AGW Fraud: There's no such thing as "Settled Science"

[Old Rocks]

Well boys, you can flap yap until the cows come home, the science concerning how GHGs act in the atmosphere was settled with Tyndall's experiments. And the people that study the effects of the GHGs we have put into the atmosphere, the scientists, state flat out, nearly 100% of them, that we are creating a real problem for ourselves. So who to believe, someone that believes the dipso, ol' Tailgunner Joe was a hero, and that the moon is hollow, with aliens inside, or the scientists.

Yes, yes flap yap and all that jazz... Everytime you have no arguement or excuse you say "flap yap" and tell us either how dumb we are, or shout "peer review" and "the science says" .. When we know full and well you have no real interest in discussing either. You just want to post your propaganda and hopefully sell a few solar panels...

Soon you will be back under a sock and pat yourself on the back. LOL, outed yourself in fine fashion there ORGANMAN... LOL, we get it socko Orogenicman, you're from where again? Oh yeah, OREGON... Douchebag... You wonder why your side loses credibility by the day? Take a good long look at yourself and the others on your side in here....

We have you, a person with a known history of socking, lying, and cherry-picking, and we have several, or just a few clones who cares, they are all interchangeable, all of which whobehave as badly as you if not often worse...

LOL, pathetic, the lot of you.. We don't have to do or say anything, you idiots are so desperate you cut your own throats...

Slacko, old boy, you are a true idiot. Oregonicman. You dumb fuck, Oregonicman is a degreed geologist. An orogeny is the building of a mountain range. That is what he derived his screen name from. You are such an idiot. I post under only one name, Old Rocks. That others with sound education in science would post similiar opinions is hardly any surprise. Except to ignoramouses like you.

 

[gslack]

Well boys, you can flap yap until the cows come home, the science concerning how GHGs act in the atmosphere was settled with Tyndall's experiments. And the people that study the effects of the GHGs we have put into the atmosphere, the scientists, state flat out, nearly 100% of them, that we are creating a real problem for ourselves. So who to believe, someone that believes the dipso, ol' Tailgunner Joe was a hero, and that the moon is hollow, with aliens inside, or the scientists.

Yes, yes flap yap and all that jazz... Everytime you have no arguement or excuse you say "flap yap" and tell us either how dumb we are, or shout "peer review" and "the science says" .. When we know full and well you have no real interest in discussing either. You just want to post your propaganda and hopefully sell a few solar panels...

Soon you will be back under a sock and pat yourself on the back. LOL, outed yourself in fine fashion there ORGANMAN... LOL, we get it socko Orogenicman, you're from where again? Oh yeah, OREGON... Douchebag... You wonder why your side loses credibility by the day? Take a good long look at yourself and the others on your side in here....

We have you, a person with a known history of socking, lying, and cherry-picking, and we have several, or just a few clones who cares, they are all interchangeable, all of which whobehave as badly as you if not often worse...

LOL, pathetic, the lot of you.. We don't have to do or say anything, you idiots are so desperate you cut your own throats...

Slacko, old boy, you are a true idiot. Oregonicman. You dumb fuck, Oregonicman is a degreed geologist. An orogeny is the building of a mountain range. That is what he derived his screen name from. You are such an idiot. I post under only one name, Old Rocks. That others with sound education in science would post similiar opinions is hardly any surprise. Except to ignoramouses like you.

Nice try sockman, but you're busted already. You screwed up and told on yourself.. And your convenient double talk ignores the fact I already explained what orogenic means and why it was a pun...

ROFL.. "PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!"

 

[Old Rocks]

The scientific society with the most people dealing with the study of climate is the American Geophysical Union. Here is there statement on Global Warming.

Rabett Run: Revised AGU Statement on Climate Change

Human induced climate change requires urgent action.


Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years.
Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.


Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate
system for millennia.

Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These observations show large scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers, snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with long understood physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to human caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences.

Climate models predict that global temperatures will continue to rise, with the amount of warming primarily determined by the level of emissions. Higher emissions of greenhouse gases will lead to larger warming, and greater risks to society and ecosystems. Some additional warming is unavoidable due to past emissions.

