The dumb 97% myth. Laughing disrespectfully at those that buy into that narrative.

[Theowl32]

Climate Change: No, It’s Not a 97 Percent Consensus | National Review Online


The myth of an almost-unanimous climate-change consensus is pervasive. Last May, the White House tweeted: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” A few days later, Secretary of State John Kerry announced, “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists tell us this is urgent.” “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists” say no such thing.



There are multiple relevant questions: (1) Has the earth generally warmed since 1800? (An overwhelming majority of scientists assent to this.) (2) Has that warming been caused primarily by human activity? And, if (1) and (2), is anthropogenic global warming a problem so significant that we ought to take action?
============================================

Popular Technology.net: 97 Articles Refuting The "97% Consensus"

The 97% "consensus" study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook's study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,
"The '97% consensus' article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it."

- Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook's (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% "consensus" study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook's study is an embarrassment to science.


Energy Policy - Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis (PDF) (October 2014)
Energy Policy - Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: Rejoinder (PDF) (October 2014)
Science & Education - Climate Consensus and 'Misinformation': A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change (PDF) (August 2013)

American Thinker - Climate Consensus Con Game (February 17, 2014)
Breitbart - Obama's '97 Percent' Climate Consensus: Debunked, Demolished, Staked through the heart (September 8, 2014)
Canada Free Press - Sorry, global warmists: The '97 percent consensus' is complete fiction (May 27, 2014)
Financial Post - Meaningless consensus on climate change (September 19, 2013)
Financial Post - The 97%: No you don't have a climate consensus (September 25, 2013)
Forbes - Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims (May 30, 2013)
Fox News - Balance is not bias -- Fox News critics mislead public on climate change (October 16, 2013)
Herald Sun - That 97 per cent claim: four problems with Cook and Obama (May 22, 2013)
Power Line - Breaking: The "97 Percent Climate Consensus" Canard (May 18, 2014)
Spiked - Global warming: the 97% fallacy (May 28, 2014)
The Daily Caller - Where Did '97 Percent' Global Warming Consensus Figure Come From? (May 16, 2014)
The Daily Telegraph - 97 per cent of climate activists in the pay of Big Oil shock! (July 23, 2013)
The Guardian - The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up (June 6, 2014)
The New American - Global Warming "Consensus": Cooking the Books (May 21, 2013)
The New American - Cooking Climate Consensus Data: "97% of Scientists Affirm AGW" Debunked (June 5, 2013)
The New American - Climategate 3.0: Blogger Threatened for Exposing 97% "Consensus" Fraud(May 20, 2014)
The Patriot Post - The 97% Consensus -- A Lie of Epic Proportions (May 17, 2013)
The Patriot Post - Debunking the '97% Consensus' & Why Global Cooling May Loom (August 7, 2014)


==========================================


That is about 20 or so articles refuting the utter bullshit that the left wing pushes on all of us. 97%, racism, war on women, tax the rich, on and on and on, etc etc etc etc etc.

That, is all they are. Democrat talking points to push a global agenda.

Every time the sacks of shit bring up their pathetic 97% LIE, feel free to copy and paste any of these things that I copy and pasted.

The left are full of shit. Utterly full of shit. About everything too. It is remarkable really.

 

[midcan5]

The above is an example of carbon corporate money at work, two reasons, one the obvious, money, the second political or ideological contradiction. Combined they keep the believers believing. Check out Agnotology sometime and this book is excellent for the interested reader.

'Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming' Naomi Oreskes, Erik M. M. Conway

'Gawd provided checks and balances on Global Warming' | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Republican Politicians Are Paid To Be Stupid


House 'Science' Committee Witch Hunt is Worse than Benghazi!


Is The Earth Past A Point of No Return?
Is The Earth Past A Point of No Return?

'The Danger The Planet Faces Because Human Instinct Overpowers Human Reason'
The Danger The Planet Faces Because Human Instinct Overpowers Human Reason

2014 Was The Hottest Year Since At Least 1880, Government Finds'
2014 Was The Hottest Year On Record

Agnotology is the study of culturally induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data.

 

[Thunderbird]

The above is an example of carbon corporate money at work, two reasons, one the obvious, money, the second political or ideological contradiction. Combined they keep the believers believing.

Here's some corporate money at work:

Carbon Scam? Al Gore, Profits, and Copenhagen

Goldman Sachs and the coming carbon credit bubble | Kirby Mountain

 

[tinydancer]

It's all about the redistribution of wealth on a global scale. And the United Nations gets to dole it out.You know the same people that dreamed up this bullshit.

