Is "Climate Change" The Biggest Hoax Ever Perpetrated Against The American People?

[Sunsettommy]

You're right. It's 99%+

It is obvious you never watched it since in the video they showed the ORIGIN of the dishonest 97% consensus claim was from a subset of people replies just 77 out of 3146 total replies.

This out of 10,000 Earth scientists who were given the survey only 3,146 people replied and only 75 out of 77 climate scientists replied to a specific question the 97% came from this tiny number of respondents just 2% of the total respondents.

You support lies, fraud and worse every day.

 

[jc456]

You're right. It's 99%+

Your stupidity? I agree

 

[Crick]

It is obvious you never watched it since in the video they showed the ORIGIN of the dishonest 97% consensus claim was from a subset of people replies just 77 out of 3146 total replies.

This out of 10,000 Earth scientists who were given the survey only 3,146 people replied and only 75 out of 77 climate scientists replied to a specific question the 97% came from this tiny number of respondents just 2% of the total respondents.

You support lies, fraud and worse every day.

Good god, I have gone over the consensus issue easily a dozen times. Go to this page and read the section titled

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature​

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It won't kill you and it won't take more than a couple minutes.

 

[jc456]

Good god, I have gone over the consensus issue easily a dozen times. Go to this page and read the section titled

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature​

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It won't kill you and it won't take more than a couple minutes.

I just posted the facts

 

[Crick]

I just posted the facts

Fuck off Troll

 

[Sunsettommy]

Good god, I have gone over the consensus issue easily a dozen times. Go to this page and read the section titled

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature​

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It won't kill you and it won't take more than a couple minutes.

Ha ha ha, I have seen all of them because so many warmist/alarmists rely on the stupid shit and send me this crap as their reply because that is all you can reply with since you ducked the origin of the dishonest lying 97% claim because you can't answer it.

It is clear you are a proven science illiterate since consensus doesn't advance science research while reproducible research does which you ignore all the time even the ones, I posted which is over 5,000 published ani AGW papers that you ignored.

You can wish them away.

Here is a small sampling of Consensus FAILURES which have killed a lot of people in the past:

Global Warming causes Aliens

Selected excerpt:

"Ehrlich answered by saying “I think they are extremely robust. Scientists may have made statements like that, although I cannot imagine what their basis would have been, even with the state of science at that time, but scientists are always making absurd statements, individually, in various places. What we are doing here, however, is presenting a consensus of a very large group of scientists.”

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.

Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases.

In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor—southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result—despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology—until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2 . Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way."

LINK

=====

You run on consensus baloney because you can't address the obvious science-based fact that there is no climate emergency developing.

 

[jc456]

Fuck off Troll

Facts are like krypton to you

 

[westwall]

Most assuredly it is not. There are simply too many players from too many places with too many different viewpoints and political positions and personal stations in life and ethics for such a thing to be maintained. And NO ONE has ever confessed or been caught in such a conspiracy. NO ONE. So, where is your evidence?

IR can't heat water.

Theory ends.

 

[Leo123]

'Consensus' means scientists agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The amount of warming is not a consensus. In fact, their catastrophic warming has never been seen or proven yet, they use that thin thread to prognosticate existential warming and cataclysmic events with no proof whatsoever. The Earth's climate depends on an array of factors such as Ocean cycles (that can be thousands of years long), water vapor in the atmosphere, heating from below the Earth's crust, variations in sunlight effect at the equator and sunlight angles at latitudes going north and south from the equator, just to mention a few. CO2 may be a slight factor at the equator but not enough to effect global climate. They claim that little changes can have larger 'domino' effects but that has never been proven. Yes, the whole 'global warming'/'human caused climate change' is nothing but a hoax. If you have the time, there's some excellent information from and interview by Jordan Peterson of Dr. Lindzen here:

 

[Crick]

IR can't heat water.

Theory ends.

Have you not seen the two papers repeatedly discussed here in the last couple of weeks? IR can and does heat water by creating a thermal gradient that traps heat below the thermal skin layer.