Climate chan ge is not expected to be uniform over space or time. Deforestation, urbanization, and particulate pollution can have complex geographical, seasonal, and longer term effects on temperature, precipitation, and cloud properties. In addition, human induced climate change may alter atmospheric circulation, dislocating historical patterns of natural variability and storminess.

In the current climate, weather experienced at a given location or region varies from year to year; in a changing climate, both the nature of that variability and the basic patterns of weather experienced can change, sometimes in counterintuitive ways -- some areas may experience cooling, for instance. This raises no challenge to the reality of human induced climate change.

Impacts harmful to society, including increased extremes of heat, precipitation, and coastal high water are currently being experienced, and are projected to increase. Other projected outcomes involve threats to public health, water availability, agricultural productivity (particularly in low latitude developing countries), and coastal infrastructure, though some benefits may be seen at some times and places. Biodiversity loss is expected to accelerate due to both climate change and acidification of the oceans, which is a direct result of increasing carbon dioxide levels.

While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic changes than anticipated.

Actions that could diminish the threats posed by climate change to society and ecosystems include substantial emissions cuts to reduce the magnitude of climate change, as well as preparing for changes that are now unavoidable. The community of scientists has responsibilities to improve overall understanding of climate change and its impacts. Improvements will come from pursuing the research needed to understand climate change, working with stakeholders to identify relevant information, and conveying understanding clearly and accurately, both to decision makers and to the general public.

Adopted by the American Geophysical Union
December 2003; Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007, February 2012, August 2013.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, yes flap yap and all that jazz... Everytime you have no arguement or excuse you say "flap yap" and tell us either how dumb we are, or shout "peer review" and "the science says" .. When we know full and well you have no real interest in discussing either. You just want to post your propaganda and hopefully sell a few solar panels...

Soon you will be back under a sock and pat yourself on the back. LOL, outed yourself in fine fashion there ORGANMAN... LOL, we get it socko Orogenicman, you're from where again? Oh yeah, OREGON... Douchebag... You wonder why your side loses credibility by the day? Take a good long look at yourself and the others on your side in here....

We have you, a person with a known history of socking, lying, and cherry-picking, and we have several, or just a few clones who cares, they are all interchangeable, all of which whobehave as badly as you if not often worse...

LOL, pathetic, the lot of you.. We don't have to do or say anything, you idiots are so desperate you cut your own throats...

Slacko, old boy, you are a true idiot. Oregonicman. You dumb fuck, Oregonicman is a degreed geologist. An orogeny is the building of a mountain range. That is what he derived his screen name from. You are such an idiot. I post under only one name, Old Rocks. That others with sound education in science would post similiar opinions is hardly any surprise. Except to ignoramouses like you.

Nice try sockman, but you're busted already. You screwed up and told on yourself.. And your convenient double talk ignores the fact I already explained what orogenic means and why it was a pun...

ROFL.. "PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!"

And you still remain a dumb ass without a clue.

 

[gslack]

Slacko, old boy, you are a true idiot. Oregonicman. You dumb fuck, Oregonicman is a degreed geologist. An orogeny is the building of a mountain range. That is what he derived his screen name from. You are such an idiot. I post under only one name, Old Rocks. That others with sound education in science would post similiar opinions is hardly any surprise. Except to ignoramouses like you.

Nice try sockman, but you're busted already. You screwed up and told on yourself.. And your convenient double talk ignores the fact I already explained what orogenic means and why it was a pun...

ROFL.. "PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!"

And you still remain a dumb ass without a clue.

And you still remain a busted sock puppeteer...

 

[gslack]

The scientific society with the most people dealing with the study of climate is the American Geophysical Union. Here is there statement on Global Warming.

Rabett Run: Revised AGU Statement on Climate Change

Human induced climate change requires urgent action.


Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years.
Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.


Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate
system for millennia.

Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These observations show large scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers, snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with long understood physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to human caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences.