"And what about that Green Climate Fund, supposed by 2020 to be dishing out $100 billion every year to help developing countries to “adapt to climate change”? Firm pledges received so far total just $700 million, leaving $99.3 billion still to go."

CO2 emissions belie climate promises

 

[Freewill]

GLOBAL COOLING: Decade long ice age predicted as sun 'hibernates'

A team of European researchers have unveiled a scientific model showing that the Earth is likely to experience a “mini ice age” from 2030 to 2040 as a result of decreased solar activity.

Their findings will infuriate environmental campaigners who argue by 2030 we could be facing increased sea levels and flooding due to glacial melt at the poles.

 

[tinydancer]

Oh and check out how CO2 emmission reductions by Europe are going to be offset by several developing nations. This fairy tale that its all about the warming makes me want to bazooka barf.

China gets to double and India is going to triple their emissions.

"Now, as Paris approaches – although scarcely noticed by the Western media – we can see just what the 20 countries responsible for 81 per cent of global CO2 emissions are proposing as their “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions” to cutting emissions by 2030. These have been meticulously analysed on the Notalotofpeopleknowthat website, with further reporting on the site of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

China, now easily the world’s largest emitter, contributing 24 per cent of the total, plans by 2030 to double its CO2 emissions, not least by building 363 more coal-fired power stations. India, now the third-largest emitter, plans by 2030 to treble its emissions. The fourth-largest emitter, Russia, despite slashing its emissions after 1990 by closing down much of its old Soviet industry, now proposes to increase them from their 2012 level by up to 38 per cent.

Japan, the fifth-largest emitter, does claim that it will cut its emissions by some 15 per cent, but is still planning to build more coal-fired power plants. Although South Korea, the world’s seventh-largest emitter, claims that it will cut emissions by 23 per cent (not least by buying “carbon credits” that will allow it to “offset” its continuing production of CO2 for cash), even its proposed target will still be 100 per cent higher than it was 25 years ago."

CO2 emissions belie climate promises

 

[Wildman]

The left are full of shit. Utterly full of shit. About everything too. It is remarkable really.

in my younger days i cleaned cow/bull shit from barns that were piled shin deep and were nowhere near as full of shit that these lefttards are.

"Utterly full of shit.".., is that why all their eyes are brown?

 

[Pete7469]

The left are full of shit. Utterly full of shit. About everything too. It is remarkable really.

This is an illustration of where moonbat information originates:

If a bed wetter's mouth is open they're either stealing oxygen or lying.

 

[Freewill]

One is anomaly and one is temperature.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And knowledgeable people laugh in merriment at the OP.

 

[Rustic]

Climate Change: No, It’s Not a 97 Percent Consensus | National Review Online


The myth of an almost-unanimous climate-change consensus is pervasive. Last May, the White House tweeted: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” A few days later, Secretary of State John Kerry announced, “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists tell us this is urgent.” “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists” say no such thing.



There are multiple relevant questions: (1) Has the earth generally warmed since 1800? (An overwhelming majority of scientists assent to this.) (2) Has that warming been caused primarily by human activity? And, if (1) and (2), is anthropogenic global warming a problem so significant that we ought to take action?
============================================

Popular Technology.net: 97 Articles Refuting The "97% Consensus"

The 97% "consensus" study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook's study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,
"The '97% consensus' article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it."

- Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook's (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% "consensus" study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook's study is an embarrassment to science.


Energy Policy - Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis (PDF) (October 2014)
Energy Policy - Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: Rejoinder (PDF) (October 2014)
Science & Education - Climate Consensus and 'Misinformation': A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change (PDF) (August 2013)

