97% Lie Explained.....

[Billy_Bob]

97% Lie Explained.....

"As for climate change being dangerous, this is pure hype based on little fact. Mile-high rivers of ice burying half of North America and Europe were disastrous for everything in their path, as they would be today. Likewise for the plummeting global temperatures that accompanied them. An era of more frequent and intense hurricanes would also be calamitous; but actual weather records do not show this.

It would be far more deadly to implement restrictive energy policies that condemn billions to continued life without affordable electricity – or to lower living standards in developed countries – in a vain attempt to control the world’s climate. In much of Europe, electricity prices have risen 50% or more over the past decade, leaving many unable to afford proper wintertime heat, and causing thousands to die. "

Dr Legates hits the nail on the head and explains the deceptions of the CAGW fear mongers... And the consequences of the actions of fanatic left wing socialist power hungry fools.

 

[Crick]

And what the fuck does ANY of that have to do with 97% of climate scientists accepting AGW as valid and agreeing with the IPCC's conclusions that the dominant cause of global warming is human GHG emissions and deforestation?

 

[Billy_Bob]

this was the clincher..

We found that only 41 abstracts of the 11,944 papers Cook and colleagues reviewed – a whopping 0.3% – actually endorsed their supposed consensus. It turns out they had decided that any paper which did not provide an explicit, quantified rejection of their supposed consensus was in agreement with the consensus.

Nothing more than outright deception and shoddy (I cringe to call what Cook did science) Science..

Dr legates put it in plain English so that all can see the deception of the so called 97%..

 

[Billy_Bob]

And what the fuck does ANY of that have to do with 97% of climate scientists accepting AGW as valid and agreeing with the IPCC's conclusions that the dominant cause of global warming is human GHG emissions and deforestation?

OH look, a failure to read... Again...

Legates shows how that so called 'consensus' doesn't exist. It's a figment of your's and Cook's imaginations.. But then again, if you had read the article you might have gleaned that... Or not with your blinders firmly attached..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Legates even skewers Naomi Oreskes science exposing it as a worthless pile of dung..

 

[Billy_Bob]

The used car salesman approach to climate science...

Bait and Switch... then Lie, Lie, Lie!

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Next to Obungles GLOBULL warming may be the biggest fraud ever perpetuated on America. You really have to be ignorant to buy into the garbage

 

[Dale Smith]

And what the fuck does ANY of that have to do with 97% of climate scientists accepting AGW as valid and agreeing with the IPCC's conclusions that the dominant cause of global warming is human GHG emissions and deforestation?[/QUOTE

IPCC is a United Nations organization and the U.N wants to use this fraud and scam to bring in global "gubermint". 97 percent of all scientists do NOT believe that Climate change is caused by the every day Johnny Lunchpail. Climate change is being caused by weather manipulation using ionospheric heaters and the chem-trailing using nano-particulates like aluminum, barium and strontium. It's the Hegelian Dialectic at work...cause the problem, create an emotional response and then propose a solution to the very problem you caused that furthers an agenda.

 

[Pete7469]

Next to Obungles GLOBULL warming may be the biggest fraud ever perpetuated on America. You really have to be ignorant to buy into the garbage

Even worse than ignorance, it's a deliberate refusal to believe reality. These aren't just bed wetters who don't know shit. They're drones who have no cognitive capacity, like the Libturd Jonestown cultists who murdered their own children before drinking the kool-aid.

These are seriously ill people who would all be dead if not for excessive safety measures that keep stupid people alive.

 

[Weatherman2020]

97% Lie Explained.....

"As for climate change being dangerous, this is pure hype based on little fact. Mile-high rivers of ice burying half of North America and Europe were disastrous for everything in their path, as they would be today. Likewise for the plummeting global temperatures that accompanied them. An era of more frequent and intense hurricanes would also be calamitous; but actual weather records do not show this.

It would be far more deadly to implement restrictive energy policies that condemn billions to continued life without affordable electricity – or to lower living standards in developed countries – in a vain attempt to control the world’s climate. In much of Europe, electricity prices have risen 50% or more over the past decade, leaving many unable to afford proper wintertime heat, and causing thousands to die. "

Dr Legates hits the nail on the head and explains the deceptions of the CAGW fear mongers... And the consequences of the actions of fanatic left wing socialist power hungry fools.

97% Lie Explained.....

