the next 50 years.

    A 2010 survey of media broadcast meteorologists conducted by the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication found that 63% of 571 who responded believe global warming is mostly caused by natural, not human, causes. Those polled included members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the National Weather Association.

    ...canvas of 51,000 Canadian scientists with the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysics of Alberta (APEGGA) found that although 99% of 1,077 replies believe climate is changing, 68% disagreed with the statement that “…the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.” Only 26% of them attributed global warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.” Regarding these results, APEGGA’s executive director, Neil Windsor, commented, “We’re not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of.”

    ...a major scientific institution in the European Union, agrees that the purported climate consensus argument is becoming increasingly untenable. It says, in part, that: “Over the past 400 thousand years - even without human intervention - the level of CO2 in the air, based on the Antarctic ice cores, has already been similar four times, and even higher than the current value. At the end of the last ice age, within a time [interval] of a few hundred years, the average annual temperature changed over the globe several times. In total, it has gone up by almost 10 °C in the northern hemisphere, [and] therefore the changes mentiohttps://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/#8d543fc3bb32ned above were incomparably more dramatic than the changes reported today.”




    Oh….BTW….

    “Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.” Ibid.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  3. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    31,555
    Thanks Received:
    3,622
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +12,158
    Dang s0n....you really aren't getting it!! If 99% of the scientists concurred, if the people aren't caring, it's nothing more than internet banter. I mean, c'mon now....they've been saying it for 20 years. It's not mattering....perhaps it should.....none if us know for sure, but it's the only thing material to the discussion. China continues to build 2 new coal plants every month. Any discussion about the science of climate change is laughable....no different than two kids debating about who was a better baseball player, Mays or Mantle?

    Do you know why climate change activists bring lawsuits against the oil companies? Do you really think it is about the environment? Anybody who thinks it is about climate change just can't connect the dots to how it plays out in the real world. Do you understand who foots the bill when these frivolous lawsuits are struck down by the court? It's the taxpayers.....duh..... they foot the bill for the defendants. Skyrocketing into the billions for city budgets.... AND THAT IS EXACTLY THE GOAL!!! Who wins when trickle up poverty economics become the plan for these cities? Well of course, the progressive politicians win because they gained many more voters. Duh.....

    The Climate Change Industry goals have nothing to do with the environment.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2018
  4. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    76,786
    Thanks Received:
    22,461
    Trophy Points:
    2,260
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +48,138
    "95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
    95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong « Roy Spencer, PhD

    … the recent (15+ year) pause in global average warming…when did it start, is it a full pause, shouldn’t we be taking the longer view, etc.

    These are all interesting exercises, but they miss the most important point: the climate models that governments base policy decisions on have failed miserably.

    I’ve updated our comparison of 90 climate models versus observations for global average surface temperatures through 2013, and we still see that >95% of the models have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH)"




    95% of predictions wrong????

    Well….gee, let’s make it public policy then.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Confounding
    Offline

    Confounding BANNED

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2016
    Messages:
    3,960
    Thanks Received:
    831
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +4,221
    A Forbes fact checker (since you like to use Forbes) seems to think it's a bit exaggerated. I guess the amount of scientists that are convinced the change is human caused is only in the high 80 to low 90 range, according to them.

    Oh, wait, that's only when you don't limit it to climate scientists. You know, the ones who directly study this stuff.

    Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change

    Oh, and then there's these guys. Buncha idiots I know, but I tend to respect what they have to say.

    Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


    Even if only 50% agreed you'd be a fool for shrugging off what they have to say.
     
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2018
  6. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    76,786
    Thanks Received:
    22,461
    Trophy Points:
    2,260
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +48,138



    " It is impossible to tell from this analysis how many actually believed it."
    Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  7. Confounding
    Offline

    Confounding BANNED

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2016
    Messages:
    3,960
    Thanks Received:
    831
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +4,221
    There is a scientific consensus. Worst case scenario it's in the high 80 low 90s range. If you're not going to operate inside reality there is no further discussion to be had. I'm not going to entertain your lunacy.
     
  8. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    76,786
    Thanks Received:
    22,461
    Trophy Points:
    2,260
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +48,138


    " It is impossible to tell from this analysis how many actually believed it."
    Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change[/QUOTE]




    "New Gallup Poll: Americans do not even mention global warming as a problem – 36 ‘problems’ cited, but not climate

    According to the latest Gallup poll, NOBODY thinks global warming is our most important problem, contrary to what NRCM, Audubon and CLF sock puppets tell us."
    New Gallup Poll: Americans do not even mention global warming as a problem – 36 ‘problems’ cited, but not climate



    It's only you and a handful of other indoctrinees.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. Billy_Bob
    Offline

    Billy_Bob Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2014
    Messages:
    14,660
    Thanks Received:
    3,073
    Trophy Points:
    1,010
    Location:
    Top Of The Great Divide
    Ratings:
    +14,019
    Until a real scientifically based question pool is done and the core premises questioned all you have is feel good conjecture.. Even the current work involving CO2 la
    :auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::bsflag:

    Where did you pull that from? Your ass?
     
  10. Sunsettommy
    Offline

    Sunsettommy VIP Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2018
    Messages:
    2,033
    Thanks Received:
    327
    Trophy Points:
    80
    Ratings:
    +1,891
    You again and again follow the Consensus fallacy, which does NOTHING for science research. It is a political tool to gauge support for something lawmakers seek.

    All those "scientific" institutions BOARD of DIRECTORS made those statements, NOT the full members of the listed organizations, who didn't get to vote on it at all, some resigned in protest and others say this is wrong.

    People like you ignore that too which is indicative that you have no idea why the concept of The Scientific Method and the REPRODUCIBILITY of published research flies over your head.

    There have been many consensus failures in science that harmed research and caused deaths to people who suffered under consensus bullcrap. Recall that for many years it was a consensus that Ulcers were caused by stress or spicy foods, until someone decided to do actual research to find out what the underlying cause was. It was BACTERIA that caused them.

    Get out of the consensus stupidity, maybe you finally realize that science advances one reproducible paper at a time. Consensus pablums doesn't do shit for learning.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2

Share This Page