American Thinker - Climate Consensus Con Game (February 17, 2014)
Breitbart - Obama's '97 Percent' Climate Consensus: Debunked, Demolished, Staked through the heart (September 8, 2014)
Canada Free Press - Sorry, global warmists: The '97 percent consensus' is complete fiction (May 27, 2014)
Financial Post - Meaningless consensus on climate change (September 19, 2013)
Financial Post - The 97%: No you don't have a climate consensus (September 25, 2013)
Forbes - Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims (May 30, 2013)
Fox News - Balance is not bias -- Fox News critics mislead public on climate change (October 16, 2013)
Herald Sun - That 97 per cent claim: four problems with Cook and Obama (May 22, 2013)
Power Line - Breaking: The "97 Percent Climate Consensus" Canard (May 18, 2014)
Spiked - Global warming: the 97% fallacy (May 28, 2014)
The Daily Caller - Where Did '97 Percent' Global Warming Consensus Figure Come From? (May 16, 2014)
The Daily Telegraph - 97 per cent of climate activists in the pay of Big Oil shock! (July 23, 2013)
The Guardian - The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up (June 6, 2014)
The New American - Global Warming "Consensus": Cooking the Books (May 21, 2013)
The New American - Cooking Climate Consensus Data: "97% of Scientists Affirm AGW" Debunked (June 5, 2013)
The New American - Climategate 3.0: Blogger Threatened for Exposing 97% "Consensus" Fraud(May 20, 2014)
The Patriot Post - The 97% Consensus -- A Lie of Epic Proportions (May 17, 2013)
The Patriot Post - Debunking the '97% Consensus' & Why Global Cooling May Loom (August 7, 2014)


==========================================


That is about 20 or so articles refuting the utter bullshit that the left wing pushes on all of us. 97%, racism, war on women, tax the rich, on and on and on, etc etc etc etc etc.

That, is all they are. Democrat talking points to push a global agenda.

Every time the sacks of shit bring up their pathetic 97% LIE, feel free to copy and paste any of these things that I copy and pasted.

The left are full of shit. Utterly full of shit. About everything too. It is remarkable really.

Most of all those pushing the whole global warming/global cooling/climate change thingy happen to be career politicians. Hmmm? There must be something to this? The more bills/laws passed means more money spent and more taxes??
Well, that being so, with federal government being impossibility in debt and with no hope of paying its unfunded liabilities. Career politicians are desperately needing to prove their worth and justification of their jobs. With an presidential election year coming up, The pseudo fixes are going to be coming out of the woodwork by the day...

The silly season is already here...

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Climate Change: No, It’s Not a 97 Percent Consensus | National Review Online


The myth of an almost-unanimous climate-change consensus is pervasive. Last May, the White House tweeted: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” A few days later, Secretary of State John Kerry announced, “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists tell us this is urgent.” “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists” say no such thing.



There are multiple relevant questions: (1) Has the earth generally warmed since 1800? (An overwhelming majority of scientists assent to this.) (2) Has that warming been caused primarily by human activity? And, if (1) and (2), is anthropogenic global warming a problem so significant that we ought to take action?
============================================

Popular Technology.net: 97 Articles Refuting The "97% Consensus"

The 97% "consensus" study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook's study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,
"The '97% consensus' article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it."

- Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook's (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% "consensus" study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook's study is an embarrassment to science.


Energy Policy - Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis (PDF) (October 2014)
Energy Policy - Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: Rejoinder (PDF) (October 2014)
Science & Education - Climate Consensus and 'Misinformation': A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change (PDF) (August 2013)

American Thinker - Climate Consensus Con Game (February 17, 2014)
Breitbart - Obama's '97 Percent' Climate Consensus: Debunked, Demolished, Staked through the heart (September 8, 2014)
Canada Free Press - Sorry, global warmists: The '97 percent consensus' is complete fiction (May 27, 2014)
Financial Post - Meaningless consensus on climate change (September 19, 2013)
Financial Post - The 97%: No you don't have a climate consensus (September 25, 2013)
Forbes - Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims (May 30, 2013)
Fox News - Balance is not bias -- Fox News critics mislead public on climate change (October 16, 2013)
Herald Sun - That 97 per cent claim: four problems with Cook and Obama (May 22, 2013)
Power Line - Breaking: The "97 Percent Climate Consensus" Canard (May 18, 2014)
Spiked - Global warming: the 97% fallacy (May 28, 2014)
The Daily Caller - Where Did '97 Percent' Global Warming Consensus Figure Come From? (May 16, 2014)
The Daily Telegraph - 97 per cent of climate activists in the pay of Big Oil shock! (July 23, 2013)
The Guardian - The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up (June 6, 2014)
The New American - Global Warming "Consensus": Cooking the Books (May 21, 2013)
The New American - Cooking Climate Consensus Data: "97% of Scientists Affirm AGW" Debunked (June 5, 2013)
The New American - Climategate 3.0: Blogger Threatened for Exposing 97% "Consensus" Fraud(May 20, 2014)
The Patriot Post - The 97% Consensus -- A Lie of Epic Proportions (May 17, 2013)
The Patriot Post - Debunking the '97% Consensus' & Why Global Cooling May Loom (August 7, 2014)


==========================================


That is about 20 or so articles refuting the utter bullshit that the left wing pushes on all of us. 97%, racism, war on women, tax the rich, on and on and on, etc etc etc etc etc.

