Where Did ’97 Percent’ Global Warming Consensus Figure Come From?

[HelenaHandbag]

1) Geologists have VERY limited input into global climate research
2) Geologists know diddly-squat about atmospheric processes
3) Geologists largest employer, by far, is the fossil fuel industry
4) The 97% figure is the percentage OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS who accept AGW
5) You've been a numbskull lately.

Climate scientists are scientists like phrenologists are scientists. It is a soft science...it is a career you pursue if you aren't smart enough to become a meteorologist.

It is a career you pursue if you are not smart enough to become a wallpaper hanger.

 

[SSDD]

1) Geologists have VERY limited input into global climate research
2) Geologists know diddly-squat about atmospheric processes
3) Geologists largest employer, by far, is the fossil fuel industry
4) The 97% figure is the percentage OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS who accept AGW
5) You've been a numbskull lately.

Climate scientists are scientists like phrenologists are scientists. It is a soft science...it is a career you pursue if you aren't smart enough to become a meteorologist.

It is a career you pursue if you are not smart enough to become a wallpaper hanger.

Well they do have to pass a single calc I class. I understand you can be a wallpaper hanger if you never get past trig.

 

[Crick]

These, quite obviously, would be the opinions of folk who've never seen the inside of a college campus.

As you state, there is no curricula named "climate science". So, generally, one finds atmospheric scientists, chemists, physicists, oceanographers, mathematicians and other, lightweight majors like that, going into climate sciences.

Meteorologists are generally trained to present weather reports to the unwashed masses without embarrassing themselves.

 

[SSDD]

These, quite obviously, would be the opinions of folk who've never seen the inside of a college campus.

As you state, there is no curricula named "climate science". So, generally, one finds atmospheric scientists, chemists, physicists, oceanographers, mathematicians and other, lightweight majors like that, going into climate sciences.

Meteorologists are generally trained to present weather reports to the unwashed masses without embarrassing themselves.

You might actually try looking at a college catalog before making such a statement

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[mamooth]

So have you seen Tol's latest faceplant on this topic? That kook tried to write a paper disproving Cook, but botched it laughably, and ended up demonstrating Cook was even more correct.

That is, Tol suffered the same fate as all of the Cook Derangement Syndrome crowd. The more he talked, the more he revealed him to be a clueless cultist. Meanwhile, the data showed Cook and all the other studies that found the same thing had the correct results.

Keep trying, deniers. If your political cult doesn't like the results, simply attack the people. That's how science is done, you know. For example, history looks very fondly at those who personally attacked Einstein because they didn't like relativity.

 

[flacaltenn]

These, quite obviously, would be the opinions of folk who've never seen the inside of a college campus.

As you state, there is no curricula named "climate science". So, generally, one finds atmospheric scientists, chemists, physicists, oceanographers, mathematicians and other, lightweight majors like that, going into climate sciences.

Meteorologists are generally trained to present weather reports to the unwashed masses without embarrassing themselves.

Every freakin time you opine about academics or technical details you demonstrate what a Crick you really are..

We have argued over papers published by morons whos credentials are a Master thesis in Climate Change effects on Recreational Resources. And I'm SURE we've argued about similar whackjobs who's studies came largely from Geography depts offering Climate Science certs for folks who studied most poly sci and NEVER hard sciences.. Do you know the diff between Geography and Geology?

Contrary to your assertions, Climate Science degrees are plentiful and common place. And often they are softer than a poly sci degree.

Masters Degree Program in Climate & Society | Earth and Environmental Sciences



The M.A. Program in Climate and Society is a twelve-month interdisciplinary Master of Arts program that trains professionals and academics to understand and cope with the impacts of climate variability and climate change on society and the environment. Through classes and research, students gain knowledge in both climate science as well as social sciences as they relate to climate.

Columbia University and the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory are at the forefront of research on climate and climate applications. The M.A Program in Climate and Society combines elements of established programs in earth sciences, earth engineering, international relations, political science, sociology, and economics with unique classes in interdisciplinary applications specially designed for the program’s students.

Core Courses ? Master of Arts Program in Climate and Society

Electives ? Master of Arts Program in Climate and Society

THOSE are the folks your heroes at SkepticalScience count as outstanding pulblishers in their field. Now CONTRAST THAT SHIT with a typical Geology Science background..

https://www.sfsu.edu/bulletin/programs/geosci.htm#673104

Bachelor of Science in Geology
The Bachelor of Science in Geology is designed for students intending to prepare for graduate school in geology or for direct entry into a career as a professional geologist in industry or government. The geology major provides students with a fundamental background in the physical sciences and many areas of geology necessary for an in-depth comprehension of the subject. Entry to the major presupposes prior course work comprising the high school equivalents of two years of algebra, one year of plane geometry, one-half year of trigonometry, and one year of physics and/or chemistry.

