Why we should listen to the 97%

[Abraham3]

I'm sorry but it's really not.

Five different studies find nearly identical numbers for AGW support among climate scientists. The criticisms you bring come neither from experts in climate science or statistics. They invariably attack single surveys and seem to pretend the rest don't exist. So... no, I'm not the one spewing swill into this forum.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm sorry but it's really not.

Five different studies find nearly identical numbers for AGW support among climate scientists. The criticisms you bring come neither from experts in climate science or statistics. They invariably attack single surveys and seem to pretend the rest don't exist. So... no, I'm not the one spewing swill into this forum.

The point is, Abraham, is that Bripat is right. Spitting into the ocean DOES raise the ocean level just as a butterfly flapping its wings in the Andes can affect the weather miles away. All climate scientists worth their salt would agree with that. But we have no instruments capable of even measuring, much less utilizing, variables at that level and no scientist worth his salt would say that such variables are significant to any living thing that exists.

Now extrapolate the same concept to global warming. Nobody, and I mean nobody would say that human activity does not affect the environment/weather/climate/global conditions. It does as the activity of all living things affects environment/weather/climate/global conditions.

So to say that 97% or even 100% of scientists worth their salt agree that humankind is contributing to global warming is an accurate statement. It is. We do.

But the problem comes in when you ask the same number of scientists whether human activity is contributing to global warming in a way that is hazardous or significant to the well being of the planet and the creatures that live on it. You will find a much MUCH lower percentage of scientists who will say that there is any conclusive or credible evidence of that, and almost all of those who do will be receiving grants from governments or groups who WANT there to be global warming.

Intelligent people take note of these facts.

AGW religionists wear blinders that keep them from even considering any other doctrine that what their religion preaches.

 

[PMZ]

I'm sorry but it's really not.

Five different studies find nearly identical numbers for AGW support among climate scientists. The criticisms you bring come neither from experts in climate science or statistics. They invariably attack single surveys and seem to pretend the rest don't exist. So... no, I'm not the one spewing swill into this forum.

The point is, Abraham, is that Bripat is right. Spitting into the ocean DOES raise the ocean level just as a butterfly flapping its wings in the Andes can affect the weather miles away. All climate scientists worth their salt would agree with that. But we have no instruments capable of even measuring, much less utilizing, variables at that level and no scientist worth his salt would say that such variables are significant to any living thing that exists.

Now extrapolate the same concept to global warming. Nobody, and I mean nobody would say that human activity does not affect the environment/weather/climate/global conditions. It does as the activity of all living things affects environment/weather/climate/global conditions.

So to say that 97% or even 100% of scientists worth their salt agree that humankind is contributing to global warming is an accurate statement. It is. We do.

But the problem comes in when you ask the same number of scientists whether human activity is contributing to global warming in a way that is hazardous or significant to the well being of the planet and the creatures that live on it. You will find a much MUCH lower percentage of scientists who will say that there is any conclusive or credible evidence of that, and almost all of those who do will be receiving grants from governments or groups who WANT there to be global warming.

Intelligent people take note of these facts.

AGW religionists wear blinders that keep them from even considering any other doctrine that what their religion preaches.

Certainly we are surviving today's level of AGW.

There are many things left to ponder though.

If we stopped today, what would be the ultimate consequences of our present GHG concentrations? Especially considering positive feedbacks.

We can't stop today, so our choice really is, how much of the carbon still in the ground should we leave sequestered?

We have to progress to sustainable energy at some point. Will we release all of the carbon that created a planet inhospitable to life the last time it was in our atmosphere no matter what we do? That would be utterly disastrous.

There are thousands of affordable ways to slow down the rate of making things worse, if, in fact, we still can avoid worse.

The only way that we're going to find them is through the work of the IPCC.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm sorry but it's really not.

Five different studies find nearly identical numbers for AGW support among climate scientists. The criticisms you bring come neither from experts in climate science or statistics. They invariably attack single surveys and seem to pretend the rest don't exist. So... no, I'm not the one spewing swill into this forum.

