Yes, 97%

[jc456]

Just goes to show how beyond gone these AGW freaks are.......they claim to be staunch environmentalists.........but on the subject of mercury? Their attitude is "meh".

******* phonies........

Skook, is there a even single moron conspiracy theory anywhere that you haven't fallen for?

You're just a profoundly stupid human being. And there's nothing wrong with that, as long as you know your limits. There is, however, something wrong with your belligerent ignorance, which is inexcusable.

So, any other other deniers want to hop on skook's "Vaccines cause autism!" idiot bandwagon?

All vaccines make pharmaceutical companies money. Whether or not they actually do any good is up for debate. I don't think the whole autism thing has been wound down yet.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Just goes to show how beyond gone these AGW freaks are.......they claim to be staunch environmentalists.........but on the subject of mercury? Their attitude is "meh".

******* phonies........

Skook, is there a even single moron conspiracy theory anywhere that you haven't fallen for?

You're just a profoundly stupid human being. And there's nothing wrong with that, as long as you know your limits. There is, however, something wrong with your belligerent ignorance, which is inexcusable.

So, any other other deniers want to hop on skook's "Vaccines cause autism!" idiot bandwagon?

All vaccines make pharmaceutical companies money. Whether or not they actually do any good is up for debate. I don't think the whole autism thing has been wound down yet.

Consider,
The Average Flu variant will change three to five times in one year. The Pharmaceutical companies will then determine which variants are seen the most. It takes 150-170 days to mass produce the vaccine. After which those flue variants will have changed 2 or three more times.

Some times they win and catch the right two strains but most times they get one. then there is that 40% area in which they get NONE.

But HEY! they got BIG GOVERNMENT right behind them screaming get your flue shot...all the time knowing that it will help less than 30%. Thats quite a large money haul for playing craps..

 

[jc456]

Just goes to show how beyond gone these AGW freaks are.......they claim to be staunch environmentalists.........but on the subject of mercury? Their attitude is "meh".

******* phonies........

Skook, is there a even single moron conspiracy theory anywhere that you haven't fallen for?

You're just a profoundly stupid human being. And there's nothing wrong with that, as long as you know your limits. There is, however, something wrong with your belligerent ignorance, which is inexcusable.

So, any other other deniers want to hop on skook's "Vaccines cause autism!" idiot bandwagon?

All vaccines make pharmaceutical companies money. Whether or not they actually do any good is up for debate. I don't think the whole autism thing has been wound down yet.

Consider,
The Average Flu variant will change three to five times in one year. The Pharmaceutical companies will then determine which variants are seen the most. It takes 150-170 days to mass produce the vaccine. After which those flue variants will have changed 2 or three more times.

Some times they win and catch the right two strains but most times they get one. then there is that 40% area in which they get NONE.

But HEY! they got BIG GOVERNMENT right behind them screaming get your flue shot...all the time knowing that it will help less than 30%. Thats quite a large money haul for playing craps..

Right?

Wait until this ebola things settles down. All these intentional lapses of judgement by our government factions, is just plain out stupidity. It looks so flippin intentional. The lack of any direction or control when this issue was apparent six months ago. Now we have a nurse at sea on a cruise ship, hmmm how many might she infect? Oh wait, is she? They don't know, yet they didn't quarantine her or her peers who worked on the dude in Dallas. Now how fnn stupid is that? I know there are most likely twelve year olds who would know better. But our government? Nope spread the disease. They need us dependent. it is their forte!!!!!!!!!! I'm really laughing, especially at the comment that grounding all flights from Africa will make the desease spread faster. And then no follow up question, of how would that happen? That is our media.

 

[Crick]

The influenza virus mutates annually because it exists in a cycle that moves between chickens and/or pigs in Asia to humans and back again. More than one variety exist at any given time. That is not the case with all viral diseases. Smallpox, polio and measles have been taken from worldwide scourges to essentially non-existent by vaccine programs. The evidence supporting a link between vaccines and autism simply does not exist.

 

[Crick]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Have you figured out yet if a satellite in orbit can take a picture of the Earth's sunlit side?

What is the temperature of the light source?

And if so, why doesn't that violate your version of the 2nd Law?

Is the light source warmer than the camera? You just get more slow all the time...frustration and desperation to avoid defeat can do that to you...or so I have heard. Personally, I tend not to engage in battles I am not sure I have won before I even begin....like this one...as evidenced by your continued failure to provide the observed measured example of energy moving from cool to warm....

You know, you might consider the question of wavelength and frequency....picture a radiator radiating out at 70 µm into an atmosphere of 100% CO2....Is any of that energy absorbed by the CO2?

You okay? You haven't injured yourself, have you?

Can a satellite in orbit take an infrared picture of the sunlit side of Earth?
Do you feel infrared is reflected light from the sun?

 

[Crick]

Xenon flash tubes - the light source in all flashes, doesn't get hot. It doesn't have time to do so. I've never seen something it can't illuminate.

