jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 158,761
- 39,231
- 2,180
Are you going to tell me you provided the questions that were asked and got to the 97%? I think not!
NOBEL Prize Winners Say NO to AGW........
- Thread starter Billy_Bob
- Start date
- Status
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 158,761
- 39,231
- 2,180
And still no Information on the questions that were used to get to the 97% figure!I am too stupid to see the grand conspiracy you see grasshopperI know I know lol
Climate Scientist [97 percent of them] are involved in a Scientific operation to fleece or steal trillions ...I got you
and its only Heartland Instituite and Exxon who stand noble and vigilant ....
Dude there is a wonderful medication "Risperidone" you may want to look into...
RoshawnMarkwees
Assimilationist
- Banned
- #123
These stories belong in current events because this issue has ruined this economy.
RoshawnMarkwees
Assimilationist
- Banned
- #124
So being connected up with anything that doesn't jibe with AGW propaganda is worse than those who are subsidized by governments to push AGW?
Phony rebuttal.
RoshawnMarkwees
Assimilationist
- Banned
- #125
Ambiguity generated by conflicting expertise is enough to convince pragmatists to not support economically-stifling and freedom-stifling AGW policy.
But lefties aren't pragmatists. They're sheeple.
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 160,747
- 87,148
- 2,645
TyroneSlothrop
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #127
You are Gish Galloping
TyroneSlothrop
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #128
Conservatives are pragmatist that is why they bend over and take it....punks
TyroneSlothrop
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #129
Yeah that and the fact this guy is 86 years old, he has no expertize in Climate science and is being paid by Exxon because he had a Nobel 42 years ago...yeah the Heartland Institute is not known for scientific rigor know what I mean LOl...aside from that as I pointed out there are 97 percent of actual real Climate scientist saying he is wrong..
TyroneSlothrop
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #130
Revealed: Exxon knew of climate change in 1981– but it funded deniers for 27 more years
A newly unearthed missive from Lenny Bernstein, a climate expert with the oil firm for 30 years, shows concerns over high presence of carbon dioxide in enormous gas field in south-east Asia factored into decision not to tap it.
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Mr. jc, the thread is about the lie that less than 50% of the Nobel Prize winners signed the Climate document. Since over 50% signed it, seems that you people just cannot keep from lying.
- Sep 16, 2012
- 75,397
- 72,468
- 3,605
Pull yourself together man you are hysterical...
Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Consensus
Temperature data from four international science institutions. All show rapid warming in the past few decades and that the last decade has been the warmest on record.
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
The period from 1920 to 1940 was FOR THEM -- "also the warmest on record" It's ludicrous to compare our modern instrumented records to what we know of the past 1000s of years. Because THOSE studies are incapable of recording a 50 or 60 year spike like we're seeing now.. The public has been fed the exaggerated Sesame Street version of what's happened in Climate Science over the past 30 years or so.
The scientific orgs issuing those public statements never polled their membership or put the issue up for discussion. These are front office statements akin to the impact of a HallMark card. In the few instances where these statements HAVE been opened up to the membership -- it gets so contentious -- that no NEW statements are released.
Agreed. I noticed that Tyrone qualifies his statement with, "very likely." Why? Because these are well established scientific organizations. When the truth does finally come out, they need to keep that margin of deniability. That way, no matter how all this pans out, they will still retain their credibility and stay above the fray.
It is, after all, still objectively, science. It is funded however by politics. These organization are saying what the pols want them to say because they can't explain with hard data the mechanism of how and why all of this is going on. Nor can these egg heads give the public any solutions. So what good are they other than simple slobs trying to make a living as the world changes around them? Meanwhile, the kings will do what they have always done.
We are as helpless in the face of this as rats in a flood. However, the politicians can use the scientists to make the public feel like they can do some thing, and thus they can consolidate and gain more power through extorting more of their wealth.
Strange thing is. . . . if we faced up to the truth, there probably is some real research that might be done, and some real mitigation strategies that might be tried, but the global elites are probably more concerned with their century old game of power politics, state craft, and control. It's much better to play the blame game that to deal with reality.
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
Has anyone SEEN the document? Counted the sigs? Verified attendence. Can't be lie unless someone did..
Anyway -- 30% would be an acceptable skeptical representation..
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
Pull yourself together man you are hysterical...
Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Consensus
Temperature data from four international science institutions. All show rapid warming in the past few decades and that the last decade has been the warmest on record.
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
The period from 1920 to 1940 was FOR THEM -- "also the warmest on record" It's ludicrous to compare our modern instrumented records to what we know of the past 1000s of years. Because THOSE studies are incapable of recording a 50 or 60 year spike like we're seeing now.. The public has been fed the exaggerated Sesame Street version of what's happened in Climate Science over the past 30 years or so.