The point is, Abraham, is that Bripat is right. Spitting into the ocean DOES raise the ocean level just as a butterfly flapping its wings in the Andes can affect the weather miles away. All climate scientists worth their salt would agree with that. But we have no instruments capable of even measuring, much less utilizing, variables at that level and no scientist worth his salt would say that such variables are significant to any living thing that exists.

Now extrapolate the same concept to global warming. Nobody, and I mean nobody would say that human activity does not affect the environment/weather/climate/global conditions. It does as the activity of all living things affects environment/weather/climate/global conditions.

So to say that 97% or even 100% of scientists worth their salt agree that humankind is contributing to global warming is an accurate statement. It is. We do.

But the problem comes in when you ask the same number of scientists whether human activity is contributing to global warming in a way that is hazardous or significant to the well being of the planet and the creatures that live on it. You will find a much MUCH lower percentage of scientists who will say that there is any conclusive or credible evidence of that, and almost all of those who do will be receiving grants from governments or groups who WANT there to be global warming.

Intelligent people take note of these facts.

AGW religionists wear blinders that keep them from even considering any other doctrine that what their religion preaches.

Certainly we are surviving today's level of AGW.

There are many things left to ponder though.

If we stopped today, what would be the ultimate consequences of our present GHG concentrations? Especially considering positive feedbacks.

We can't stop today, so our choice really is, how much of the carbon still in the ground should we leave sequestered?

We have to progress to sustainable energy at some point. Will we release all of the carbon that created a planet inhospitable to life the last time it was in our atmosphere no matter what we do? That would be utterly disastrous.

There are thousands of affordable ways to slow down the rate of making things worse, if, in fact, we still can avoid worse.

The only way that we're going to find them is through the work of the IPCC.

IMO, the goal of the IPCC is not and has never been to reduce greenhouse emissions or the level of GHG in the atmosphere. If that was the goal, the insane carbon credit schemes would never have been implemented, the countries that are the largest GHG polluters (China and India) would have been front and foremost as targets to rein in instead of giving them exemptions which they both got.

It is reasonable to be highly suspicious that the goal is to put the nations--at least the ones that they can hoodwink and manipulate--under one world law or international control.

If the IPCC was as honest and honorably motivated as the AGW religionist want to believe it is, it would not need to resort to so many underhanded, manipulative, and dishonest tactics to further its religion in the world.

Freedom loving people must always question the motives of those who would control what libeties we are allowed to have and would dictate to us what choices, option, and opportunities we will be allowed.

 

[numan]

'

Foxfyre is in favor of a mass suicide pact in defence of Liberty.

.

 

[daveman]

The 97% is demonstrably real.

The contention that they are PROBABLY correct, is unassailable.

REAL science is NEVER settled.

 

[daveman]

'

Foxfyre is in favor of a mass suicide pact in defence of Liberty.

.

You're in favor of putting a bullet in everyone's head to save them.

 

[flacaltenn]

The 97% is demonstrably real.

The contention that they are PROBABLY correct, is unassailable.

Still this 97% consensus exists only in the voices in your head --- AND in a full of baloney "study" produced and directed by the WORST science blog on the web..

skepticalscience.com

Who had to lie and CHEAT to promulgate the PERCEPTION that 97% of climate scientists agree with every little voice in your head..
It is a CRAPPY STUNT to study 1100 global warming papers and discard the 60% that gave NO EXPRESS OPINION on the anthro origins or magnitude of the threat ----

.... and then count ONLY the 40% that DID express ANY OPINION --- and claim that means 97% of ALL climate scientists are in "consensus"..

If that's your level of dialogue here ---- you're not even gonna win the HS drop out demographic..

 

[Foxfyre]

'

Foxfyre is in favor of a mass suicide pact in defence of Liberty.

.

Like most liberals, Numan is incapable of discussing a concept but rather resorts to idiotic and stupid ad hominem one liners.

 

[Abraham3]

I'm sorry but it's really not.

Five different studies find nearly identical numbers for AGW support among climate scientists. The criticisms you bring come neither from experts in climate science or statistics. They invariably attack single surveys and seem to pretend the rest don't exist. So... no, I'm not the one spewing swill into this forum.