Climate models predict that global temperatures will continue to rise, with the amount of warming primarily determined by the level of emissions. Higher emissions of greenhouse gases will lead to larger warming, and greater risks to society and ecosystems. Some additional warming is unavoidable due to past emissions.

Climate chan ge is not expected to be uniform over space or time. Deforestation, urbanization, and particulate pollution can have complex geographical, seasonal, and longer term effects on temperature, precipitation, and cloud properties. In addition, human induced climate change may alter atmospheric circulation, dislocating historical patterns of natural variability and storminess.

In the current climate, weather experienced at a given location or region varies from year to year; in a changing climate, both the nature of that variability and the basic patterns of weather experienced can change, sometimes in counterintuitive ways -- some areas may experience cooling, for instance. This raises no challenge to the reality of human induced climate change.

Impacts harmful to society, including increased extremes of heat, precipitation, and coastal high water are currently being experienced, and are projected to increase. Other projected outcomes involve threats to public health, water availability, agricultural productivity (particularly in low latitude developing countries), and coastal infrastructure, though some benefits may be seen at some times and places. Biodiversity loss is expected to accelerate due to both climate change and acidification of the oceans, which is a direct result of increasing carbon dioxide levels.

While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic changes than anticipated.

Actions that could diminish the threats posed by climate change to society and ecosystems include substantial emissions cuts to reduce the magnitude of climate change, as well as preparing for changes that are now unavoidable. The community of scientists has responsibilities to improve overall understanding of climate change and its impacts. Improvements will come from pursuing the research needed to understand climate change, working with stakeholders to identify relevant information, and conveying understanding clearly and accurately, both to decision makers and to the general public.

Adopted by the American Geophysical Union
December 2003; Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007, February 2012, August 2013.

And we see oldsocks standard defense post #3..

Dude who gives a rat's ass what your tired and re-used cut and paste from the AGU says... A group who relies on funding gained from climate change... Give us a break.. You have nothing, you just tried to throw up a post so you can save face...

You're tiresome sockman..

 

[PrometheusBound]

the scientists, state flat out, nearly 100% of them, that we are creating a real problem for ourselves. So who to believe, someone that believes the dipso, ol' Tailgunner Joe was a hero, and that the moon is hollow, with aliens inside, or the scientists.

Not somebody who uses strawmen against his opponents. Even the word "denier" associates us with neo-Nazi nutcases. If that's all you got, you got nothing. Notice that I don't call you "socialists," which is just a word plutocrats want to apply to everything that might trick people into supporting their economic supremacy.

 

[PrometheusBound]

Well boys, you can flap yap until the cows come home, the science concerning how GHGs act .

Yes, yes flap yap and all that jazz... You just want to post your propaganda and hopefully sell a few solar panels...

Soon you will be back under a sock and pat yourself on the back. LOL, outed yourself in fine fashion there ORGANMAN... LOL, we get it socko Orogenicman, you're from where again? Oh yeah, OREGON... Douchebag... You wonder why your side loses credibility by the day? Take a good long look at yourself and the others on your side in here....

..

Before it was taken over by preppy progressives, Oregon was the home of manly lumberjacks, whose sweaty job offended the lazy, limp-wristed trustfund babies. Nature is a pretty sight only to those sitting pretty.

 

[bripat9643]

You would be hard pressed to deny that a very strong majority of people who believe climate change is a consipiracy are politically conservative. You'd be even more hard pressed to deny the same is not true of those who believe evolution is a lie. I have been charged on numerous occasions to holding my scientific beliefs as a faith - regardless - or even in opposition of - the evidence. And on every occasion, the person making the charge was a political conservative.

Perhaps it was not wise to make the charges together. The number of conservatives guilty of all three misconceptions may be small. But the proportion of the nation's conservatives guilty of at least one of them is quite high.

Why do you complain? Where do you fall on those issues?

No argues that the climate doesn't change. That's just left-wing propaganda. However, the liberal theory that man is causing the climate to change is a conspiracy. We have hard proof that prominent climate "scientists" conspired with each other to prevent opposing information from being published.