On-line course descriptions are available.

Basic Science and Mathematics
Course Title
CHEM 115 General Chemistry I: Essential Concepts of Chemistry (5)
CHEM 215/
CHEM 216 General Chemistry II: Quantitative Applications of Chemistry Concepts/Laboratory (3/2)
MATH 226 Calculus I (4)
GEOL 125
or
MATH 227 Quantitative Geology (4)

Calculus II (4)
PHYS 111/
PHYS 112
or
PHYS 220/
PHYS 222 General Physics I/Laboratory (3/1)


General Physics with Calculus I/Laboratory (3/1)
PHYS 121/
PHYS 122
or
PHYS 240/
PHYS 242 General Physics II/ Laboratory (3/1)


General Physics with Calculus III/Laboratory (3/1)
Total basic science and mathematics requirements: 26

Basic Geology Core
Course Title
GEOL 110 Physical Geology (4)
GEOL 115 Earth and Life through Time (4)
GEOL 120 Introduction to Geologic Techniques (2)
GEOL 420 Mineralogy and Petrology I (4)
GEOL 430 Structural Geology (4)
GEOL 460 GW Sedimentology and Stratigraphy - GWAR (4)
GEOL 695 Field Methods in Geology (2)
Total basic geology core requirements: 24

Advanced Geology Core
Complete at least 7 units
Select at least one quantitative course**
Course Title
GEOL 426 Mineralogy and Petrology II (4)
GEOL 450 Geomorphology** (4)
OCN 410 Coastal Processes**
GEOL 475 Hydrogeology** (4)
GEOL 458 GW Earth’s Climate History - GWAR (4)
GEOL 480 Geochemistry** (4)
Total advanced geology core requirements: 7

Capstone
Complete at least 4 units from the courses below.
A field geology course from another university (4 - 6 units)
(see Field Geology Course Information for examples
Course Title
GEOL 697 Undergraduate Research (2)
GEOL 698 Senior Research and Thesis (2)
Total capstone requirement: 4

Electives
On advisement, complete at least 8 units of courses numbered 400 or higher in geology (or a closely related field), such as courses listed below or not already selected from the advanced geology core or capstone.
Course Title
GEOL 400 Physical Geology in the Field (1)
GEOL 402 Coastal Geology in the Field (1)
GEOL 405/
METR 405/
OCN 405 Planetary Climate Change/ (4)
GEOL 410 Volcanology
GEOL 454 Quaternary Climate and Soils
GEOL 470 Neotectonics
GEOL 473 Surface Water Hydrology
GEOL 474 Engineering Geology
GEOL 476 Groundwater Contamination
GEOL 485 Ore Deposits (4)
GEOL 590 Seminar in Geosciences (2)
GEOL 642 Watershed Assessment and Restoration (4)
GEOL 699 Special Study (1-3)
OCN 420 Physical Oceanography
METR 415 Remote Sensing of the Atmosphere and Ocean

Who are the better qualified "Climate Scientists" ?? You need to STFU and not lecture us about what academic paths exist at Universities. I've been an enrolled student/researcher/assistant at 4 MAJOR Universities and have taken seminars and courses at 3 or 5 others.

You have no idea who is involved and qualified to follow Climate System discussions.. OR to intelligiently comment on the paltry and juvenile research that your Global Warming arguments are based on.. There's not really much THERE --- there...

 

[Crick]

Who are the better qualified "Climate Scientists" ?? You need to STFU and not lecture us about what academic paths exist at Universities. I've been an enrolled student/researcher/assistant at 4 MAJOR Universities and have taken seminars and courses at 3 or 5 others.

You have no idea who is involved and qualified to follow Climate System discussions.. OR to intelligiently comment on the paltry and juvenile research that your Global Warming arguments are based on.. There's not really much THERE --- there...

No one with an MA in "Climate and Society" is doing research on global warming: atmospheric chemistry, atmospheric physics, physical or chemical oceanography, ice cores, sedimentary analysis, dendrochronology or any other technical aspect of the global warming problem. It's a program for administrators and politicians.

Again, the 97% figure applies to climate scientists. Geologists are not climate scientists. And the the fossil fuel industry (petroleum, natural gas and coal) is, by a large margin, the largest employer of geologists on the planet. There is a reason that prior to their 2007 statement accepting CO2 as the cause of the Earth's warming, "the American Association of Petroleum Geologists was the only major scientific organization that rejected the finding of significant human influence on recent climate". I bet you can't guess what it might have been.