The scientific orgs issuing those public statements never polled their membership or put the issue up for discussion. These are front office statements akin to the impact of a HallMark card. In the few instances where these statements HAVE been opened up to the membership -- it gets so contentious -- that no NEW statements are released.
Agreed. I noticed that Tyrone qualifies his statement with, "very likely." Why? Because these are well established scientific organizations. When the truth does finally come out, they need to keep that margin of deniability. That way, no matter how all this pans out, they will still retain their credibility and stay above the fray.
It is, after all, still objectively, science. It is funded however by politics. These organization are saying what the pols want them to say because they can't explain with hard data the mechanism of how and why all of this is going on. Nor can these egg heads give the public any solutions. So what good are they other than simple slobs trying to make a living as the world changes around them? Meanwhile, the kings will do what they have always done.
We are as helpless in the face of this as rats in a flood. However, the politicians can use the scientists to make the public feel like they can do some thing, and thus they can consolidate and gain more power through extorting more of their wealth.
Strange thing is. . . . if we faced up to the truth, there probably is some real research that might be done, and some real mitigation strategies that might be tried, but the global elites are probably more concerned with their century old game of power politics, state craft, and control. It's much better to play the blame game that to deal with reality.
Absolutely correct.. It is an opportunistic way to push MANY agenda items. Sad part is -- this high profile scuffle has sucked the guts out of any TRUE Enviro policies and solutions. Poor creatures can't draw a quorum. Pollution is yesterday.. Can't accurately judge our energy future because of the MANDATES of GW.
It's been a disaster for conservationists and true ecos.. MANY have stated so..
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
CATO?? Anyways.. If a little cash from energy companies can influence the science -- the warmers have already stipulated that $$$$ BILLIONS can sway the tone or content of Climate Science research.. ALL of that is unfortunate. But I can see how it happens. I spent YEARS seeking Govt research grants for my crew. And we could sell the same technology into any Active high profile program that currently was burdened with excess bucks..
The entire UN IPCC is biased by their mission statement which states that they are only looking for MAN-MADE causes of Global Warming. How do think they hire their scientists?
TyroneSlothrop
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #136
The only ones without an agenda are conservative sources closely tied to the fossil fuel Industry.........
Global Warming -- Research Issues
Solar Influences on Climate
(Latest research determines Sun is not the cause of global warming)
New Sunspot Count Techniques Rule Out Sun as Perpetrator of Global Warning
97% of Climate Science Papers Agree Warming is Man-Made
Global Warming -- Research Issues
Solar Influences on Climate
(Latest research determines Sun is not the cause of global warming)
New Sunspot Count Techniques Rule Out Sun as Perpetrator of Global Warning
97% of Climate Science Papers Agree Warming is Man-Made
TyroneSlothrop
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #137
Only 86 year old non Climate scientist with close ties to the fossil fuel Industry tell the truth...97 percent of Scientist are in a giant conspiracy.........waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaaaa
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
Sunspots do not measure the BASELINE average change in Total Solar Irradiance. It's a favorite way to dismiss the rather significant rise in TSI since the 1700s..
THAT is what the sun has done over a climate scale timeframe. We are currently at what's called a "Grand Solar Maximum" . And counting sunspots removes the moving baseline from the total power measured.
The sun was dismissed out of hand with tricks like IGNORING TSI -- UNTIL the GW model predictions started to fail badly in 2000s. So -- after a few years -- Climate science now realizes that the Climate takes 100s of year to settle to new equilibrium temperatures. So the fact that this TSI graph above flattened out about 1980 means that delays and storage can "ring" that stimulus for certainly decades..
Last edited:
- Sep 16, 2012
- 75,397
- 72,468
- 3,605
I think most of the populace, a great majority has already accepted that great changes are affecting the earth. I once belonged to a forum where we discussed this. They thought I was crazy, so we started a thread that was linked to a USGS site that tracked earthquakes over a certain magnitude, and volcano eruptions. After about three years. . . . everyone on the forum came around to my point of view. It wasn't only the weather that was becoming more extreme, the Earth itself was more extreme. The press just didn't report ALL of the Earthquakes and Volcanic eruptions around the globe and how they are increasing with frequency year upon year.
As I have already pointed out in a previous post, not only is the weather changing, but the Earth's magnetic field is changing too. We are WAY over due for a magnetic pole shift. The last one occurred when our species evolved from Australopithecines to Hominids. My hypothesis is, during the last pole shift is when we see great leaps in evolution. Evolutionary biologists have yet to posit what causes punctuated leaps in evolution.
Earth’s magnetic field could flip within our lifetime – but don’t worry, we should be OK
Earth s magnetic field could flip within our lifetime but don t worry we should be OK ExtremeTech
In any case, these geomagnetic reversals occur irregularly, averaging around 450,000 years between each switch. The last reversal — the Matuyama-Brunhes reversal — occurred about 780,000 years ago, so it’s high time for another one to occur.
