Put another nail in the coffin of "Global Warming."

[theDoctorisIn]

There is an important difference between a "meteorologist" and a "weatherman".

Coleman is a weatherman.

 

[westwall]

He's right. Science is not a "majority rules."

Science is science. If 97% believe the world is flat and 3% believe it's round, just because the majority claims one thing doesn't make it so!

For 70 years Brontosaurus had the wrong head.

There are things that science believed true 70-100 years ago, we now know to be false.

Just because most believed it, didn't make it true.

Science is about reality, not what most scientists think.

He's absolutely right.

And how do you determine what 'reality' is? You've already thrown out measurements, as you've concocted this elaborate conspiracy involving funding sources and bad science. You haven't actually demonstrated the claim with evidence. But you've typed it, and that seems sufficient for you to dismiss all of climatology. You've eliminated expertise, training and experience.....with your 'we can't trust scientists' claim.

So where is your source on 'reality'? And how do we know its legit?

Here's a dose of reality for you. Science is not done by consensus. Consensus is a purely political term. You don't hear scientists saying, "well it is the consensus opinion that the speed of light is 186,282 miles per second", no. You don't hear that, and the reason why is because science deals in FACTS not opinions. Consensus is merely a agreement of OPINION.

Here's a fact for you......there has been no measurable warming, globally, in 17 years. The CO2 content, on the other hand has risen. In scientific terms that KILLS the theory that CO2 has anything to do with global temperatures.

 

[Skylar]

There is an important difference between a "meteorologist" and a "weatherman".

Coleman is a weatherman.

And there's an important difference between a meteorologist and a climatologist. Meaning that Coleman's journalism degree is even more irrelevant.

 

[Skylar]

Here's a fact for you......there has been no measurable warming, globally, in 17 years. The CO2 content, on the other hand has risen. In scientific terms that KILLS the theory that CO2 has anything to do with global temperatures.

So when was the last year there was warming. And are you familiar with the term 'outlier'?

 

[Billy000]

Lol if republicans were smart enough to understand geology they wouldn't be republicans in the first place.

 

[Skylar]

Here's a dose of reality for you. Science is not done by consensus. Consensus is a purely political term. You don't hear scientists saying, "well it is the consensus opinion that the speed of light is 186,282 miles per second", no. You don't hear that, and the reason why is because science deals in FACTS not opinions. Consensus is merely a agreement of OPINION.

Ah, but remember the 'funding' conspiracy that your ilk made up. Which means that we can't trust any measurement taken by scientists who are being paid. How then would you determine anything scientific if you ignore any scientific measurement, any scientific experience, any scientific training?

Which brings me back to my question which remains pristinely unanswered: how would you determine reality? And please remember the restrictions you're working under.

 

[Political Junky]

He's right. Science is not a "majority rules."

Science is science. If 97% believe the world is flat and 3% believe it's round, just because the majority claims one thing doesn't make it so!

For 70 years Brontosaurus had the wrong head.

There are things that science believed true 70-100 years ago, we now know to be false.

Just because most believed it, didn't make it true.

Science is about reality, not what most scientists think.

He's absolutely right.

And how do you determine what 'reality' is? You've already thrown out measurements, as you've concocted this elaborate conspiracy involving funding sources and bad science. You haven't actually demonstrated the claim with evidence. But you've typed it, and that seems sufficient for you to dismiss all of climatology. You've eliminated expertise, training and experience.....with your 'we can't trust scientists' claim.

So where is your source on 'reality'? And how do we know its legit?

Here's a dose of reality for you. Science is not done by consensus. Consensus is a purely political term. You don't hear scientists saying, "well it is the consensus opinion that the speed of light is 186,282 miles per second", no. You don't hear that, and the reason why is because science deals in FACTS not opinions. Consensus is merely a agreement of OPINION.

Here's a fact for you......there has been no measurable warming, globally, in 17 years. The CO2 content, on the other hand has risen. In scientific terms that KILLS the theory that CO2 has anything to do with global temperatures.

Link?

 

[francoHFW]

More like 99.5%...

 

[SwimExpert]

But 97% of all scientists AGREE there is man made global warming!
Kerry called it the biggest security threat we have. If you can't believe Kerry, whom can you believe?

I'll go with 97% of scientists who believe there is man made global warming.

I'll go with 100% of scientists who will tell you that the Earth is in an ice age.

 

[SwimExpert]

How did they come up with that 97% number, I'm curious.

They did a poll of people working in climate "scientist" positions, whose funding relies on the study of man-made global warming. Note, none of their funding is designated for the study of whether there is any in the first place.