I have been enrolled in five different colleges and universities and I know it means nothing. So I'm not impressed with your bona fides. I am not making - and have not made - any attempt to belittle geology as a hard science. I simply point out the fact that geology is not a study of the sun, the atmosphere or the ocean. Geologists would certainly be involved in historical reconstructions from geological samples, from a discussion of weathering on ocean acidifcation and others. They would not be the experts one would seek out if one was looking for information on the greenhouse effect or human GHG emissions since the beginning of the Industrial Age.

PS: As a moderator here, I don't think it proper for you to be telling me to "shut the **** up".

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Climate scientists are scientists like phrenologists are scientists. It is a soft science...it is a career you pursue if you aren't smart enough to become a meteorologist.

It is a career you pursue if you are not smart enough to become a wallpaper hanger.

Well they do have to pass a single calc I class. I understand you can be a wallpaper hanger if you never get past trig.

But at least a wallpaper hanger has honest work.

 

[MaxGrit]

Who are the better qualified "Climate Scientists" ?? You need to STFU and not lecture us about what academic paths exist at Universities. I've been an enrolled student/researcher/assistant at 4 MAJOR Universities and have taken seminars and courses at 3 or 5 others.

You have no idea who is involved and qualified to follow Climate System discussions.. OR to intelligiently comment on the paltry and juvenile research that your Global Warming arguments are based on.. There's not really much THERE --- there...

No one with an MA in "Climate and Society" is doing research on global warming: atmospheric chemistry, atmospheric physics, physical or chemical oceanography, ice cores, sedimentary analysis, dendrochronology or any other technical aspect of the global warming problem. It's a program for administrators and politicians.

Again, the 97% figure applies to climate scientists. Geologists are not climate scientists. And the the fossil fuel industry (petroleum, natural gas and coal) is, by a large margin, the largest employer of geologists on the planet. There is a reason that prior to their 2007 statement accepting CO2 as the cause of the Earth's warming, "the American Association of Petroleum Geologists was the only major scientific organization that rejected the finding of significant human influence on recent climate". I bet you can't guess what it might have been.

I have been enrolled in five different colleges and universities and I know it means nothing. So I'm not impressed with your bona fides. I am not making - and have not made - any attempt to belittle geology as a hard science. I simply point out the fact that geology is not a study of the sun, the atmosphere or the ocean. Geologists would certainly be involved in historical reconstructions from geological samples, from a discussion of weathering on ocean acidifcation and others. They would not be the experts one would seek out if one was looking for information on the greenhouse effect or human GHG emissions since the beginning of the Industrial Age.

PS: As a moderator here, I don't think it proper for you to be telling me to "shut the **** up".

Shut the **** up with the 97% bullshit. Everyone know it's a lie by now.

 

[Crick]

Sure it is. And you can show us the evidence. Right?

 

[jillian]

Who are the better qualified "Climate Scientists" ?? You need to STFU and not lecture us about what academic paths exist at Universities. I've been an enrolled student/researcher/assistant at 4 MAJOR Universities and have taken seminars and courses at 3 or 5 others.

You have no idea who is involved and qualified to follow Climate System discussions.. OR to intelligiently comment on the paltry and juvenile research that your Global Warming arguments are based on.. There's not really much THERE --- there...

No one with an MA in "Climate and Society" is doing research on global warming: atmospheric chemistry, atmospheric physics, physical or chemical oceanography, ice cores, sedimentary analysis, dendrochronology or any other technical aspect of the global warming problem. It's a program for administrators and politicians.

Again, the 97% figure applies to climate scientists. Geologists are not climate scientists. And the the fossil fuel industry (petroleum, natural gas and coal) is, by a large margin, the largest employer of geologists on the planet. There is a reason that prior to their 2007 statement accepting CO2 as the cause of the Earth's warming, "the American Association of Petroleum Geologists was the only major scientific organization that rejected the finding of significant human influence on recent climate". I bet you can't guess what it might have been.

I have been enrolled in five different colleges and universities and I know it means nothing. So I'm not impressed with your bona fides. I am not making - and have not made - any attempt to belittle geology as a hard science. I simply point out the fact that geology is not a study of the sun, the atmosphere or the ocean. Geologists would certainly be involved in historical reconstructions from geological samples, from a discussion of weathering on ocean acidifcation and others. They would not be the experts one would seek out if one was looking for information on the greenhouse effect or human GHG emissions since the beginning of the Industrial Age.

PS: As a moderator here, I don't think it proper for you to be telling me to "shut the **** up".

Shut the **** up with the 97% bullshit. Everyone know it's a lie by now.

your ranting and raving and making that claim does not change the science.

the radical right has tried to deny science every time steps are taken to protect our environment.

nothing changes... your hatred for science notwithstanding.