 

[skookerasbil]

still waiting for a single link displaying how the 97% matters..........we heard about this at least 10 years ago s0ns......10 years and its still nothing but a talking point. The policy makers are not caring........



Link please..........


Still talking light bulbs and vaccines here jerky's.....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Have you figured out yet if a satellite in orbit can take a picture of the Earth's sunlit side?

What is the temperature of the light source?

And if so, why doesn't that violate your version of the 2nd Law?

Is the light source warmer than the camera? You just get more slow all the time...frustration and desperation to avoid defeat can do that to you...or so I have heard. Personally, I tend not to engage in battles I am not sure I have won before I even begin....like this one...as evidenced by your continued failure to provide the observed measured example of energy moving from cool to warm....

You know, you might consider the question of wavelength and frequency....picture a radiator radiating out at 70 µm into an atmosphere of 100% CO2....Is any of that energy absorbed by the CO2?

So that's it?
Infrared satellite images are the straw that broke the idiot's back?

 

[Crick]

still waiting for a single link displaying how the 97% matters..........we heard about this at least 10 years ago s0ns......10 years and its still nothing but a talking point. The policy makers are not caring...

It means that the overwhelming majority of the experts in this field accept AGW as a valid description of the workings of our climate.

It means you and yours are wrong.

Link please...

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

still waiting for a single link displaying how the 97% matters..........we heard about this at least 10 years ago s0ns......10 years and its still nothing but a talking point. The policy makers are not caring...

It means that the overwhelming majority of the experts in this field accept AGW as a valid description of the workings of our climate.

It means you and yours are wrong.

Link please...

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

The overwhelming majority?
Then why is it only 75/77?

 

[Crick]

Todd, you know better than that.

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
and
Surveys of scientists views on climate change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd, you know better than that.

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
and
Surveys of scientists views on climate change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I do know better.
That's why I mock the 97% claim whenever I see it.

 

[Dot Com]

I can see deniers arguing over 70% or even 75% but 96% of all scientists calling them cranks has merit.

 

[Crick]

Todd, you know better than that.

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
and
Surveys of scientists views on climate change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I do know better.
That's why I mock the 97% claim whenever I see it.

Yet the only specific poll you ever mention is Doran's. There are numerous other polls, surveys and studies noted in those two articles, that all show results in the high 90s, and involve thousands of subjects. Why do you reject them?

For instance, on what grounds do you reject the following?

Powell, 2013
James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[26] This was a follow-up to an analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[27]

24/13,950 = 0.00172 or 0.172% rejection or 99.228% acceptance
1/9,136 = 0.000109 or 0.0109% or 99.9891% acceptance

Eh?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd, you know better than that.

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
and
Surveys of scientists views on climate change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I do know better.
That's why I mock the 97% claim whenever I see it.

Yet the only specific poll you ever mention is Doran's. There are numerous other polls, surveys and studies noted in those two articles, that all show results in the high 90s, and involve thousands of subjects. Why do you reject them?

For instance, on what grounds do you reject the following?

Powell, 2013
James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[26] This was a follow-up to an analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[27]

24/13,950 = 0.00172 or 0.172% rejection or 99.228% acceptance
1/9,136 = 0.000109 or 0.0109% or 99.9891% acceptance

Eh?

and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming

Do you think that means that 13,926 accepted AGW?
Or that 13,926 agree we should waste trillions on expensive, unreliable energy?

 

[Crick]

No, it doesn't. But the odds are extremely high that a very large percentage of that number DO accept AGW - as has been demonstrated explicitly elswhere. And it does DIRECTLY demonstrate that the denier opinion is an EXTREME minority - LESS THAN ONE PERCENT of peer reviewed papers published over the last 22 years.

If you think "Pal Review" could have attained that sort of purity, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, it doesn't. But the odds are extremely high that a very large percentage of that number DO accept AGW - as has been demonstrated explicitly elswhere. And it does DIRECTLY demonstrate that the denier opinion is an EXTREME minority - LESS THAN ONE PERCENT of peer reviewed papers published over the last 22 years.

If you think "Pal Review" could have attained that sort of purity, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

But the odds are extremely high that a very large percentage of that number DO accept AGW -

AGWs are winning. That's why they have to continue cheating and lying.
That's okay, no one is interested in killing our economy to reduce temps in 2080 by 0.1 degrees.

 

[Crick]

That's unresponsive. The topic is the validity of the claim that 97% of active climate scientists accept AGW. Numerous polls, surveys and studies all arrive at values in that neighborhood. The ONLY poll, survey or study that arrives at anything different is the idiotic Legates claim that support is actually only 0.3%.

Do you accept Legates conclusions?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's unresponsive. The topic is the validity of the claim that 97% of active climate scientists accept AGW. Numerous polls, surveys and studies all arrive at values in that neighborhood. The ONLY poll, survey or study that arrives at anything different is the idiotic Legates claim that support is actually only 0.3%.

Do you accept Legates conclusions?

The topic is the validity of the claim that 97% of active climate scientists accept AGW.

If it's not 75/77, give me the correct fraction.