Why we should listen to the 97%

[westwall]

Who cares about all of those organizations who generate income based on their support of the fraud. Let's look at facts. You claimed that the Arctic was spiraling ever downward and that has been shown to be a joke of the first order.

You claimed that the temps were rising and Hansen has said no, they're not.

You claimed the oceans were rising and NOAA says that actually Australia has somehow magically LOWERED the sea level.

Those are facts.

Facts trump opinion.....

 

[skookerasbil]

OK....these frauds give us something to laugh about ALL the fucking time!!!

Remember how 10 years ago, volcanic activity had no impact on global temperature trends over time.......lmao........NOT ANYMORE!!!! >>>

Why HAS global warming has slowed? Scientists admit they don't know why | Mail Online


Now, scientists are suddenly saying that volcanic ash is contributing to the slowing of the warming.


These frauds will morph anything to conform to the established narrative. It is the perfect ruse. Foolproof. The failed predictions will always have some BS explanation......we've all seen it 100 times over the past 10-15 years.


On the Reality Manufacturing Company >>>>

Booking a reservation for the movie called Reality « Jon Rappoport's Blog


Designing the mind: a fable « Jon Rappoport's Blog


The individual vs. the illusion of consensus reality « Jon Rappoport's Blog

 

[FA_Q2]

First, he makes an assumption that 97% of the scientists agree that:

• the earth is warming
• Humans are very likely the cause
• Future warming may be severe

Which is a bald faced lie.

You should pay more attention before using the L word.

I paid plenty of attention. He made an assertion based on slipping a piece of information that was completely false. That is a lie. There is no other way to frame that.

Brip already outlined why the 97% is bullshit.

No, he absolutely did not. He cut and pasted an article (IceCap) that, just as I mentioned in the Six Ways from Sunday thread, criticizes one and only one of the five different surveys that can be found in Wikipedia's article on the Scientific consensus on climate change and which all arrived at approximately the same value: 97%. Dessler may have overstepped his basis with the claim that 97% believed there would be severe future consequences, but I doubt it. The 2007 Harris poll found 41% of climate scientists believed that moderate impact would be suffered within 50-100 years and 45% believed the consequences would be "catastrophic". It is not reasonable to accept AGW and not accept that it creates a risk of severe consequences if left unaddressed. And to attempt to throw out the risk assessment because of this point is disingenuous. Dessler is presenting a risk assessment on different predictions. The primary risk of ignoring AGW when it is a valid theory is that the harm will be irreversible within many human lifetimes.

His claim was 97 percent. You are backing that up by pointing out a poll that identifies 45% believe it might be catastrophic (without the actual questions that were asked I might add). You do understand that 45% is not in the same ball park. That is not eve a majority. If you were to plug 45% into his arguments then the ENTIRE argument would fall apart.

Again, his entire point centers around that claim and the fact that it is a false one destroyes the entire argument.

Still only addressing one survey out of five.



That would be incorrect because you and BritishPatrick are unaware or intentionally ignoring the four other surveys.

I am simply using the one that specifies 97%. He used that figure, not me and that is what I am going to go off of. If you want to break away from his statements and use the figures from other surveys then bring them here, with links to the actual questions asked and methodology and we can discuss that. I am not going to blindly pick surveys out because the lame excuse is never going to change – but there are OTHERS that say…

If you want to use another set of data do so. I was under the impression that you wanted to discuss the video in the OP. You do realize that even if AGW is completely correct and it will be catastrophic that does not change that this video is predicated on a lie or that it’s ‘logic’ is not complete garbage.

As we shall see shortly down the page, you're an amazingly knowledgeable fellow when it suits the argument you're trying to make. And not when it's not. There have been small changes that had large impact on our energy usage. The relatively rapid switch away from incandescent lighting had dramatic effects on our energy usage. Smart grid enhancements will have at least as great an effect. Plug-in hybrid and EV transportation technology is showing signs of actually taking off. The growth rates of wind and solar are impressive. A meaningful return to nuclear power could have an enormous impact on our carbon footprint. It wouldn't hurt us to follow Belgium's lead and do a little more bicycling. And walking. And NONE of these things will have any large negative impact on our economy.