"As for climate change being dangerous, this is pure hype based on little fact. Mile-high rivers of ice burying half of North America and Europe were disastrous for everything in their path, as they would be today. Likewise for the plummeting global temperatures that accompanied them. An era of more frequent and intense hurricanes would also be calamitous; but actual weather records do not show this.

It would be far more deadly to implement restrictive energy policies that condemn billions to continued life without affordable electricity – or to lower living standards in developed countries – in a vain attempt to control the world’s climate. In much of Europe, electricity prices have risen 50% or more over the past decade, leaving many unable to afford proper wintertime heat, and causing thousands to die. "

Dr Legates hits the nail on the head and explains the deceptions of the CAGW fear mongers... And the consequences of the actions of fanatic left wing socialist power hungry fools.

"Based on this article (and some others), the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world’s largest non-government general science membership organisation and the publisher of Science, a leading scientific journal, has launched a campaign, ‘What We Know’, to convince the public that there is virtual unanimity among scientists.

I have little doubt that many scientists agree that climate change is (a) real and (b) caused by man (anthropogenic). But do 97 per cent of them really agree on both propositions? Let’s do a reality check here. On what issue do academics reach 97 per cent agreement other than that they are being underpaid? That the sun will rise tomorrow? No, some of them will say, because the sun doesn’t rise; the earth revolves. No, because we can only assert that it is probable, not certain. No, because we might be living in a multiverse where the sun will not rise on 28 May, etc, etc.

Let’s examine how Cook et al reached this very precise figure.

First, they searched the abstracts of 11,944 articles in peer-reviewed journals from the years 1991 to 2011 which included the terms ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. At the very least, then, their conclusion is three or four years out of date.

Second, they sorted the abstracts into four piles: no position on anthropogenic global warming, endorsement, rejection and uncertainty. The biggest pile (66.4 per cent) was no position. Of the smaller piles which did express an opinion, 97.1 per cent ‘endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming’.

This already sounds a bit odd. This is not what the public understands by a consensus. Mr and Mrs Average are entitled to imagine that 97.1 per cent agreement means that 97.1 per cent of scientists voted on a ballot proposal. But no one ever voted. Instead, volunteers recruited from the Skeptical Science website winnowed the articles and interpreted the often arcane language of scientific abstracts. Since the slogan of this website is ‘rebutting global warming misinformation’, the volunteers’ interpretations were bound to be skewed in favour of the ‘consensus’.

Aware of this problem, Cook et al sought the opinions of the authors themselves. This could be construed as a kind of ballot measure. There were 29,083 authors listed on the 11,944 papers. Of these, only 8,547 were sent an email asking for their opinion. Of these, only 1,189 responded. Using this method, Cook and his team found that an even higher proportion of them agreed that climate change was real and man-caused – 97.2 per cent. But notice that only four per cent of the authors ‘voted’. A ballot measure with a four per cent turnout is not what Mr and Mrs Average mean by a ‘consensus’.

Finally, Obama rashly added the word ‘dangerous’ to his tweet. Not even Cook and his colleagues from Skeptical Science dared to assert that 97 per cent of scientists believe that global warming is ‘dangerous’. Perhaps many of them do, but exactly how many is known only to God and Barack Obama."

Global warming: the 97% fallacy

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Next to Obungles GLOBULL warming may be the biggest fraud ever perpetuated on America. You really have to be ignorant to buy into the garbage

Even worse than ignorance, it's a deliberate refusal to believe reality. These aren't just bed wetters who don't know shit. They're drones who have no cognitive capacity, like the Libturd Jonestown cultists who murdered their own children before drinking the kool-aid.

These are seriously ill people who would all be dead if not for excessive safety measures that keep stupid people alive.

Left loons....you describing a "progressive" basically too stupid to live, no value to society.

 

[Billy_Bob]

97% Lie Explained.....

"As for climate change being dangerous, this is pure hype based on little fact. Mile-high rivers of ice burying half of North America and Europe were disastrous for everything in their path, as they would be today. Likewise for the plummeting global temperatures that accompanied them. An era of more frequent and intense hurricanes would also be calamitous; but actual weather records do not show this.

It would be far more deadly to implement restrictive energy policies that condemn billions to continued life without affordable electricity – or to lower living standards in developed countries – in a vain attempt to control the world’s climate. In much of Europe, electricity prices have risen 50% or more over the past decade, leaving many unable to afford proper wintertime heat, and causing thousands to die. "

Dr Legates hits the nail on the head and explains the deceptions of the CAGW fear mongers... And the consequences of the actions of fanatic left wing socialist power hungry fools.