 

[SwimExpert]

Look people. I used to work as a secretary in Hosp and Health. I know how the "funding" games works.

If those funding you want you to find out zebras are really martians in disguise then, HOT DAMN you will find zebras are really martians in disguise if you want that money to keep coming in.

My boss actually delivered a study where he found a result the funding body didn't want. The money dried up immediately. It dried up so fast, we didn't have funds to print that damn thing professionally, and I ended up printing all of them on the office copy machine!

That's how it works. Especially, when you have a politically motivated "science," you cannot trust the outcomes.

Especially, when those pushing those outcomes are doing everything they can to shut up any challenge to it. That doesn't smack of honest science. That smacks of political calculation and trying to keep anyone from gumming up the works.

Now wait a damn minute.....You really want us to believe that it's the funding moneys, stupid?

 

[SwimExpert]

Any attempt to refute a working theory which is supported by the evidence involves coming up with a viable alternate theory to account for the data. Once that's proffered, one must be able to present evidence to support the alternate theory. While anyone and his brother can postulate a alternate theory, presenting evidence both to support your new theory while refuting the currently accepted theory by presenting countervailing evidence for why the Earth is warming is the hard part. Nobody has accomplished that yet.

0_0

No. Incorrect. Highly incorrect. What you are describing is an argument to ignorance. You are demanding acceptance of your theory based on lack of evidence to the contrary. Your position must be supported by its own evidence sufficiently convincing to warrant acceptance by others.

 

[Skylar]

They did a poll of people working in climate "scientist" positions, whose funding relies on the study of man-made global warming. Note, none of their funding is designated for the study of whether there is any in the first place.

They've done several polls. And funding has little to do with most of them. This study, for example, used subject matter.

Subsequent research has confirmed this result. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures.

Is there a scientific consensus on global warming

There have been other studies that confirm virtually identical numbers. A peer reviewed meta study of the abstracts of 12,000 climatology papers submitted through 2011 shows that the scientific consensus is rising.

Our survey found that the consensus has grown slowly over time, and reached about 98% as of 2011. Our results are also consistent with several previous surveys finding a 97% consensus amongst climate experts on the human cause of global warming.

Survey finds 97 climate science papers agree warming is man-made Dana Nuccitelli Environment theguardian.com

And in yet another study, the common denominator was having taken a position on climate change in the past, either pro or con. They found an overwhelming consensus of scientists

This overwhelming consensus among climate experts is confirmed by an independent study that surveys all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus. They find between 97% to 98% of climate experts support the consensus (Anderegg 2010).

Is there a scientific consensus on global warming

And even more interesting, they found that the number of papers submitted by scientists who were unconvinced by the evidence that human caused climate change were occuring was roughly half on average of those who were convinced by the evidence.

This overwhelming consensus among climate experts is confirmed by an independent study that surveys all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus. They find between 97% to 98% of climate experts support the consensus (Anderegg 2010). Moreover, they examine the number of publications by each scientist as a measure of expertise in climate science. They find the average number of publications by unconvinced scientists (eg - skeptics) is around half the number by scientists convinced by the evidence. Not only is there a vast difference in the number of convinced versus unconvinced scientists, there is also a considerable gap in expertise between the two groups.

The 'funding' conspiracy appears to be the excuse de jour of global warming skeptics at the moment. But the evidence doesn't hold up on the claim.....as we get very similar numbers based on a variety of different criteria for picking our polling sample.

 

[mamooth]

Look people. I used to work as a secretary in Hosp and Health. I know how the "funding" games works.

So since you were corrupt and dishonest, you believe everyone else must be just like yourself.

Try to understand that we are not like you. On both an intellectual and moral level, you're not fit to sniff the jocks of the men you criticize. You're a brainwashed party hack, while they're the best and brightest in the world.

And by the way, Gore Rule invoked. Anyone who brings up Al Gore forfeits the discussion for their side. Being he's not a scientist, nobody on the rational side cares about Al Gore. Being that they're helpless at science, deniers focus on demonizing the imagined arch-enemies of their political cult, so they're obsessed with Gore.

 

[The Rabbi]

But 97% of all scientists AGREE there is man made global warming!
Kerry called it the biggest security threat we have. If you can't believe Kerry, whom can you believe?

I'll go with 97% of scientists who believe there is man made global warming.

Because you don't understand science.

According to you, 97% of scientists don't understand science. I'm in good company.

No, I never said that. You did.
If you base your belief on the majority then you do not understand science. That is simply fact.

Ah yes, the flag of surrender.
Thanks!

