Seems awful cold for the "hottest" year on record

[Crepitus]

That crepitus does that to you?

 

[westwall]

View attachment 967683

No, 97% of the climatologists who were surveyed. A mere 74 out of 79 who were asked.

At least get your facts straight on that you blithering idiot.

 

[Crepitus]

No, 97% of the climatologists who were surveyed. A mere 74 out of 79 who were asked.

At least get your facts straight on that you blithering idiot.

 

[westwall]

View attachment 967688

My facts Trump your stupid memes, junior.

 

[Crepitus]

My facts Trump your stupid memes, junior.

Really? When will you post some?

 

[westwall]

Really? When will you post some?

I just did and you fled from it

 

[Crepitus]

I just did and you fled from it

Fled from what? You proved my 97% thing for me.

What else?

 

[elektra]

View attachment 967683

97%, have never been asked. A small team of researchers applied a question, criteria to published papers and based on how the title fit they used statistics to claim, 97% agree

Your propaganda is sunk. You dont think so, ask crick for the link to the article describing the report.

I will tear it apart, again. Been here dozens of times.

97% of scientist never been asked

 

[westwall]

Fled from what? You proved my 97% thing for me.

What else?

No, you claimed 97% of SCIENTISTS. The reality it was 74 of 79 CLIMATOLOGISTS that were surveyed.

So, you were either ignorant of that fact, or lying.

 

[Crick]

No, you claimed 97% of SCIENTISTS. The reality it was 74 of 79 CLIMATOLOGISTS that were surveyed.

So, you were either ignorant of that fact, or lying.

When are you ignorant lying ratfucks going to stop pretending that the consensus seen among scientists is based on one and only one small survey done years and years ago?. Multiple surveys of thousands of scientists and thousands of published articles have shown extremely high acceptance among climate scientists for the AGW theory. Meanwhile, you're side attempt to argue this with public letters signed by a small handful of octagenarian scientists and thousands of unqualified know-nothings

 

[elektra]

When are you ignorant lying ratfucks going to stop pretending that the consensus seen among scientists is based on one and only one small survey done years and years ago?. Multiple surveys of thousands of scientists and thousands of published articles have shown extremely high acceptance among climate scientists for the AGW theory. Meanwhile, you're side attempt to argue this with public letters signed by a small handful of octagenarian scientists and thousands of unqualified know-nothings

The other surveys were based on the previous surveys.

If another surveys exists, it is of papers that fit a wide criteria

 

[Crick]

The other surveys were based on the previous surveys.

Another elektra lie. See Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia. They've changed the format of the article.

If another surveys exists, it is of papers that fit a wide criteria

If? You've been linked to that Wikipedia article a dozen times. It seems you've never read it. Where do you get your information from?

 

[elektra]

Another elektra lie. See Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia. They've changed the format of the article.

Here we go through cricks slimy filthy lies. 1st the piece of shit crick starts by attacking and insulting.

"you ignorant lying ratfucks"

Fine, got that off your chest?

Now, I say, "survey says this not that",

This is where crick is suppose to provide the survey that crick obviously read, which is the only way crick cam disagree.

crick links to an article in wikipedia?

quote and link to the survey crick!

wikipedia is not the survey!!!!!

See how this works, democrats make claims based on hersey.

 

[Crepitus]

97%, have never been asked. A small team of researchers applied a question, criteria to published papers and based on how the title fit they used statistics to claim, 97% agree

Your propaganda is sunk. You dont think so, ask crick for the link to the article describing the report.

I will tear it apart, again. Been here dozens of times.

97% of scientist never been asked

 

[Crepitus]

No, you claimed 97% of SCIENTISTS. The reality it was 74 of 79 CLIMATOLOGISTS that were surveyed.

So, you were either ignorant of that fact, or lying.

 

[elektra]

If? You've been linked to that Wikipedia article a dozen times. It seems you've never read it. Where do you get your information from?

Okay crick, I will cut to the chase and play the wiki game. Where do I get my information? I am a scientist working for the solar and wind power industry. I have also worked for geothermal so you can get an education from me on geothermal as well. Nuclear power is my cup of tea. I have been requested to go to Spain four times, Argentina once, Brazil 22 times, Canada 36 times, England once. So where do I get my information. Being intelligent and working in a scientific field, I learn. As most intelligent people do.

Wikipedia is just an article. I will show how much fun it is, rubbing cricks nose in the shit.
First the article does give us references. I will check out the references until the first 6 references all prove crick does not know a damn thing.

Nice, the article starts by saying it is so. Dictating. And for reference they reference the IPCC, which crick tells us does not do any sort of research at all. Just an organization? So what good is a source that says they are using another source, the IPCC, and the IPCC will be using another source to make the claim

Crick says use Wikipedia, says use IPCC, says use....

There is a nearly unanimous scientific consensus that the Earth has been consistently warming since the start of the Industrial Revolution, that the rate of recent warming is largely unprecedented,[1]: 8 [2]: 11 
First link given to the IPCC report? Am I suppose to read the entire 100,000 page report to see what the fuck crick thinks he referenced?
Second link to the .gov site on what? https://www.globalchange.gov/our-work/fifth-national-climate-assessment
Oh, to the fifth assessment? Is this what crick refers to? And there is another link to follow to the actual fifth assessment?

More crick bullshit that crick dont read. I will ignore all these links to nowhere, okay, crick

The human activities causing this warming include fossil fuel combustion, cement production, and land use changes such as deforestation,[3]: 10–11  with a significant supporting role from the other greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide.[1]: 7  This human role in climate change is considered "unequivocal" and "incontrovertible".[1]: 4 [2]: 4 

More links? More, I say this, and you must believe, but nothing about the consensus?
This link is to another IPCC report with the 5th assessment. Already been linked to now linked again really forcefully saying, "You must believe."

 

[elektra]

Another elektra lie. See Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia. They've changed the format of the article.
If? You've been linked to that Wikipedia article a dozen times. It seems you've never read it. Where do you get your information from?

Now to the meat of crick's meek argument.
Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists say humans are causing climate change.[4][5]

Hmm, more links, that crick wont link to, because if the truth is known we know crick is a liar.

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

This look official, I can not argue with whatever is in this. It says in wiki, "all". So this is it, the infallible truth.

Out of a group of 153 independently confirmed climate experts, 98.7% of those scientists indicated that the Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels.

??????, Oh, when crick says they all agree, they are rounding up the number, and the number of scientists is 153!!!!
*you ignorant lying ratfucks"
153 scientists, and crick calls us the ignorant lying ratfuck

Scum like crick is why there is no place in the world for democrats. I used your source crick, out of the tens of thousands of scientists, they found 153 that would say yes, give me grant money, I agree.

 

[elektra]

View attachment 967846

name the scientist, link to his science, quote and comment, otherwise you just did what you posted, I am suppose to believe you, without any evidence from scientists.

kind of like, you are the rodent in your meme

 

[westwall]

View attachment 967847

Yes, it's so fake they had to change the name.


DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

 

[westwall]

name the scientist, link to his science, quote and comment, otherwise you just did what you posted, I am suppose to believe you, without any evidence from scientists.

kind of like, you are the rodent in your meme

Crapitus is incapable. It is getting very close to being placed on ignore as a troll.