The point is, Abraham, is that Bripat is right. Spitting into the ocean DOES raise the ocean level just as a butterfly flapping its wings in the Andes can affect the weather miles away. All climate scientists worth their salt would agree with that. But we have no instruments capable of even measuring, much less utilizing, variables at that level and no scientist worth his salt would say that such variables are significant to any living thing that exists.

Now extrapolate the same concept to global warming. Nobody, and I mean nobody would say that human activity does not affect the environment/weather/climate/global conditions. It does as the activity of all living things affects environment/weather/climate/global conditions.

So to say that 97% or even 100% of scientists worth their salt agree that humankind is contributing to global warming is an accurate statement. It is. We do.

But the problem comes in when you ask the same number of scientists whether human activity is contributing to global warming in a way that is hazardous or significant to the well being of the planet and the creatures that live on it. You will find a much MUCH lower percentage of scientists who will say that there is any conclusive or credible evidence of that, and almost all of those who do will be receiving grants from governments or groups who WANT there to be global warming.

Intelligent people take note of these facts.

AGW religionists wear blinders that keep them from even considering any other doctrine that what their religion preaches.

The question, as understood by every person across the planet with the slightest interest in global warming, has ALWAYS been: are human GHG emissions the DOMINANT or PRIMARY or MAJOR factor causing global warming over the last 150 years. To suggest that they are all responding to a "spitting in the ocean" scenario is unsupportable. Most of the five surveys clearly ask about dominant causes and all five surveys accumulate nearly identical results.

Surely you people realize how far you are having to stretch to argue against this point.

THERE IS A CONSENSUS AMONG CLIMATE SCIENTISTS THAT GLOBAL WARMING OVER THE LAST 150 YEARS HAS BEEN PREDOMINANTLY ANTHROPOGENIC IN NATURE.

To dispute that is to mark yourself as being interested in something other than the truth.

 

[PMZ]

The point is, Abraham, is that Bripat is right. Spitting into the ocean DOES raise the ocean level just as a butterfly flapping its wings in the Andes can affect the weather miles away. All climate scientists worth their salt would agree with that. But we have no instruments capable of even measuring, much less utilizing, variables at that level and no scientist worth his salt would say that such variables are significant to any living thing that exists.

Now extrapolate the same concept to global warming. Nobody, and I mean nobody would say that human activity does not affect the environment/weather/climate/global conditions. It does as the activity of all living things affects environment/weather/climate/global conditions.

So to say that 97% or even 100% of scientists worth their salt agree that humankind is contributing to global warming is an accurate statement. It is. We do.

But the problem comes in when you ask the same number of scientists whether human activity is contributing to global warming in a way that is hazardous or significant to the well being of the planet and the creatures that live on it. You will find a much MUCH lower percentage of scientists who will say that there is any conclusive or credible evidence of that, and almost all of those who do will be receiving grants from governments or groups who WANT there to be global warming.

Intelligent people take note of these facts.

AGW religionists wear blinders that keep them from even considering any other doctrine that what their religion preaches.

Certainly we are surviving today's level of AGW.

There are many things left to ponder though.

If we stopped today, what would be the ultimate consequences of our present GHG concentrations? Especially considering positive feedbacks.

We can't stop today, so our choice really is, how much of the carbon still in the ground should we leave sequestered?

We have to progress to sustainable energy at some point. Will we release all of the carbon that created a planet inhospitable to life the last time it was in our atmosphere no matter what we do? That would be utterly disastrous.

There are thousands of affordable ways to slow down the rate of making things worse, if, in fact, we still can avoid worse.

The only way that we're going to find them is through the work of the IPCC.

IMO, the goal of the IPCC is not and has never been to reduce greenhouse emissions or the level of GHG in the atmosphere. If that was the goal, the insane carbon credit schemes would never have been implemented, the countries that are the largest GHG polluters (China and India) would have been front and foremost as targets to rein in instead of giving them exemptions which they both got.

It is reasonable to be highly suspicious that the goal is to put the nations--at least the ones that they can hoodwink and manipulate--under one world law or international control.