No conservative believes science is a faith. However, what liberals call science is indistinguishable from faith. Every time some liberal numbskull says "the science is settled" or "the scientific consensus says such-and-such," he proves that he's a scientific ignoramus who accepts dogma as science.

There are a small number of conservatives who believe evolution isn't true, but so what? There are plenty of liberals who believe economics is a lie.

My, my. Just the person to demonstrate the validity of my prior post.

My, My. I did no such thing, numskull. Every time you post you demonstrate that your understanding of "science" is indistinguishable from a religion. You're always referring to bogus authorities and calling AGW "settled science." You prove you don't understanding the meaning of the term "science."

 

[PrometheusBound]

ROFL.. "PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!"

And you still remain a dumb ass without a clue.

Clueless is a bimbo Valley Girl word. Proof that it is a nonsense word is that it would fit in the sentence, "When it comes to doing crossword puzzles, he is clueless."

Anyone who doesn't see that simple contradiction proves that he only has knowledge of science but is incapable of understanding it. That's why I can't accept any of the ideas that postmodern scientists try to make us believe based on their self-appointed authority.

 

[Abraham3]

No argues that the climate doesn't change. That's just left-wing propaganda. However, the liberal theory that man is causing the climate to change is a conspiracy. We have hard proof that prominent climate "scientists" conspired with each other to prevent opposing information from being published.

No conservative believes science is a faith. However, what liberals call science is indistinguishable from faith. Every time some liberal numbskull says "the science is settled" or "the scientific consensus says such-and-such," he proves that he's a scientific ignoramus who accepts dogma as science.

There are a small number of conservatives who believe evolution isn't true, but so what? There are plenty of liberals who believe economics is a lie.

Were you actually unaware that you were confirming everything I said?

 

[daveman]

Evolution is a lie.

Climate change a conspiracy.

Science is a faith.

How conservatives view science.

You misspelled "How my irrational bigotry against conservatives insists conservatives view science".

You would be hard pressed to deny that a very strong majority of people who believe climate change is a consipiracy are politically conservative. You'd be even more hard pressed to deny the same is not true of those who believe evolution is a lie. I have been charged on numerous occasions to holding my scientific beliefs as a faith - regardless - or even in opposition of - the evidence. And on every occasion, the person making the charge was a political conservative.

Perhaps it was not wise to make the charges together. The number of conservatives guilty of all three misconceptions may be small. But the proportion of the nation's conservatives guilty of at least one of them is quite high.

Why do you complain? Where do you fall on those issues?

I complain because the lying sack of shit rDerp routinely paints all conservatives with the extremist brush. He's a bigot, and points to his bigoted opinions as proof that his claims are true, completely failing to understand that all he's proving is that he's a bigot.

Why do you defend a lying sack of shit?

 

[Abraham3]

You misspelled "How my irrational bigotry against conservatives insists conservatives view science".

You would be hard pressed to deny that a very strong majority of people who believe climate change is a consipiracy are politically conservative. You'd be even more hard pressed to deny the same is not true of those who believe evolution is a lie. I have been charged on numerous occasions to holding my scientific beliefs as a faith - regardless - or even in opposition of - the evidence. And on every occasion, the person making the charge was a political conservative.

Perhaps it was not wise to make the charges together. The number of conservatives guilty of all three misconceptions may be small. But the proportion of the nation's conservatives guilty of at least one of them is quite high.

Why do you complain? Where do you fall on those issues?

I complain because the lying sack of shit rDerp routinely paints all conservatives with the extremist brush. He's a bigot, and points to his bigoted opinions as proof that his claims are true, completely failing to understand that all he's proving is that he's a bigot.

Why do you defend a lying sack of shit?

I do not know rdean or rDerp. I only make a related (closely related) set of points.

A majority of people who believe the theory of evolution is false are political conservatives.

This does NOT mean the majority of conservatives believe evolution is false.

A majority of people who believe that global warming is not anthropogenic are political conservatives.

This does NOT mean the majority of conservatives reject AGW.

A majority of people who believe science operates on faith are political conservatives.

This does NOT mean the majority of conservatives believe science operates as a faith.