 

[jc456]

No one with an MA in "Climate and Society" is doing research on global warming: atmospheric chemistry, atmospheric physics, physical or chemical oceanography, ice cores, sedimentary analysis, dendrochronology or any other technical aspect of the global warming problem. It's a program for administrators and politicians.

Again, the 97% figure applies to climate scientists. Geologists are not climate scientists. And the the fossil fuel industry (petroleum, natural gas and coal) is, by a large margin, the largest employer of geologists on the planet. There is a reason that prior to their 2007 statement accepting CO2 as the cause of the Earth's warming, "the American Association of Petroleum Geologists was the only major scientific organization that rejected the finding of significant human influence on recent climate". I bet you can't guess what it might have been.

I have been enrolled in five different colleges and universities and I know it means nothing. So I'm not impressed with your bona fides. I am not making - and have not made - any attempt to belittle geology as a hard science. I simply point out the fact that geology is not a study of the sun, the atmosphere or the ocean. Geologists would certainly be involved in historical reconstructions from geological samples, from a discussion of weathering on ocean acidifcation and others. They would not be the experts one would seek out if one was looking for information on the greenhouse effect or human GHG emissions since the beginning of the Industrial Age.

PS: As a moderator here, I don't think it proper for you to be telling me to "shut the **** up".

Shut the **** up with the 97% bullshit. Everyone know it's a lie by now.

your ranting and raving and making that claim does not change the science.

the radical right has tried to deny science every time steps are taken to protect our environment.

nothing changes... your hatred for science notwithstanding.

So, do you actually have evidence to support that 120PPM of CO2 drives temperature? No one else on here can. So do you actually have that or do you work mainly off of faith from your religous leaders?

 

[mamooth]

jc, this board has a no spamming rule. Please start following it.

 

[jc456]

jc, this board has a no spamming rule. Please start following it.

So leave!

You made a claim and you can't back it up with fact or proof of claim!

 

[flacaltenn]

Sure it is. And you can show us the evidence. Right?

If you're basing this on the Cook study or it's predecessor --- it's been disproved. And that lot was disingenuous Bullshit.. As is anything from the septic tank at skepticalscience.

 

[mamooth]

jc, this board has a no spamming rule. Please start following it.

So leave!

You made a claim and you can't back it up with fact or proof of claim!

You can cry all you want about how unfair it is, but this board still has a clearly written no spamming rule. Posters are not allowed to keep posting the exact same thing across multiple threads. You are violating board rules. Please stop. That is, quit pasting your rant about CO2 across every damn thread, even the ones having nothing to do with CO2.

 

[mamooth]

If you're basing this on the Cook study or it's predecessor --- it's been disproved. And that lot was disingenuous Bullshit.. As is anything from the septic tank at skepticalscience.

Cook Derangement Syndrome. Just one of the many similar Derangment Syndromes you'll see from deniers. (Gore Derangement Syndrome, Mann Derangement Syndrome, Hansen Derangement Syndrom, Skeptical Science Derangement Syndrome, and so on.)

What's the point of that routine? The data always says deniers are full of shit, so they can't talk about data. Instead, they have to invent reasons to demonize people, under the bizarre assumption that if they attack a person, the data will magically go away.

Sucks to be you flac, having nothing but conspiracy theories. You've worked hard to achieve your status as a joke, so revel in it.

 

[jc456]

jc, this board has a no spamming rule. Please start following it.

So leave!

You made a claim and you can't back it up with fact or proof of claim!

You can cry all you want about how unfair it is, but this board still has a clearly written no spamming rule. Posters are not allowed to keep posting the exact same thing across multiple threads. You are violating board rules. Please stop. That is, quit pasting your rant about CO2 across every damn thread, even the ones having nothing to do with CO2.

So why not show your evidence than? See, you keep ignoring posts that request that experiment, you don't get to get off by saying ...spam, spam, talk about a whiner. Just show your evidence. And OBTW, I'm not the only one who is asking repeatedly for it, so why not make that same spam comment to each of them as well? Ah, then you really look like a whiner, but alas, you have no validation of your claim. Sorry, but evidence is necessary to back your claim.

 

[Crick]

Are you unable to look for it yourself? Thousands of such experiments have been done yet you can find no trace of any of them? Are we actually supposed to believe that?

Have any of you ever heard of Google?

 

[jc456]

Are you unable to look for it yourself? Thousands of such experiments have been done yet you can find no trace of any of them? Are we actually supposed to believe that?

Have any of you ever heard of Google?

Oh contrar....I did look for it and I didn't find any evidence to support your claim. So if you'd like for me to get off of my soap box on evidence, just validate your claim with a post of the experiment that shows 120PPM drives climate. You just posted you have thousands of them, so help a man out and deliver said experiment.

hah...................................hah..............