That, is all they are. Democrat talking points to push a global agenda.

Every time the sacks of shit bring up their pathetic 97% LIE, feel free to copy and paste any of these things that I copy and pasted.

The left are full of shit. Utterly full of shit. About everything too. It is remarkable really.

'Snorting with derision' is better than 'laughing disrespectfully'

 

[BlindBoo]

 

[Wyatt earp]

The above is an example of carbon corporate money at work, two reasons, one the obvious, money, the second political or ideological contradiction. Combined they keep the believers believing. Check out Agnotology sometime and this book is excellent for the interested reader.

'Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming' Naomi Oreskes, Erik M. M. Conway

'Gawd provided checks and balances on Global Warming' | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Republican Politicians Are Paid To Be Stupid


House 'Science' Committee Witch Hunt is Worse than Benghazi!


Is The Earth Past A Point of No Return?
Is The Earth Past A Point of No Return?

'The Danger The Planet Faces Because Human Instinct Overpowers Human Reason'
The Danger The Planet Faces Because Human Instinct Overpowers Human Reason

2014 Was The Hottest Year Since At Least 1880, Government Finds'
2014 Was The Hottest Year On Record

Agnotology is the study of culturally induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data.

You tards amuse me when you try to compare tobacco with man made climate change...

Ok if that's the case numb nuts where is all the money going to fool the public??????

With tobacco we were bombarded with :

Comercials on television
Adds on Billboards, in sporting stadiums
Adds in magazines
Tobaco was sponsoring car races etc....

So where the fuck does the public see that big oil is trying to influence John Q. Public?

Fucking idiots

 

[healthmyths]

View attachment 54014

View attachment 54019

One is anomaly and one is temperature.

And here is one reporting station before computers, satellites, etc...

Remember this is done by reading a thermometer mercury rise or fall.
Tell me how you can discriminate between 60 degrees and 58 degrees?
This was all done for nearly 100 years from 1860s to 1960s and recorded like the below sheet.
Is it possible those readings could have been very hard to read and remember the sheets are transposed to a world average increase of 1.5 degrees f.!

 

[healthmyths]

Also help me understand why was 12.5% of the Earth's land mass NOT included in the 60 years of temperature readings?
When "The number of [Siberian] stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present only four (4) stations, those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations…
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass.
The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Climategatekeeping: Siberia

 

[candycorn]

So the GOP position is that pollution is a good thing?

 

[Rustic]

The above is an example of carbon corporate money at work, two reasons, one the obvious, money, the second political or ideological contradiction. Combined they keep the believers believing. Check out Agnotology sometime and this book is excellent for the interested reader.

'Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming' Naomi Oreskes, Erik M. M. Conway

'Gawd provided checks and balances on Global Warming' | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Republican Politicians Are Paid To Be Stupid


House 'Science' Committee Witch Hunt is Worse than Benghazi!


Is The Earth Past A Point of No Return?
Is The Earth Past A Point of No Return?

'The Danger The Planet Faces Because Human Instinct Overpowers Human Reason'
The Danger The Planet Faces Because Human Instinct Overpowers Human Reason

2014 Was The Hottest Year Since At Least 1880, Government Finds'
2014 Was The Hottest Year On Record

Agnotology is the study of culturally induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data.

You tards amuse me when you try to compare tobacco with man made climate change...

Ok if that's the case numb nuts where is all the money going to fool the public??????

With tobacco we were bombarded with :

Comercials on television
Adds on Billboards, in sporting stadiums
Adds in magazines
Tobaco was sponsoring car races etc....

So where the fuck does the public see that big oil is trying to influence John Q. Public?

Fucking idiots

They don't...
How about the "man made climate change" people put their money where their mouth is.... AND STOP USING FOSSIL FUELS?!?!?!?
The worthless bastards refuse to do what they are telling others to do... On an guess pseudoscientists are making up.
But then again it is much harder to follow thru and do something, rather than saying you're going to do something.

Hashtag Their talk is cheap, their actions speak to how cheap their talk is...

 

[Freewill]

So the GOP position is that pollution is a good thing?

Are we talking GW/CC or are we talking pollution? If pollution then I suggest your memory is faulty or you just are not old enough to remember who started the EPA and got the first clean water act passed. (hint, it was not a democrat)

 

[Theowl32]

So the GOP position is that pollution is a good thing?

Look everyone. Human sheep.