New ACTUAL survey of Climate Scientist Opinions. About 100 detailed questions.

[flacaltenn]

Since 1850, it is estimated that the world has warmed by 0.5 – 0.7 degrees C. Approximately what percent would you attribute to human causes? (v013)

1=0% 2=1-25% 3=25-50% 4=51-75% 5=76-100%

That's less than 50% of the survey attributing MORE than 75% of the warming to human causes.
You think THAT is a consensus on an ACTUAL question?

Did you see all the doubt about whether the exact nature of future weather changes could even be determined 50 years out? Or whether GoldiRocks can actually claim that CURRENT extreme weather events were "proof" of climate change?


THIS is the sane RATIONAL view of the science that SHOULD become the basis for public policy. NOT propaganda and alarmism.

LOL Gotta love this. We see things that are happening, and we see rapid changes in the Arctic. Far more rapid than predicted. But you advocate just continue doing the same thing until the case is proven. And completely ignore the residence time in the atmosphere of the GHG gases.

What we see happening today is the result of the GHG levels 30 to 50 years ago. By the time the case is 'proven' to people you, we are going to be well into a catastrophic scenerio.

Really.. A catastrophe already unfolding eh. Why don't we stick to what Climate Scientists actually think about your visions of GW already in the news... Just for you...

Discuss how every tropical storm and forest fire and flood that you see is DEFINITELY the catastrophe of GW appearing NOW before our eyes.

 

[Crick]

In every example, the majority believe intensity has increased and will continue to do so. What point were you trying to make here?

I'll tell you what it SEEMS as if you're trying to do here. It SEEMS as if you think if you can find the opinions of climate science on ANY warming related question to be less than 97%, you will have disproved the 97% consensus behind AGW.

I'm sorry to say, but if that is your intention, that would be a failure of logic.

 

[SSDD]

In every example, the majority believe intensity has increased and will continue to do so. What point were you trying to make here?

I'll tell you what it SEEMS as if you're trying to do here. It SEEMS as if you think if you can find the opinions of climate science on ANY warming related question to be less than 97%, you will have disproved the 97% consensus behind AGW.

I'm sorry to say, but if that is your intention, that would be a failure of logic.

Actually crick..the failure in logic is to believe in consensus...especially when there isn't the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support their claim.

 

[Crick]

Actually SID, the failure is in your lying. The consensus exists and shows that AGW is a widely accepted theory. The argument otherwise is desperate ignorance. Your repeated comment that there is no evidence is a willful lie.

 

[LaDexter]

Crick saying someone else is "lying" is pretty hilarious in and of itself. Only Gore and Hillary could make it more entertaining.

 

[Crick]

Says the man (sic?) who hasn't presented one shred of evidence to support ANYTHING he's ever put forward here.

 

[LaDexter]

LOL!!!

Why does one Earth polar circle have 9 times the ice of the other?

CO2???

Where is the Tippy "study" on that question???

 

[Crick]

My wife warns me that you never know who you're talking to online and they might be some real, genuine whackos. I say, LaDexter is not completely representative of the people whom I debate.

Dex, you've been given the answer to your ice-at-the-poles question half a dozen times or more. Are you EVER planning on telling us what you think of the answer (singular - cause you keep getting the same answer) or - should you have some alternative idea - provide us with yours? Cause I could use the entertainment and the suspense is way past the 'just-annoying' stage.

 

[SSDD]

LOL!!!

Why does one Earth polar circle have 9 times the ice of the other?

CO2???

Where is the Tippy "study" on that question???

Pointless asking crick for actual observed, measured, quantified data....he knows that there is none as he has been grubbing every search engine on the internet for some time now looking for some to slap me down with...when you ask him for data...he comes back with some remark completely off the topic...you ask him for data RE the difference in the ice at the north and south poles...he answers with advice his wife has given him about talking to people on the internet...as if he weren't just some person talking on the internet who is a proven liar and as crazy as a $h!thouse bat.

 

[jc456]

I don't give two shits what you got in a google search. Show us a DEFINITION of AGW that includes the scope of the crisis as a critical, necessary or needful parameter of the theory. Otherwise, I call a Skook on you - no one gives a shit.

so i'm admittedly stating you confused me. If, as you just pointed out, there is no scope of the crisis, why is it there is a need for a solution? I mean, that is the point of the 23 trillion right?

 

[jc456]

The point of contention is not whether people are discussing the scope of the crisis. The point is whether or not that topic makes up any portions of the actual AGW theory. The answer, of course, is no. You're just too chicken shit to admit it.

are you now flipping sides? again, we all know there is no evidence of AGW. You just agreed there isn't any. So what is it exactly that is chicken shit in here?

 

[LaDexter]

Dex, you've been given the answer to your ice-at-the-poles question half a dozen times or more.

A confession that CO2 does not cause Earth climate change, plate tectonic movement does. Thanks.

Are you EVER planning on telling us what you think of the answer

WE had a whole topic on it... right here...

Why does one polar circle, the Antarctic, have 9 times the ice of the other?

are you like senile or what, because your memory is like really really bad???

 

[IanC]

And the retards hijack another thread with their pointless insults.

 

[SSDD]

And the retards hijack another thread with their pointless insults.

Look who is talking about other people hurling insults....a review of your past dozen or so posts reveals a disturbing similarity to crick's style of posting. is the continued failure of the AGW hypothesis stressing you out as well?...

 

[Crick]

And the retards hijack another thread with their pointless insults.

But... isn't this pointlessly insulting the "retards"?