And NO ONE is fighting those moves. Common sense energy upgrades is NOT a matter of AGW. We should be switching to nuclear, utilizing wind and solar where it is effective and changing habits that make sense. Of course, that is not what the AGW crowd is asking for as we are doing that and it is simply not enough. Instead, you are always hearing about how we need to kill coal (and replace it with what?) or convert to electrical vehicles even though they simply do not have that capability.

You talk about the effects of the changes that we have made. Care to quantify the actual impacts you mentioned?

More importantly, NONE of these measures and NONE that have been suggested have - by orders of magnitude - as great a negative impact as doing nothing.

According to you (and 45% of climate scientists by your cite). This is another appeal to the ‘catastrophic’ argument. That, by the way, is the LARGEST hole in AGW. Not whether or not the earth is warming but rather coming up with accurate predictions on the effects. You are claiming catastrophe without any real evidence that I have seen as to the effects actually being catastrophic.

Are you really suggesting we take the risk of putting off action now because we MIGHT discover some way to fix things down the road, after temperatures have risen 4 or 5 degrees, billions have lost their homes to rising sea levels and both food and water are becoming more and more scarce? Really? You've got some nerve calling anyone else "asinine".

More catastrophe. I am not suggesting anything with added ‘risk.’ Instead, I am asking that we actually find out what the effects are likely to be and find solutions that actually might make a real difference rather than risking throwing it all away on a hunch that it might fix something. Maybe.

There is one thing that I do know however. If AGW is going to cause drastic and deadly changes in our atmosphere we are going to NEED a strong economy and advanced technology to deal with it. There is no other way around that simple truth as the doomsayers have already stated that we cannot handle those changes with what we currently have.

How can you worry about the financial impact and yet cast aside the FACT that the earlier we start, the less it will cost? If we had joined the Kyoto Protocols and actually put some effort to this back then, we might have had a chance of keeping this under control without breaking the bank. But we've had too many naysayers with too much fossil fuel industry funding convincing people that it's okay for them to be lazy, to make no changes, to keep things just the way they are. Of course they go along. People are stupid in the long run.

The sad part is that the AGW believers seem to want to dismantle any method of dealing with that outcome out of sheer fear. Bad idea.

Were you planning on dealing with global warming with the aid of coal fired power plants and V8 SUVs? Care to explain how that works?

No, I don’t care because there is not much reason to bother when you are ‘begging the question.’ Try again.

 

[Abraham3]

First, he makes an assumption that 97% of the scientists agree that:
* the earth is warming
* Humans are very likely the cause
* Future warming may be severe
Which is a bald faced lie.

You should pay more attention before using the L word.

I paid plenty of attention. He made an assertion based on slipping a
piece of information that was completely false. That is a lie. There is
no other way to frame that.

Brip already outlined why the 97% is bullshit.

No, he absolutely did not. He cut and pasted an article (IceCap) that,
just as I mentioned in the Six Ways from Sunday thread, criticizes one
and only one of the five different surveys that can be found in
Wikipedia's article on the Scientific consensus on climate change and
which all arrived at approximately the same value: 97%. Dessler may have
overstepped his basis with the claim that 97% believed there would be
severe future consequences, but I doubt it. The 2007 Harris poll found
41% of climate scientists believed that moderate impact would be
suffered within 50-100 years and 45% believed the consequences would be
"catastrophic". It is not reasonable to accept AGW and not accept that
it creates a risk of severe consequences if left unaddressed. And to
attempt to throw out the risk assessment because of this point is
disingenuous. Dessler is presenting a risk assessment on different
predictions. The primary risk of ignoring AGW when it is a valid theory
is that the harm will be irreversible within many human lifetimes.

His claim was 97 percent. You are backing that up by pointing out a poll
that identifies 45% believe it might be catastrophic (without the actual
questions that were asked I might add). You do understand that 45% is
not in the same ball park. That is not eve a majority. If you were to
plug 45% into his arguments then the ENTIRE argument would fall apart.