 

[westwall]

Have you not seen the two papers repeatedly discussed here in the last couple of weeks? IR can and does heat water by creating a thermal gradient that traps heat below the thermal skin layer.

That is a hoot! What happened to heat rises? Suddenly natural laws no longer apply?

Talk about anti science.

 

[Crick]

That is a hoot! What happened to heat rises? Suddenly natural laws no longer apply?

Talk about anti science.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JC013351

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323967711_The_Response_of_the_Ocean_Thermal_Skin_Layer_to_Variations_in_Incident_Infrared_Radiation

 

[westwall]

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JC013351

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323967711_The_Response_of_the_Ocean_Thermal_Skin_Layer_to_Variations_in_Incident_Infrared_Radiation

"The highly nonlinear T(–z) (e.g., Liu et al.,1979) poses a problem in solving equation 3 as the equation becomes highly ill conditioned (Eyre, 1987; Rodgers, 2004). To overcome this issue, Wong and Minnett (2016a, 2016b) used the Truncated Singular Value Decomposition (TSVD) regularization technique combined with an iterative method to obtain physically reasonable boundary values for the first-guess profile required in the regularization technique. In the application of this technique to field data, it was established that there is an additional requirement to perform averages in the spectral measurements to reduce noise and allow the solution to converge. The noise-added synthetic data results show a brightness temperature error of <0.016% and <0.11% when calculated at 300 K between wave numbers 800–1,200 and 2,640–2,800 cm−1, respectively (Wong & Minnett 2016a)."


In other words, they USED A MODEL to change the reality of the world!


DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

 

[Crick]

"The highly nonlinear T(–z) (e.g., Liu et al.,1979) poses a problem in solving equation 3 as the equation becomes highly ill conditioned (Eyre, 1987; Rodgers, 2004). To overcome this issue, Wong and Minnett (2016a, 2016b) used the Truncated Singular Value Decomposition (TSVD) regularization technique combined with an iterative method to obtain physically reasonable boundary values for the first-guess profile required in the regularization technique. In the application of this technique to field data, it was established that there is an additional requirement to perform averages in the spectral measurements to reduce noise and allow the solution to converge. The noise-added synthetic data results show a brightness temperature error of <0.016% and <0.11% when calculated at 300 K between wave numbers 800–1,200 and 2,640–2,800 cm−1, respectively (Wong & Minnett 2016a)."


In other words, they USED A MODEL to change the reality of the world!


DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Don't whine to me if they're over your head. I've decided I've put up with more than enough model rejection around here. If you think they actually did something wrong mathematically, show us what it is. Just yelling "MODEL" is absolutely nothing but a chicken shit copout. Truly, truly CHICKEN.SHIT.

 

[westwall]

Don't whine to me if they're over your head. I've decided I've put up with more than enough model rejection around here. If you think they actually did something wrong mathematically, show us what it is. Just yelling "MODEL" is absolutely nothing but a chicken shit copout. Truly, truly CHICKEN.SHIT.

They are computer derived fiction that ignore the REALITY of physics.

I understand them quite well. Which is why I can interpret them as complete horse poo.

 

[Crick]

They are computer derived fiction that ignore the REALITY of physics.

I understand them quite well. Which is why I can interpret them as complete horse poo.

You don't understand squat. Your out of hand rejection of models is unsupportable bullshit.

 

[jc456]

Don't whine to me if they're over your head. I've decided I've put up with more than enough model rejection around here. If you think they actually did something wrong mathematically, show us what it is. Just yelling "MODEL" is absolutely nothing but a chicken shit copout. Truly, truly CHICKEN.SHIT.

well crickster, models aren't evidence!!!!!

 

[jc456]

You don't understand squat. Your out of hand rejection of models is unsupportable bullshit.

enjoy this video

 

[westwall]

You don't understand squat. Your out of hand rejection of models is unsupportable bullshit.

Models that defy physics are crap.

 

[Crick]

Models that defy physics are crap.

What models do you believe "defy physics"?