97% Lie Explained.....

"As for climate change being dangerous, this is pure hype based on little fact. Mile-high rivers of ice burying half of North America and Europe were disastrous for everything in their path, as they would be today. Likewise for the plummeting global temperatures that accompanied them. An era of more frequent and intense hurricanes would also be calamitous; but actual weather records do not show this.

It would be far more deadly to implement restrictive energy policies that condemn billions to continued life without affordable electricity – or to lower living standards in developed countries – in a vain attempt to control the world’s climate. In much of Europe, electricity prices have risen 50% or more over the past decade, leaving many unable to afford proper wintertime heat, and causing thousands to die. "

Dr Legates hits the nail on the head and explains the deceptions of the CAGW fear mongers... And the consequences of the actions of fanatic left wing socialist power hungry fools.

"Based on this article (and some others), the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world’s largest non-government general science membership organisation and the publisher of Science, a leading scientific journal, has launched a campaign, ‘What We Know’, to convince the public that there is virtual unanimity among scientists.

I have little doubt that many scientists agree that climate change is (a) real and (b) caused by man (anthropogenic). But do 97 per cent of them really agree on both propositions? Let’s do a reality check here. On what issue do academics reach 97 per cent agreement other than that they are being underpaid? That the sun will rise tomorrow? No, some of them will say, because the sun doesn’t rise; the earth revolves. No, because we can only assert that it is probable, not certain. No, because we might be living in a multiverse where the sun will not rise on 28 May, etc, etc.

Let’s examine how Cook et al reached this very precise figure.

First, they searched the abstracts of 11,944 articles in peer-reviewed journals from the years 1991 to 2011 which included the terms ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. At the very least, then, their conclusion is three or four years out of date.

Second, they sorted the abstracts into four piles: no position on anthropogenic global warming, endorsement, rejection and uncertainty. The biggest pile (66.4 per cent) was no position. Of the smaller piles which did express an opinion, 97.1 per cent ‘endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming’.

This already sounds a bit odd. This is not what the public understands by a consensus. Mr and Mrs Average are entitled to imagine that 97.1 per cent agreement means that 97.1 per cent of scientists voted on a ballot proposal. But no one ever voted. Instead, volunteers recruited from the Skeptical Science website winnowed the articles and interpreted the often arcane language of scientific abstracts. Since the slogan of this website is ‘rebutting global warming misinformation’, the volunteers’ interpretations were bound to be skewed in favour of the ‘consensus’.

Aware of this problem, Cook et al sought the opinions of the authors themselves. This could be construed as a kind of ballot measure. There were 29,083 authors listed on the 11,944 papers. Of these, only 8,547 were sent an email asking for their opinion. Of these, only 1,189 responded. Using this method, Cook and his team found that an even higher proportion of them agreed that climate change was real and man-caused – 97.2 per cent. But notice that only four per cent of the authors ‘voted’. A ballot measure with a four per cent turnout is not what Mr and Mrs Average mean by a ‘consensus’.

Finally, Obama rashly added the word ‘dangerous’ to his tweet. Not even Cook and his colleagues from Skeptical Science dared to assert that 97 per cent of scientists believe that global warming is ‘dangerous’. Perhaps many of them do, but exactly how many is known only to God and Barack Obama."

Global warming: the 97% fallacy

I like the fact that Dr legates penned an article to explain what he found in plain and understandable English for the masses.. That kind of open science and teaching, informing the public to make them able to make informed decisions, is what real science is about.

Legates exposes the bait and switch then lie, lie, lie, while hiding the so called science they say they are using as a basis to take our rights and freedoms from us.

 

[Pete7469]

Left loons....you describing a "progressive" basically too stupid to live, no value to society.

I wasn't trying to sound that nice. Too stupid to live might just be genetic, and no one's fault.

These parasites are deliberately stupid. Regressives shouldn't be alive because they're detrimental to society.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Left loons....you describing a "progressive" basically too stupid to live, no value to society.

I wasn't trying to sound that nice. Too stupid to live might just be genetic, and no one's fault.

These parasites are deliberately stupid. Regressives shouldn't be alive because they're detrimental to society.

With progtards "nice" left the building long ago, they want to act like a bunch of Fascists they'll be treated as such

 

[Pete7469]

With progtards "nice" left the building long ago, they want to act like a bunch of Fascists they'll be treated as such

With the track record of mass murder and genocide committed by leftists in the last hundred years, there can be no doubt that if Americans were not well armed socialist history would repeat itself here.