<snip>
Are we all going to die horrible, fiery deaths?
At this point, scientists are pretty certain that a geomagnetic reversal is about to happen — they’re just not sure exactly when it will occur. Obviously, when you’re dealing with a mass of molten iron that is best measured in quintillions of tons, and your nearest seismological probes are thousands of miles away from the action, there’s a fair bit of guesswork involved.
If the ESA’s satellite data and the new paleomagnetic data (literally, the study of Earth’s magnetic fields by looking at rocks) are both accurate, then the Earth’s next geomagnetic reversal might have already begun. By the time we die — or at least when our children die — the north pole might be in the south.
NASA’s simulation of what Earth’s magnetic fields might look like during a geomagnetic reversal
Sadly, we can only guess at what actually happens to Earth — and all the lovely organisms that live on its surface — during a geomagnetic reversal. Most hypotheses and simulations suggest that there’ll be a fairly long period during the reversal where the poles are all messed up — so at the very least, you can forget using your compass to navigate. Organisms that use magnetoception to navigate — birds, bacteria, bees — might themselves similarly confused.
As I have already pointed out in a previous post, not only is the weather changing, but the Earth's magnetic field is changing too. We are WAY over due for a magnetic pole shift. The last one occurred when our species evolved from Australopithecines to Hominids. My hypothesis is, during the last pole shift is when we see great leaps in evolution. Evolutionary biologists have yet to posit what causes punctuated leaps in evolution.
Earth’s magnetic field could flip within our lifetime – but don’t worry, we should be OK
Earth s magnetic field could flip within our lifetime but don t worry we should be OK ExtremeTech
In any case, these geomagnetic reversals occur irregularly, averaging around 450,000 years between each switch. The last reversal — the Matuyama-Brunhes reversal — occurred about 780,000 years ago, so it’s high time for another one to occur.
<snip>
Are we all going to die horrible, fiery deaths?
At this point, scientists are pretty certain that a geomagnetic reversal is about to happen — they’re just not sure exactly when it will occur. Obviously, when you’re dealing with a mass of molten iron that is best measured in quintillions of tons, and your nearest seismological probes are thousands of miles away from the action, there’s a fair bit of guesswork involved.
If the ESA’s satellite data and the new paleomagnetic data (literally, the study of Earth’s magnetic fields by looking at rocks) are both accurate, then the Earth’s next geomagnetic reversal might have already begun. By the time we die — or at least when our children die — the north pole might be in the south.
NASA’s simulation of what Earth’s magnetic fields might look like during a geomagnetic reversal
Sadly, we can only guess at what actually happens to Earth — and all the lovely organisms that live on its surface — during a geomagnetic reversal. Most hypotheses and simulations suggest that there’ll be a fairly long period during the reversal where the poles are all messed up — so at the very least, you can forget using your compass to navigate. Organisms that use magnetoception to navigate — birds, bacteria, bees — might themselves similarly confused.
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
Matter of fact Tyrone -- In that 1st STanford paper you quoted -- there's almost an IDENTICAL graph -- showing sun "activity" WITHOUT the baseline rise in TSI.. Compare that graph to the one I posted showing TSI . And an ADMISSION in the title and text that they are an Approximation (or proxy) for actual solar power output..
"shame nobody knows how to count them" Well they don't really need to anymore. Since about 1985 -- we've been able to put satellites above the absorbing atmosphere that can measure completely the Total Solar Irradiance. We just haven't had enough "sun cycles" to get a bearing on changes in intensity or spectrum..
That article is NOT a definitive statement of the SUn's impact on climate. Not nearly a consensus on that ... From the article.
Satellite engineers
had been moving away from using sunspot
numbers to calculate solar activity, in part
because the measurements were considered
too unreliable. Instead, they had begun to
use direct measurements of solar flux, the
radio emissions from the sun. But those flux
observations only go back as far as the 1940s.
For any view of patterns of solar activity
stretching further back in time, these records
too had to be calibrated to the sunspot records.
This problem becomes especially acute
when it comes to how the sun’s activity affect
Earth’s climate. This becomes more uncertain
over longer time periods, says Joanna Haigh,
a climate physicist at Imperial College London,
partly because there have been “extreme
differences in assumptions” about the power
output from the sun. With Svalgaard’s
corrections to the revised sunspot series, it
no longer seems that the sun is going through
an unusually active phase. In fact, it has been
mostly stable for the past few centuries since
the Maunder minimum. The argument that
the sun, and not human activity, is driving
global warming loses one of its supports.
Svalgaard is still not so naive as to think this
will be the end of the argument. “We expect a
grand fight on that front,” he says.
Pretty much avoided what :"satellite engineers"
have provided to confirm the ACTUAL total solar output. Or ANY mention of TSI proxy data merges with the newer data like the SORCE/TIM graph I gave you...
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