If the IPCC was as honest and honorably motivated as the AGW religionist want to believe it is, it would not need to resort to so many underhanded, manipulative, and dishonest tactics to further its religion in the world.

Freedom loving people must always question the motives of those who would control what libeties we are allowed to have and would dictate to us what choices, option, and opportunities we will be allowed.

The goal of the IPCC is to manage and report to the UN the ever on-going developing science of AGW. The only reasons to believe otherwise are politically motivated.

 

[PMZ]

The 97% is demonstrably real.

The contention that they are PROBABLY correct, is unassailable.

REAL science is NEVER settled.

Define settled. If you mean static, I agree. If you mean something else, what?

 

[PMZ]

'

Foxfyre is in favor of a mass suicide pact in defence of Liberty.

.

You're in favor of putting a bullet in everyone's head to save them.

I thought that that was the job of gunslingers.

 

[daveman]

Certainly we are surviving today's level of AGW.

There are many things left to ponder though.

If we stopped today, what would be the ultimate consequences of our present GHG concentrations? Especially considering positive feedbacks.

We can't stop today, so our choice really is, how much of the carbon still in the ground should we leave sequestered?

We have to progress to sustainable energy at some point. Will we release all of the carbon that created a planet inhospitable to life the last time it was in our atmosphere no matter what we do? That would be utterly disastrous.

There are thousands of affordable ways to slow down the rate of making things worse, if, in fact, we still can avoid worse.

The only way that we're going to find them is through the work of the IPCC.

IMO, the goal of the IPCC is not and has never been to reduce greenhouse emissions or the level of GHG in the atmosphere. If that was the goal, the insane carbon credit schemes would never have been implemented, the countries that are the largest GHG polluters (China and India) would have been front and foremost as targets to rein in instead of giving them exemptions which they both got.

It is reasonable to be highly suspicious that the goal is to put the nations--at least the ones that they can hoodwink and manipulate--under one world law or international control.

If the IPCC was as honest and honorably motivated as the AGW religionist want to believe it is, it would not need to resort to so many underhanded, manipulative, and dishonest tactics to further its religion in the world.

Freedom loving people must always question the motives of those who would control what libeties we are allowed to have and would dictate to us what choices, option, and opportunities we will be allowed.

The goal of the IPCC is to manage and report to the UN the ever on-going developing science of AGW. The only reasons to believe otherwise are politically motivated.

The IPCC is fatally flawed, riddled with corruption and incompetence.

The proof is here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/312288-is-this-sop-at-the-ipcc.html

 

[daveman]

The 97% is demonstrably real.

The contention that they are PROBABLY correct, is unassailable.

REAL science is NEVER settled.

Define settled. If you mean static, I agree. If you mean something else, what?

I mean what retards mean when they say the science is settled.

What do you mean when you say it?

 

[daveman]

'

Foxfyre is in favor of a mass suicide pact in defence of Liberty.

.

You're in favor of putting a bullet in everyone's head to save them.

I thought that that was the job of gunslingers.

In the Dark Tower series, mostly, gunslingers are diplomats.

 

[westwall]

The 97% is demonstrably real.

The contention that they are PROBABLY correct, is unassailable.

"that they are PROBABLY correct is unassailable".....

What a laughable statement....

 

[westwall]

I'm sorry but it's really not.

Five different studies find nearly identical numbers for AGW support among climate scientists. The criticisms you bring come neither from experts in climate science or statistics. They invariably attack single surveys and seem to pretend the rest don't exist. So... no, I'm not the one spewing swill into this forum.

The point is, Abraham, is that Bripat is right. Spitting into the ocean DOES raise the ocean level just as a butterfly flapping its wings in the Andes can affect the weather miles away. All climate scientists worth their salt would agree with that. But we have no instruments capable of even measuring, much less utilizing, variables at that level and no scientist worth his salt would say that such variables are significant to any living thing that exists.

Now extrapolate the same concept to global warming. Nobody, and I mean nobody would say that human activity does not affect the environment/weather/climate/global conditions. It does as the activity of all living things affects environment/weather/climate/global conditions.