Yale/George Mason University, 2011*"When [survey participants were]
asked to rate the effects on a ten-point scale from trivial (1) to
catastrophic (10), the mean response was 6.6, with 41% seeing great
danger (ratings of 8-10), 44% moderate danger (4-7), and 13% little
danger." That 87% that see moderate to catastrophic effects in a future
sans AGW measures taken. I'd place "serious" consequences somewhere in
there.
http://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/climate-change/struct
ure-scientific-opinion-climate-change/#

Again, his entire point centers around that claim and the fact that it
is a false one destroyes the entire argument.

The very basis of one side of the comparison Dessler made was that
reasons for taking action against AGW were valid. Completely and
unequivocally implicit in that structure is that AGW validity indicates
a very high risk of severe consequences. A state in which AGW is valid
but no risk is thus presented is not one in which ameliorative measures
were necessary. That was not one of the state's examined.

That would be incorrect because you and BritishPatrick are unaware or
intentionally ignoring the four other surveys.

I have to correct myself. There were actually five other
surveys/polls/reviews noted in the Wikipedia article and there are
others. Six if I split the two values provided in ERL.

I am simply using the one that specifies 97%. He used that figure, not
me and that is what I am going to go off of.

1) Oreskes, Naomi, 2004, 928 abstracts which mention climate change.
None (0%) disagree with the IPCC consensus
2) Harris Interactive, 2007, survey of 489 PhD members or AMS or AGU:
84% believe warming to be human-induced. 85% believe
consequences of GW range from moderately to catastrophically dangerous.
Only 5% of those surveyed reject AGW.
3) Bray & Von Storch, 2008, 2,058 climate scientists surveyed. None
(0%) reject warming. 98.6 agree slightly to very much that
humans are the primary cause of that warming. 83.5% agreed "to a large
extent" and "very much".
4) Doran & Zimmerman, 2009, 3,146 Earth scientists. 82% (of all
3,146) accept AGW. Of active, publishing climate scientists,
97% accept AGW (This is the one you fellows always use to
demonstrate your weakness in statistics)
5) PNAS paper, 2010, reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372
climate researchers. 97-98% accepted AGW and the study found a
substantial difference between the expertise and prominence (by
publication and citation rates) between those who doubt AGW and those
who accept it. The greater one's prominence and recognized expertise in
the field, the greater the likelihood they accept AGW.
6) Cook, Nuccitelli, et al in Environmental Research Letters. A review
of 4,014 papers which discussed the cause of global warming:
97.1% endorsed the IPCC position. When the authors were
surveyed, 97.2% of them endorsed the IPCC position.

Doran and Zimmerman were not the only ones to find ~97% acceptance of
AGW.

For the fifth or sixth time: WHERE ARE THE SURVEYS THAT SHOW US
DIFFERENT RESULTS?

If you want to break away from his statements and use the figures from
other surveys then bring them here, with links to the actual questions
asked and methodology and we can discuss that. I am not going to blindly
pick surveys out because the lame excuse is never going to change - but
there are OTHERS that say...

If you want to use another set of data do so. I was under the
impression that you wanted to discuss the video in the OP. You do
realize that even if AGW is completely correct and it will be
catastrophic that does not change that this video is predicated on a lie
or that it's 'logic' is not complete garbage.

I started this thread with the intent to discuss Dessler's statements
and reasoning. You're the first to actually do so. All your
predecessors took this as an opportunity to argue the validity of the
97% figure.

There have been small changes that had large impact on our energy usage.
The relatively rapid switch away from incandescent lighting had dramatic
effects on our energy usage. Smart grid enhancements will have at least
as great an effect. Plug-in hybrid and EV transportation technology is
showing signs of actually taking off. The growth rates of wind and solar
are impressive. A meaningful return to nuclear power could have an
enormous impact on our carbon footprint. It wouldn't hurt us to follow
Belgium's lead and do a little more bicycling. And walking. And NONE of
these things will have any large negative impact on our economy.

