Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I know, reading exactly what you wrote, crazy!
Oh look! Another moron denier with zero education, experience, or published science in any scientific field, ever, masturbating on an internet message board!I notice that several alarmists here, post the consensus fallacy and think that is a rational argument to prove that the AGW conjecture is a success, when only a SINGLE refutation can destroy it totally.
Here it is,
The 1990 IPCC report PREDICTED an average of .30C per decade warming, with 1C warming by 2025. This was based on CO2 emission scenario, that was using the AGW conjectures warm forcing formula.
The Satellite data show about HALF the rate, which means EPIC FAIL!
Consensus babblings by ignorant dishonest and irrational alarmists routed by a single AGW failure!
So you think what they're filling those holes with is basically horseshit? I'm not trying to be a dick. I'm willing to be proven wrong about this, but I need to understand how it is that such a giant majority of scientists would all be saying/suggesting the same thing if it's complete nonsense. It seems ludicrous to me to suggest that they're all bought and paid for and are willingly pushing false information. What seems far more likely to me is that the small handful of experts that dispute AGW and do studies funded by people that have a vested interest in the public not believing it are the ones that are actually bullshitting us.
Oh look! Another moron denier with zero education, experience, or published science in any scientific field, ever, masturbating on an internet message board!I notice that several alarmists here, post the consensus fallacy and think that is a rational argument to prove that the AGW conjecture is a success, when only a SINGLE refutation can destroy it totally.
Here it is,
The 1990 IPCC report PREDICTED an average of .30C per decade warming, with 1C warming by 2025. This was based on CO2 emission scenario, that was using the AGW conjectures warm forcing formula.
The Satellite data show about HALF the rate, which means EPIC FAIL!
Consensus babblings by ignorant dishonest and irrational alarmists routed by a single AGW failure!
We sure dont see THAT every day! Wait, yes we do...
A consensus is not proof, but you really should give it some consideration when 97% of people that are educated about this matter are saying the same thing. The study shows that the strength of the consensus is directly correlated with how educated people are about the topic. You're shitting all over people that have spent their lives researching the topic in question simply because they haven't come to your preferred conclusion. Do you really think there is a climate conspiracy that involves 97% of the scientists? That's insane.
I see what you're saying now. So basically the author is saying that it's not accurate to say 97% believe humans are between 50 and 100% responsible. What that does mean, however, is that 97% do believe that humans have some level of impact, and are to some extent responsible for the warming, with a large majority still believing humans are mostly responsible. It's still true to say 97% believe to varying degrees that humans are impacting the environment, and that most believe that humans are mostly responsible. It's still a figure worth giving serious consideration to. Even with that adjustment to the figure can you really say with confidence that AGW isn't real?
Your lack of reading comprehension probably has something to do with your stance on this issue.
These are the kinds of people that oppose the science behind AGW. People so inept at processing information that they get confused and combative over very simple ideas and concepts.
You also clearly have no odea what you are talking about. The globe is still warmong. Climate change includes many climatic changes, including global warming. These include ocean acidification, loss of land and sea ice, more energetic storms, etcThe proof is in the FACT that your allies even had to change the name of the movement to coincide with their own findings. From Global Warming to Climate Change.
Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction.
If they conceded that Global Warming is NOT Man Made, poof, there goes their grants, their funding, their jobs.
The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 2.0 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.5 Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with 16 of the 17 warmest years on record occurring since 2001. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year — from January through September, with the exception of June — were the warmest on record for those respective months.
The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent.11,12 This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.
It's ludicrous to suggest that NASA and climate scientists all over the world are lying about global warming.
It's ludicrous to suggest that NASA and climate scientists all over the world are lying about global warming.
Yes, they are lying and have been for decades. Of course, you know this well and just love playing the Troll!
JUN 13, 2012 @ 04:34 PM 26,942 The Little Black Book of Billionaire Secrets
Doctored Data, Not U.S. Temperatures, Set a Record This Year
James Taylor , CONTRIBUTORI am president of the Spark of Freedom Foundation. Los Angeles Times.
Which begs the question, what does “recorded” mean?
To most people, the hottest temperatures ever “recorded” would imply that quality controlled thermometers registered higher readings during the past year than had ever occurred before. If you believe that this is what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) means by hottest temperatures ever “recorded,” then you are wrong.
Raw temperature data show that U.S. temperatures were significantly warmer during the 1930s than they are today. In fact, raw temperature data show an 80-year cooling trend. NOAA is only able to claim that we are experiencing the hottest temperatures on record by doctoring the raw temperature data.
Doctored Data, Not U.S. Temperatures, Set a Record This Year
Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction.
I already addressed this. It may not be true that 97% believe that it's an urgent problem, but 97% do at least believe that humans are contributing to the warming to some extent. Also, a majority still believe that it is an urgent problem being caused by humans. It might not be 97% that feel that way, but it's still a majority, and it's a figure worth giving consideration to considering these are the most qualified people in the world when it comes to having an opinion on the issue.
If they conceded that Global Warming is NOT Man Made, poof, there goes their grants, their funding, their jobs.
What evidence do you have of this? Do you know of any scientists that found evidence that climate change isn't being accelerated by man and then lost their jobs when they tried to go public? I saw your dailymail article from 8 years ago, but what about what NASA is saying today? What about the fact that 97% of climate scientists do believe that humans are contributing to global warming to some extent, with a majority believing that we are largely responsible for the recent change? Are they in on the conspiracy? Is their data false?
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence
The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 2.0 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.5 Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with 16 of the 17 warmest years on record occurring since 2001. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year — from January through September, with the exception of June — were the warmest on record for those respective months.
The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent.11,12 This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.
It's ludicrous to suggest that NASA and climate scientists all over the world are lying about global warming.
why have we seen zero Congressional legislation on climate change in over 10 years?
Why has climate change never come up in any of the last four presidential election debates?
Why is solar power still a fringe energy source after 20 years?
why have we seen zero Congressional legislation on climate change in over 10 years?
Why has climate change never come up in any of the last four presidential election debates?
Americans are ignorant and the people that run the show don't care about what happens to the world after they're dead. This is accepted science throughout Europe, Asia and most of the rest of the world. They'd laugh at us if it wasn't so profoundly disturbing.
Why is solar power still a fringe energy source after 20 years?
Solar gets cheaper and more efficient every year, but the reason it hasn't made even more progress than it has is people like you have no interest in funding the research that would expedite its growth.
Yep...That's not factually correct. The reality is there are very few scientists who support the now failed theory of AGW. That's why they have to trot out "consensus" to try and prop up their lies.
97%
Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming - IOPscience
The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.
But where did the other 16,949 papers disappear too?bought and paid for scientists
You realize you're referring to almost all scientists, right? Incredibly few actual scientists don't agree with AGW. They're all bought and paid for? How is a conspiracy that big even contained? Do scientists by and large have no intellectual integrity?
75/77 is very impressive!
Solar gets cheaper and more efficient every year, but the reason it hasn't made even more progress than it has is people like you have no interest in funding the research that would expedite its growth.
I notice that several alarmists here, post the consensus fallacy and think that is a rational argument to prove that the AGW conjecture is a success, when only a SINGLE refutation can destroy it totally.
Here it is,
The 1990 IPCC report PREDICTED an average of .30C per decade warming, with 1C warming by 2025. This was based on CO2 emission scenario, that was using the AGW conjectures warm forcing formula.
The Satellite data show about HALF the rate, which means EPIC FAIL!
Consensus babblings by ignorant dishonest and irrational alarmists routed by a single AGW failure!