Instead 1774 may have to be repeated.

 

[Old Rocks]

Wonderful bunch of idiotic flap yap here. So, since only a few of those papers specifically mention global warming, this crackpot thinks if you write a paper concerning the shrinkage of the alpine glaciers, but do not mention spectifically global warming, then he believes that the paper has nothing to say concernng global warming.

Virtually every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is a fact, and that it is a clear and present danger.

Climate Change - American Meteorological Society

Climate Change
An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society
(Adopted by AMS Council 20 August 2012)


The following is an AMS Information Statement intended to provide a trustworthy, objective, and scientifically up-to-date explanation of scientific issues of concern to the public at large.

Background

This statement provides a brief overview of how and why global climate has changed over the past century and will continue to change in the future. It is based on the peer-reviewed scientific literature and is consistent with the vast weight of current scientific understanding as expressed in assessments and reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the U.S. Global Change Research Program. Although the statement has been drafted in the context of concerns in the United States, the underlying issues are inherently global in nature.

How is climate changing?

Warming of the climate system now is unequivocal, according to many different kinds of evidence. Observations show increases in globally averaged air and ocean temperatures, as well as widespread melting of snow and ice and rising globally averaged sea level. Surface temperature data for Earth as a whole, including readings over both land and ocean, show an increase of about 0.8°C (1.4°F) over the period 1901?2010 and about 0.5°C (0.9°F) over the period 1979–2010 (the era for which satellite-based temperature data are routinely available). Due to natural variability, not every year is warmer than the preceding year globally. Nevertheless, all of the 10 warmest years in the global temperature records up to 2011 have occurred since 1997, with 2005 and 2010 being the warmest two years in more than a century of global records. The warming trend is greatest in northern high latitudes and over land. In the U.S., most of the observed warming has occurred in the West and in Alaska; for the nation as a whole, there have been twice as many record daily high temperatures as record daily low temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century.

The effects of this warming are especially evident in the planet’s polar regions. Arctic sea ice extent and volume have been decreasing for the past several decades. Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have lost significant amounts of ice. Most of the world’s glaciers are in retreat.

 

[Crick]

Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change: A Response to Legates, Soon and Briggs - Springer
Abstract
Agnotology is a term that has been used to describe the study of ignorance and its cultural production (Proctor in Agnotology: the making and unmaking of ignorance. Stanford University Press, Stanford, 2008). For issues that are contentious in the societal realm, though largely not in the scientific realm, such as human evolution or the broad basics of human-induced climate change, it has been suggested that explicit study of relevant misinformation might be a useful teaching approach (Bedford in J Geogr 109(4):159–165, 2010). Recently, Legates et al. (Sci Educ. doi:10.1007/s11191-013-9588-3, 2013) published an aggressive critique of Bedford’s (J Geogr 109(4):159–165, 2010) proposals. However, the critique is based on a comprehensive misinterpretation of Bedford’s (J Geogr 109(4):159–165, 2010) paper. Consequently, Legates et al. (Sci Educ. doi:10.1007/s11191-013-9588-3, 2013) address arguments not actually made by Bedford (J Geogr 109(4):159–165, 2010). This article is a response to Legates et al. (Sci Educ. doi:10.1007/s11191-013-9588-3, 2013), and demonstrates their errors of interpretation of Bedford (J Geogr 109(4):159–165, 2010) in several key areas: the scientific consensus on climate change; misinformation and the public perception of the scientific consensus on climate change; and agnotology as a teaching tool. We conclude by arguing that, although no single peer-reviewed publication on climate change, or any other scientific issue, should be accepted without due scrutiny, the existence of a scientific consensus—especially one as overwhelming as exists for human-induced climate change—raises the level of confidence that the overall findings of that consensus are correct.

Daniel Bedford, John Cook

 

[Crick]

Legates Agnatology paper is the biggest piece of crap every published. Anyone who can seriously contend that less than 1 percent of all climate scientists accept AGW, when Cook found 97.2% of authors accepted it when asked, is a snarling, brain-dead slug.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Wonderful bunch of idiotic flap yap here. So, since only a few of those papers specifically mention global warming, this crackpot thinks if you write a paper concerning the shrinkage of the alpine glaciers, but do not mention spectifically global warming, then he believes that the paper has nothing to say concernng global warming.