And NO ONE is fighting those moves. Common sense energy upgrades is NOT
a matter of AGW. We should be switching to nuclear, utilizing wind and
solar where it is effective and changing habits that make sense. Of
course, that is not what the AGW crowd is asking for as we are doing
that and it is simply not enough. Instead, you are always hearing about
how we need to kill coal (and replace it with what?) or convert to
electrical vehicles even though they simply do not have that capability.

EV and hybrid automobiles have the capability right now to replace a
great many of our ICE vehicles. They are doing so. And as the price
comes down and the infrastructure appears, more will follow.
As to coal...
You have heard no one with the intelligence or authority to make a
difference clamoring to "kill coal". You will hear suggetions that coal
subsidies be reduced, that coal emission requirements be tightened, that
fewer licenses for new coal fired plants be made available, etc. Those
coal facilities taken off line will be replaced (before hand) by sources
with lower carbon output. No one is going to simply shut down
coal-fired power plants without creating replacement capability first.
You get on Dessler's case for making an apparent exaggeration. What is
this?

You talk about the effects of the changes that we have made. Care to
quantify the actual impacts you mentioned?

For potential impacts of warming, see Table 19-1 on page 787 of the AR4,
Working Group II Report, Chapter 19, "Assessing key vulnerabilities and
the risk from climate change"
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter19. pdf

For reductions:
CFLs provide a 78% reduction in energy consumption. LED lights will
take an even larger chunk out compared to incandescents. Hybrid
popularity has grown tremendously since the introduction of the Honda
Insight and Toyota Prius. Virtually every car maker on the planet has
hybrid models available. The Tesla Model S is showing that a purely
electric car can be quite usable and an excellent car to boot. Wind
power is currently gowing worldwide. In 1997 it produced 0.1% of the
world's needs. In 2008 it was 1.5% and in 2010 it was 2.5% Between
2005 and 2010, installed wind capacity grew worldwide by 27.6%. Solar
thermal, with it's lower installation costs, has grown rapidly. Solar
PV growth has been slower, but commercially available PV efficiencies
have reached 20% while laboratory units have hit 40.

More importantly, NONE of these measures and NONE that have been
suggested have - by orders of magnitude - as great a negative impact as
doing nothing.

According to you (and 45% of climate scientists by your cite). This is
another appeal to the 'catastrophic' argument. That, by the way, is the
LARGEST hole in AGW. Not whether or not the earth is warming but rather
coming up with accurate predictions on the effects. You are claiming
catastrophe without any real evidence that I have seen as to the effects
actually being catastrophic.

I was simply being honest about the numbers. 85.2% believe that the
danger is moderate to catastrophic harm in the next 50-100 years.
Personally, I put catastrophic further out the scale then severe. And,
as I think I stated elsewhere, it is not reasonable to accept AGW but
reject the idea that it will cause severe future harm is left
unaddressed. The people who think we'll farm Antarctica and the
Canadian tundra and take tropical vacations in toasty Nova Scotia just
haven't got a grip. The disruption to agriculture, fishing and water
supplies will be disastrous even if temperatures barely break +2C. And
you KNOW they're going a lot further than that.
Since we're talking about future events, the evidence will come in the
form of reasoned predictions and projections. They are plentiful. If
you really haven't seen one you can start with the IPCC AR4 report
linked above and move on from there with any search engine.

Are you really suggesting we take the risk of putting off action now
because we MIGHT discover some way to fix things down the road, after
temperatures have risen 4 or 5 degrees, billions have lost their homes
to rising sea levels and both food and water are becoming more and more
scarce?

More catastrophe. I am not suggesting anything with added 'risk.'
Instead, I am asking that we actually find out what the effects are
likely to be and find solutions that actually might make a real
difference rather than risking throwing it all away on a hunch that it
might fix something. Maybe.