 

[westwall]

Here's a fact for you......there has been no measurable warming, globally, in 17 years. The CO2 content, on the other hand has risen. In scientific terms that KILLS the theory that CO2 has anything to do with global temperatures.

So when was the last year there was warming. And are you familiar with the term 'outlier'?

1998. 17 years is not an outlier. Taken with the normal cycles we have recorded in the past it is clear, that we were merely within a warming cycle within the interglaciel and it looks like we are entering into a cooling cycle now. We'll know for sure in the next 5 years. What we do KNOW is that the CO2 models have all failed. They failed to predict the "pause", and when they have been chcked by non interested parties it has been found that the models will produce a warming trend no matter what number you plug into them. That means the models themselves are failures. They are less than worthless.

Those are all facts.

 

[westwall]

Lol if republicans were smart enough to understand geology they wouldn't be republicans in the first place.

I'm a liberal Democrat with a PhD in environmental geology and I can tell you without reservation that the CO2 model of global warming is a failed theory.

 

[westwall]

Here's a dose of reality for you. Science is not done by consensus. Consensus is a purely political term. You don't hear scientists saying, "well it is the consensus opinion that the speed of light is 186,282 miles per second", no. You don't hear that, and the reason why is because science deals in FACTS not opinions. Consensus is merely a agreement of OPINION.

Ah, but remember the 'funding' conspiracy that your ilk made up. Which means that we can't trust any measurement taken by scientists who are being paid. How then would you determine anything scientific if you ignore any scientific measurement, any scientific experience, any scientific training?

Which brings me back to my question which remains pristinely unanswered: how would you determine reality? And please remember the restrictions you're working under.

Follow the money you say? Good idea. Scientific societies and scientists the world over have received over 150 billion dollars in the last 20 years to produce this crap. What have they produced for that money? Here's what they have come up with. If the world spends 76 trillion dollars (all going through the hands of wealthy multinational corps and banks) the global temperature can be reduced by ONE degree in 100 years...maybe.

For an equivalent of 32 billion dollars we got nuclear power as a comparison.

But look at that big number. 76 TRILLION dollars. That's more than the global GDP for several years. Follow the money honey.

 

[Truman123]

Those pulling the strings behind the climate change movement, do so because they believe if they can convince enough people with their dire warnings, they can get new laws enacted that will hinder capitalism. That's really the actual goal, it's all about ending the growth of capitalism.
The followers either know and agree with the true motives, or they have such an irrational fear of a change to the globe, that they're willing to vote for more a d more severe regulations.

Sounds like you've uncovered yet another conspiracy with your secret (Youtube) knowledge.

 

[westwall]

They did a poll of people working in climate "scientist" positions, whose funding relies on the study of man-made global warming. Note, none of their funding is designated for the study of whether there is any in the first place.

They've done several polls. And funding has little to do with most of them. This study, for example, used subject matter.

Subsequent research has confirmed this result. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures.

Is there a scientific consensus on global warming

There have been other studies that confirm virtually identical numbers. A peer reviewed meta study of the abstracts of 12,000 climatology papers submitted through 2011 shows that the scientific consensus is rising.

Our survey found that the consensus has grown slowly over time, and reached about 98% as of 2011. Our results are also consistent with several previous surveys finding a 97% consensus amongst climate experts on the human cause of global warming.

Survey finds 97 climate science papers agree warming is man-made Dana Nuccitelli Environment theguardian.com

And in yet another study, the common denominator was having taken a position on climate change in the past, either pro or con. They found an overwhelming consensus of scientists

This overwhelming consensus among climate experts is confirmed by an independent study that surveys all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus. They find between 97% to 98% of climate experts support the consensus (Anderegg 2010).

Is there a scientific consensus on global warming

And even more interesting, they found that the number of papers submitted by scientists who were unconvinced by the evidence that human caused climate change were occuring was roughly half on average of those who were convinced by the evidence.

This overwhelming consensus among climate experts is confirmed by an independent study that surveys all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus. They find between 97% to 98% of climate experts support the consensus (Anderegg 2010). Moreover, they examine the number of publications by each scientist as a measure of expertise in climate science. They find the average number of publications by unconvinced scientists (eg - skeptics) is around half the number by scientists convinced by the evidence. Not only is there a vast difference in the number of convinced versus unconvinced scientists, there is also a considerable gap in expertise between the two groups.

The 'funding' conspiracy appears to be the excuse de jour of global warming skeptics at the moment. But the evidence doesn't hold up on the claim.....as we get very similar numbers based on a variety of different criteria for picking our polling sample.

False on all levels. The Cook paper has been summarily destroyed by several people.