So to say that 97% or even 100% of scientists worth their salt agree that humankind is contributing to global warming is an accurate statement. It is. We do.

But the problem comes in when you ask the same number of scientists whether human activity is contributing to global warming in a way that is hazardous or significant to the well being of the planet and the creatures that live on it. You will find a much MUCH lower percentage of scientists who will say that there is any conclusive or credible evidence of that, and almost all of those who do will be receiving grants from governments or groups who WANT there to be global warming.

Intelligent people take note of these facts.

AGW religionists wear blinders that keep them from even considering any other doctrine that what their religion preaches.

The question, as understood by every person across the planet with the slightest interest in global warming, has ALWAYS been: are human GHG emissions the DOMINANT or PRIMARY or MAJOR factor causing global warming over the last 150 years. To suggest that they are all responding to a "spitting in the ocean" scenario is unsupportable. Most of the five surveys clearly ask about dominant causes and all five surveys accumulate nearly identical results.

Surely you people realize how far you are having to stretch to argue against this point.

THERE IS A CONSENSUS AMONG CLIMATE SCIENTISTS THAT GLOBAL WARMING OVER THE LAST 150 YEARS HAS BEEN PREDOMINANTLY ANTHROPOGENIC IN NATURE.

To dispute that is to mark yourself as being interested in something other than the truth.

No, to dispute that statement is to reinforce the observation that climatology and climatologists who push that agenda are not dealing with reality or with facts. They are dealing purely in propaganda. There is zero empirical data to support their opinion. All they have are computer models of proven incompetence.

Sceptics on the other hand have the foundation of the scientific method, the principle of uniformitarianism, and of course historical fact to support us.

 

[daveman]

The point is, Abraham, is that Bripat is right. Spitting into the ocean DOES raise the ocean level just as a butterfly flapping its wings in the Andes can affect the weather miles away. All climate scientists worth their salt would agree with that. But we have no instruments capable of even measuring, much less utilizing, variables at that level and no scientist worth his salt would say that such variables are significant to any living thing that exists.

Now extrapolate the same concept to global warming. Nobody, and I mean nobody would say that human activity does not affect the environment/weather/climate/global conditions. It does as the activity of all living things affects environment/weather/climate/global conditions.

So to say that 97% or even 100% of scientists worth their salt agree that humankind is contributing to global warming is an accurate statement. It is. We do.

But the problem comes in when you ask the same number of scientists whether human activity is contributing to global warming in a way that is hazardous or significant to the well being of the planet and the creatures that live on it. You will find a much MUCH lower percentage of scientists who will say that there is any conclusive or credible evidence of that, and almost all of those who do will be receiving grants from governments or groups who WANT there to be global warming.

Intelligent people take note of these facts.

AGW religionists wear blinders that keep them from even considering any other doctrine that what their religion preaches.

The question, as understood by every person across the planet with the slightest interest in global warming, has ALWAYS been: are human GHG emissions the DOMINANT or PRIMARY or MAJOR factor causing global warming over the last 150 years. To suggest that they are all responding to a "spitting in the ocean" scenario is unsupportable. Most of the five surveys clearly ask about dominant causes and all five surveys accumulate nearly identical results.

Surely you people realize how far you are having to stretch to argue against this point.

THERE IS A CONSENSUS AMONG CLIMATE SCIENTISTS THAT GLOBAL WARMING OVER THE LAST 150 YEARS HAS BEEN PREDOMINANTLY ANTHROPOGENIC IN NATURE.

To dispute that is to mark yourself as being interested in something other than the truth.

No, to dispute that statement is to reinforce the observation that climatology and climatologists who push that agenda are not dealing with reality or with facts. They are dealing purely in propaganda. There is zero empirical data to support their opinion. All they have are computer models of proven incompetence.

Sceptics on the other hand have the foundation of the scientific method, the principle of uniformitarianism, and of course historical fact to support us.

Nuh-uh! Nuh-UH!! NUH-UH, you big DOODYHEAD!!!

/Abraham3

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm sorry but it's really not.