What does "...not suggesting anything with added 'risk.' mean?
A goodly number of scientists have spend the last couple of decades
figuring out what the likely effects will be. Read AR4. Check your
favorite search engine. That the solutions that have been suggested so
far do not seem adequate and could be expensive can be chalked up to the
difficulty of the problem. Do you think no one has been working on it?
Do you think the folks that are working on it are simply stupid? If a
good idea comes to you, feel free to pass it on. Hell, patent it and
get rich. Standing around bitching doesn't do anyone any good.

There is one thing that I do know however. If AGW is going to cause
drastic and deadly changes in our atmosphere we are going to NEED a
strong economy and advanced technology to deal with it. There is no
other way around that simple truth as the doomsayers have already stated
that we cannot handle those changes with what we currently have.

The economy is going to be eaten up dealing with the effects of the
warming you didn't want to try to stave off earlier. Our budget will be
consumed dealing with relocating a few million people plus their homes
and their businesses. The economies of the world will be draining
themselves trying to keep their larders full and the cisterns topped
off. Doing nothing now so we'll have the strength to do something
later? You're no dummy. How can you even think of saying such nonsense
without seeing it for exactly that?

The sad part is that the AGW believers seem to want to dismantle any
method of dealing with that outcome out of sheer fear. Bad idea.

What do you believe AGW believers want to dismantle that could be used
to deal with global warming?

Ps: I was a little hot yesterday. We've been dealing with a major
"family emergency" the last two days (and many more to come) and I
vented on you and others. Mea culpa.

 

[bripat9643]

The topic off this thread is not whether or not 97% of active climate scientists believe human GHG emissions are the primary cause of global warming. The topic of this thread is the simple and brief presentation by Andrew Dessler of a risk assessment of taking action against global warming.

I guess I can assume none of you have listened to it as none of you has made the slightest comment to make on the presentation. An impressive lot.

There is no 97%, dipstick. I just proved that claim is bullshit.

You've done no such thing. There are currently FIVE surveys showing 97% support. The critique you posted (IceCap) only addressed one of the surveys and the critique was complete crap to begin with. How much statistics have you had son?

Why should anyone believe it was "complete crap," because you say so? People can read the analysis themselves. We don't need any bogus authorities to tell us whether it's valid. Simple logic will tell you that. You don't need a course in statistics to know that the authors of the 97% claim cherry picked their data.

Here's an article the address the paper by Doran and Zimmerman, but also addresses another paper on the subject.

The NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics Blog: The Consensus Myth: 97% of Nothing

Whenever we look at one of these studies we find bogus assumptions, invalid methods and outright fraud.

 

[bripat9643]

And there is not a single Scientific Society, not a single National Academy of Science, not a single major University that contests AGW. Not even in outer Slobovia. That is a damned impressive consensus. And that is not 97%, that is 100%.

Of course, our little tin hat wearers will immediate posit a worldwide conspiracy among all of these scientists. Anyone with more than a two digit IQ just has to be in on some kind of conspiracy!

The NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics Blog: The Consensus Myth: 97% of Nothing

In actual fact the support for AGW is entirely bureaucratic. By that I mean that all the major organisations which publically espouse AGW are in effect bureaucracies with government affiliated or appointed heads who keep tight muster on the underlings and enforce conformity.

A classic case is the case of Dr Clive Spash. Spash was a senior scientist at the CSIRO. At the time when then PM Rudd was advocating an ETS Spash wrote a paper critical of the ETS. After conflict with the CSIRO bosses, including Megan Clark, former CEO of Rothschild Australia, Spash was left no alternative but to resign.
A similar situation has also occurred with Dr Phil Watson of the NSW Department of Environment and Hertitage. Watson wrote a peer reviewed paper which showed sea level rise was not consistent with AGW. This was duly reported; and then contradicted by Dr Watson’s bosses.

The point is a consensus is very easy to create by a few examples and slap-downs of underlings. Pretty soon all the other little Indians get the message and put their heads down and toe the company line. And if they don’t toe the line then their work can be just censored as Dr Lord found out.