Virtually every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is a fact, and that it is a clear and present danger.

Climate Change - American Meteorological Society

Climate Change
An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society
(Adopted by AMS Council 20 August 2012)


The following is an AMS Information Statement intended to provide a trustworthy, objective, and scientifically up-to-date explanation of scientific issues of concern to the public at large.

Background

This statement provides a brief overview of how and why global climate has changed over the past century and will continue to change in the future. It is based on the peer-reviewed scientific literature and is consistent with the vast weight of current scientific understanding as expressed in assessments and reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the U.S. Global Change Research Program. Although the statement has been drafted in the context of concerns in the United States, the underlying issues are inherently global in nature.

How is climate changing?

Warming of the climate system now is unequivocal, according to many different kinds of evidence. Observations show increases in globally averaged air and ocean temperatures, as well as widespread melting of snow and ice and rising globally averaged sea level. Surface temperature data for Earth as a whole, including readings over both land and ocean, show an increase of about 0.8°C (1.4°F) over the period 1901?2010 and about 0.5°C (0.9°F) over the period 1979–2010 (the era for which satellite-based temperature data are routinely available). Due to natural variability, not every year is warmer than the preceding year globally. Nevertheless, all of the 10 warmest years in the global temperature records up to 2011 have occurred since 1997, with 2005 and 2010 being the warmest two years in more than a century of global records. The warming trend is greatest in northern high latitudes and over land. In the U.S., most of the observed warming has occurred in the West and in Alaska; for the nation as a whole, there have been twice as many record daily high temperatures as record daily low temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century.

The effects of this warming are especially evident in the planet’s polar regions. Arctic sea ice extent and volume have been decreasing for the past several decades. Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have lost significant amounts of ice. Most of the world’s glaciers are in retreat.

Good to see you have gave up posting your stupid "trout fishermen of america agree man made climate change is real" list

Hope for you yet.

Now please tell us what questions did they use?

What reports are they agreeing with?

What are they specifically agreeing on?




.

 

[Old Rocks]

Wonderful bunch of idiotic flap yap here. So, since only a few of those papers specifically mention global warming, this crackpot thinks if you write a paper concerning the shrinkage of the alpine glaciers, but do not mention spectifically global warming, then he believes that the paper has nothing to say concernng global warming.

Virtually every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is a fact, and that it is a clear and present danger.

Climate Change - American Meteorological Society

Climate Change
An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society
(Adopted by AMS Council 20 August 2012)


The following is an AMS Information Statement intended to provide a trustworthy, objective, and scientifically up-to-date explanation of scientific issues of concern to the public at large.

Background

This statement provides a brief overview of how and why global climate has changed over the past century and will continue to change in the future. It is based on the peer-reviewed scientific literature and is consistent with the vast weight of current scientific understanding as expressed in assessments and reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the U.S. Global Change Research Program. Although the statement has been drafted in the context of concerns in the United States, the underlying issues are inherently global in nature.

How is climate changing?

Warming of the climate system now is unequivocal, according to many different kinds of evidence. Observations show increases in globally averaged air and ocean temperatures, as well as widespread melting of snow and ice and rising globally averaged sea level. Surface temperature data for Earth as a whole, including readings over both land and ocean, show an increase of about 0.8°C (1.4°F) over the period 1901?2010 and about 0.5°C (0.9°F) over the period 1979–2010 (the era for which satellite-based temperature data are routinely available). Due to natural variability, not every year is warmer than the preceding year globally. Nevertheless, all of the 10 warmest years in the global temperature records up to 2011 have occurred since 1997, with 2005 and 2010 being the warmest two years in more than a century of global records. The warming trend is greatest in northern high latitudes and over land. In the U.S., most of the observed warming has occurred in the West and in Alaska; for the nation as a whole, there have been twice as many record daily high temperatures as record daily low temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century.

The effects of this warming are especially evident in the planet’s polar regions. Arctic sea ice extent and volume have been decreasing for the past several decades. Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have lost significant amounts of ice. Most of the world’s glaciers are in retreat.

Good to see you have gave up posting your stupid "trout fishermen of america agree man made climate change is real" list

Hope for you yet.

Now please tell us what questions did they use?

What reports are they agreeing with?

What are they specifically agreeing on?




.

Unlike couch potatoes like you, hunters and fishermen actually get out and observe nature. And a trout fisherman knows when the water in his favorite trout stream has become to warm for trout. And that is happening a lot in North America now.