Five different studies find nearly identical numbers for AGW support among climate scientists. The criticisms you bring come neither from experts in climate science or statistics. They invariably attack single surveys and seem to pretend the rest don't exist. So... no, I'm not the one spewing swill into this forum.

The point is, Abraham, is that Bripat is right. Spitting into the ocean DOES raise the ocean level just as a butterfly flapping its wings in the Andes can affect the weather miles away. All climate scientists worth their salt would agree with that. But we have no instruments capable of even measuring, much less utilizing, variables at that level and no scientist worth his salt would say that such variables are significant to any living thing that exists.

Now extrapolate the same concept to global warming. Nobody, and I mean nobody would say that human activity does not affect the environment/weather/climate/global conditions. It does as the activity of all living things affects environment/weather/climate/global conditions.

So to say that 97% or even 100% of scientists worth their salt agree that humankind is contributing to global warming is an accurate statement. It is. We do.

But the problem comes in when you ask the same number of scientists whether human activity is contributing to global warming in a way that is hazardous or significant to the well being of the planet and the creatures that live on it. You will find a much MUCH lower percentage of scientists who will say that there is any conclusive or credible evidence of that, and almost all of those who do will be receiving grants from governments or groups who WANT there to be global warming.

Intelligent people take note of these facts.

AGW religionists wear blinders that keep them from even considering any other doctrine that what their religion preaches.

The question, as understood by every person across the planet with the slightest interest in global warming, has ALWAYS been: are human GHG emissions the DOMINANT or PRIMARY or MAJOR factor causing global warming over the last 150 years. To suggest that they are all responding to a "spitting in the ocean" scenario is unsupportable. Most of the five surveys clearly ask about dominant causes and all five surveys accumulate nearly identical results.

Surely you people realize how far you are having to stretch to argue against this point.

THERE IS A CONSENSUS AMONG CLIMATE SCIENTISTS THAT GLOBAL WARMING OVER THE LAST 150 YEARS HAS BEEN PREDOMINANTLY ANTHROPOGENIC IN NATURE.

To dispute that is to mark yourself as being interested in something other than the truth.

And in rebuttal:

It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respond The “even larger climate shocks” you have mentioned would be worse if the world cooled than if it warmed. Climate changes naturally all the time, sometimes dramatically. The hypothesis that our emissions of CO2 have caused, or will cause, dangerous warming is not supported by the evidence.
ents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations

H.E. Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary-General, United Nations

First Avenue and East 44th Street, New York, New York, U.S.A.

November 29, 2012

Mr. Secretary-General:

On November 9 this year you told the General Assembly: “Extreme weather due to climate change is the new normal … Our challenge remains, clear and urgent: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to strengthen adaptation to … even larger climate shocks … and to reach a legally binding climate agreement by 2015 … This should be one of the main lessons of Hurricane Sandy.”

On November 13 you said at Yale: “The science is clear; we should waste no more time on that debate.”

The following day, in Al Gore’s “Dirty Weather” Webcast, you spoke of “more severe storms, harsher droughts, greater floods”, concluding: “Two weeks ago, Hurricane Sandy struck the eastern seaboard of the United States. A nation saw the reality of climate change. The recovery will cost tens of billions of dollars. The cost of inaction will be even higher. We must reduce our dependence on carbon emissions.”

We the undersigned, qualified in climate-related matters, wish to state that current scientific knowledge does not substantiate your assertions.

The U.K. Met Office recently released data showing that there has been no statistically significant global warming for almost 16 years. During this period, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations rose by nearly 9% to now constitute 0.039% of the atmosphere. Global warming that has not occurred cannot have caused the extreme weather of the past few years. Whether, when and how atmospheric warming will resume is unknown. The science is unclear. Some scientists point out that near-term natural cooling, linked to variations in solar output, is also a distinct possibility.

Policy actions that aim to reduce CO2 emissions are unlikely to influence future climate. Policies need to focus on preparation for, and adaptation to, all dangerous climatic events, however caused.

Open letter to UN Secretary-General: Current scientific knowledge does not substantiate Ban Ki-Moon assertions on weather and climate, say 125-plus scientists | Financial Post