 

[skookerasbil]

The topic off this thread is not whether or not 97% of active climate scientists believe human GHG emissions are the primary cause of global warming. The topic of this thread is the simple and brief presentation by Andrew Dessler of a risk assessment of taking action against global warming.

I guess I can assume none of you have listened to it as none of you has made the slightest comment to make on the presentation. An impressive lot.

LOL....."taking action against global warming" = the perpetual fantasy of the climate k00ks.

Indeed.....for all the angst.....for all the hysterical predictions ( most of which fell flat on their face).....for all the media scams......all the bomb throwing.....these freaks have hardly moved the goalposts.

Reading in here, you'd swear there was some huge groundswell of activity going on to combat global warming but it isn't amounting to dick. What it is doing is lining the pockets of the green energy contingent who sit home and laugh about having duped the hopelessly naïve while they count their millions. Meanwhile you look at any poll on concerns of the average American and global warming is so far down at the bottom of the list its the equivalent of about how many people go to a major league baseball game just to see the ballboy shag foul balls.


The climate crusaders in here are like those handful of protestors you see outside a business once in awhile being on strike!! These sorry fucks are marching for hours in the hot sun and some likely think the public passerby's are going to get all riled up and get behind them and boycott the product or service they represent. But nobody gives a rats ass about them.......maybe a handful of asswipe losers might drive by and beep the horn for them. But nobody cares......


So knock yourselves out with all the 97% of scientists stuff......Ive been hearing that for years and years.......and its still has had zero effect at moving the goalposts a smidge!!




As Bripat astutely points out.......the whole "consensus" thing is just another lame manipulation of statistics presented in fable form!!!!


On designing a fable >>>>>>> http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/08/02/designing-the-mind-a-fable/

 

[SSDD]

Dave, have you ever heard the term "unsubstantiated assertion"?

Yes. It is defined by AGW.

 

[theHawk]

Well if I had to answer that same survey I would answer yes, the world is getting warmer. It has been for the last 10,000 years since the last ice age.

Are humans responsible for it? No, it is perfectly natural.

Are humans contributing to warming? Yes, but probably in such an insignificant way there is nothing we can do about it.

So according to you I would be someone who accepts the "Global Warming" ideology, but I am not.

That proves that your 97% figure is pure nonsense.

I'm all for preserving the natural environment, but I am not in favor of any of the stupid ideas that progressives are pushing such as the "carbon tax" in order to try to "fix" global warming. Mainly because these measures don't actually even help the environment, they are just designed to hurt certain nations...namely the US.

 

[skookerasbil]

yuk......yuk.......

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBO2IstMi2A]CO2 is a trace gas. - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Abraham3]

Where is a survey that says different?

 

[daveman]

Dave, have you ever heard the term "unsubstantiated assertion"?

Yes. AGW is full of them.

 

[daveman]

The 97% claim is bullshit, just like everything else warmist cult members claim:

ICECAP

AGW surveyors do their work just like AGW scientists...cherry-pick, massage, and distort.

Mr Solomon statements about the surveyor's motives are completely anally derived. He (and you) ignore the point that publishing climate scientists are THE most expert of the experts in the precise question under examination. Their's was not the only survey to find that the more folks knew about the climate, the more likely they were to believe AGW a valid theory.

Isn't that like accepting a survey showing 97% of Christian theologians believe the divinity of Jesus Christ?

Would be then believe that Jesus Christ is then divine?

 

[Abraham3]

AGW surveyors do their work just like AGW scientists...cherry-pick, massage, and distort.

Mr Solomon statements about the surveyor's motives are completely anally derived. He (and you) ignore the point that publishing climate scientists are THE most expert of the experts in the precise question under examination. Their's was not the only survey to find that the more folks knew about the climate, the more likely they were to believe AGW a valid theory.

Isn't that like accepting a survey showing 97% of Christian theologians believe the divinity of Jesus Christ?

Would be then believe that Jesus Christ is then divine?

"Would be then believe that Jesus Christ is then divine?" ? ? ? ? ? ? You sound like a Bill Cosby character.

No, it would not. A Christian theologian, by definition, believes in the divinity of Jesus.

