I just reviewed the last video and nowhere with in it did anyone make the claim all of mankind would be wiped out.
The second to last one is one guy making the claim of mass extinction, but he's not a consensus.
It's ALL bunk and speculation, NOT science. BuT -- responsible leaders around the world are echoing the NOT SETTLED 1.5DegC "tipping point" that will kill the planet if not fixed in 12 years... There is SO MUCH wrong with this radical "theory"... That's not MY problem... It's yours...
Go back to that video and LEARN what the "tipping (or trigger) point theory of planetary destruction is all about.. Go to about 2 minutes in...
Then realize how much news cycle coverage the Green Raw Deal got because of mental midgets ECHOING this largely unsupported claim... And how it's used around the world to justify $TRILLs in "reparations" for 3rd world countries in the UN..... And in the US it's now being used to justify Fed Govt take-over of more than 1/2 of the economy....
"No one is claiming this" --- you just can't be honest.. MAYBE because you don't follow this issue closely... OR MAYBE because you think this is a POLITICAL problem and not a "science" issue....
Actually all scientists and every political party in the world except you brainwashed functional morons agree on man-made global warming.
1. “…
where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.
The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”
The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”
Then of those,
only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”. That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!
77 out of 10,257 becomes 98%.
Yup…figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.
2. Oh….BTW….
“Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.” Ibid.
3. Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”
That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!
You remain another one of the mindless drones that leftist 'education' system cranks out like cogs and sprockets. Unique, just like every other reliable Democrat voter.
A
research group by the name of the “Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine” solicited signatures for a petition (known now as the Oregon Petition) to have the United States reject the
Kyoto Protocol to set internationally binding emission reduction targets.
This petition reads, in its entirety:
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
the petition bore 31,487
signatures as of October 2016: The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.
FACT CHECK: Did 30,000 Scientists Declare Climate Change a Hoax?
This unintentional humor from the Snopes attempt to marginalize the petition: “Aside from the potential political motivations behind the petition, the misleading tactics employed to gather signatures, and the lack of verification…”
That pretty much describes the global warming scam.
We all know the economic benefits that accrue from signing onto the global warming scam.....show me the benefits that accrue to those 31,000 who simply chose to tell the truth.
“Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.”
What's their motive, you dunce?
You really would rather live near that than a newer generation clean coal plant?