So, Dave, what's with all the gun talk and gun pictures? Do you have a gun on you right now? It is loaded? Safety off? How does that make you FEEEEEEEL?

 

[daveman]

Mr Solomon statements about the surveyor's motives are completely anally derived. He (and you) ignore the point that publishing climate scientists are THE most expert of the experts in the precise question under examination. Their's was not the only survey to find that the more folks knew about the climate, the more likely they were to believe AGW a valid theory.

Isn't that like accepting a survey showing 97% of Christian theologians believe the divinity of Jesus Christ?

Would be then believe that Jesus Christ is then divine?

"Would be then believe that Jesus Christ is then divine?" ? ? ? ? ? ? You sound like a Bill Cosby character.

No, it would not. A Christian theologian, by definition, believes in the divinity of Jesus.

And an AGW supporter, by definition, believes in AGW.

What? You think the poll wasn't slanted?

So, Dave, what's with all the gun talk and gun pictures? Do you have a gun on you right now? It is loaded? Safety off? How does that make you FEEEEEEEL?

Amused that you can't stick to your own topic.

 

[Abraham3]

Isn't that like accepting a survey showing 97% of Christian theologians believe the divinity of Jesus Christ?

Would be then believe that Jesus Christ is then divine?

"Would be then believe that Jesus Christ is then divine?" ? ? ? ? ? ? You sound like a Bill Cosby character.

No, it would not. A Christian theologian, by definition, believes in the divinity of Jesus.

And an AGW supporter, by definition, believes in AGW.

But they weren't polls of AGW supporters. They were polls of climate scientists.

What? You think the poll wasn't slanted?

Hyuk hyuk hyuk... no.

So, Dave, what's with all the gun talk and gun pictures? Do you have a gun on you right now? It is loaded? Safety off? How does that make you FEEEEEEEL?

Amused that you can't stick to your own topic.

Hyuk hyuk hyuk... You posted the mystic gun diatribe and the gun-toting avatar. What do they have to do with global warming?

Uhhh... nothing.

I wasn't the first to go off topic.

 

[daveman]

"Would be then believe that Jesus Christ is then divine?" ? ? ? ? ? ? You sound like a Bill Cosby character.

No, it would not. A Christian theologian, by definition, believes in the divinity of Jesus.

And an AGW supporter, by definition, believes in AGW.

But they weren't polls of AGW supporters. They were polls of climate scientists.

Who just coincidentally happened to support AGW.

Hyuk hyuk hyuk... no.

Of course you don't. You agree with the conclusion.

So, Dave, what's with all the gun talk and gun pictures? Do you have a gun on you right now? It is loaded? Safety off? How does that make you FEEEEEEEL?

Amused that you can't stick to your own topic.

Hyuk hyuk hyuk... You posted the mystic gun diatribe and the gun-toting avatar. What do they have to do with global warming?

Uhhh... nothing.

I wasn't the first to go off topic.

Ummm...that "diatribe" is my signature. It appears under every single one of my posts.

So, yes, you were the first to go off topic.

Hyuk.

 

[Abraham3]

Climate scientists don't coincidentally support AGW. They support AGW because, in their expert opinions and with intimate knowledge of its successes in supporting the observations and surviving the tests of the scientific method, they believe it to be true. That was the purpose of those surveys, Dave: to determine how much support AGW had among climate scientists. Did you lose track of that wee point?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dave, have you ever heard the term "unsubstantiated assertion"?

Yes, the theory that a 200PPM increase in CO2 is causing "Global Warming" is completely unsubstantiated

"where's the AGW Lab work?"

 

[Abraham3]

I'm sorry Frank, but that is utter nonsense. I'm not sure where the lot of you got this idea that no lab experiment has ever demonstrated the greenhouse effect, but it is wrong and you all look a lot of idiots spouting it over and over again. How difficult do you believe it to be to determine and demonstrate the absorption and emissions spectra of carbon dioxide or any other gas? Where do you think the idea of the greenhouse effect came from? Someone's fertile imagination?