I believe these statements are more true than any statement built on "All conservatives do such-and-such"

 

[daveman]

You would be hard pressed to deny that a very strong majority of people who believe climate change is a consipiracy are politically conservative. You'd be even more hard pressed to deny the same is not true of those who believe evolution is a lie. I have been charged on numerous occasions to holding my scientific beliefs as a faith - regardless - or even in opposition of - the evidence. And on every occasion, the person making the charge was a political conservative.

Perhaps it was not wise to make the charges together. The number of conservatives guilty of all three misconceptions may be small. But the proportion of the nation's conservatives guilty of at least one of them is quite high.

Why do you complain? Where do you fall on those issues?

No argues that the climate doesn't change. That's just left-wing propaganda. However, the liberal theory that man is causing the climate to change is a conspiracy. We have hard proof that prominent climate "scientists" conspired with each other to prevent opposing information from being published.

No conservative believes science is a faith. However, what liberals call science is indistinguishable from faith. Every time some liberal numbskull says "the science is settled" or "the scientific consensus says such-and-such," he proves that he's a scientific ignoramus who accepts dogma as science.

There are a small number of conservatives who believe evolution isn't true, but so what? There are plenty of liberals who believe economics is a lie.

My, my. Just the person to demonstrate the validity of my prior post.

You misspelled "vapidity".

 

[daveman]

Well boys, you can flap yap until the cows come home, the science concerning how GHGs act in the atmosphere was settled with Tyndall's experiments. And the people that study the effects of the GHGs we have put into the atmosphere, the scientists, state flat out, nearly 100% of them, that we are creating a real problem for ourselves. So who to believe, someone that believes the dipso, ol' Tailgunner Joe was a hero, and that the moon is hollow, with aliens inside, or the scientists.

Yes, yes flap yap and all that jazz... Everytime you have no arguement or excuse you say "flap yap" and tell us either how dumb we are, or shout "peer review" and "the science says" .. When we know full and well you have no real interest in discussing either. You just want to post your propaganda and hopefully sell a few solar panels...

Soon you will be back under a sock and pat yourself on the back. LOL, outed yourself in fine fashion there ORGANMAN... LOL, we get it socko Orogenicman, you're from where again? Oh yeah, OREGON... Douchebag... You wonder why your side loses credibility by the day? Take a good long look at yourself and the others on your side in here....

We have you, a person with a known history of socking, lying, and cherry-picking, and we have several, or just a few clones who cares, they are all interchangeable, all of which whobehave as badly as you if not often worse...

LOL, pathetic, the lot of you.. We don't have to do or say anything, you idiots are so desperate you cut your own throats...

Slacko, old boy, you are a true idiot. Oregonicman. You dumb fuck, Oregonicman is a degreed geologist. An orogeny is the building of a mountain range. That is what he derived his screen name from. You are such an idiot. I post under only one name, Old Rocks. That others with sound education in science would post similiar opinions is hardly any surprise. Except to ignoramouses like you.

So....not finishing college is a "sound education" to you?

 

[daveman]

The scientific society with the most people dealing with the study of climate is the American Geophysical Union. Here is there statement on Global Warming.

Rabett Run: Revised AGU Statement on Climate Change

Human induced climate change requires urgent action.


Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years.
Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.


Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate
system for millennia.

Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These observations show large scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers, snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with long understood physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to human caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences.

Climate models predict that global temperatures will continue to rise, with the amount of warming primarily determined by the level of emissions. Higher emissions of greenhouse gases will lead to larger warming, and greater risks to society and ecosystems. Some additional warming is unavoidable due to past emissions.

Climate chan ge is not expected to be uniform over space or time. Deforestation, urbanization, and particulate pollution can have complex geographical, seasonal, and longer term effects on temperature, precipitation, and cloud properties. In addition, human induced climate change may alter atmospheric circulation, dislocating historical patterns of natural variability and storminess.

In the current climate, weather experienced at a given location or region varies from year to year; in a changing climate, both the nature of that variability and the basic patterns of weather experienced can change, sometimes in counterintuitive ways -- some areas may experience cooling, for instance. This raises no challenge to the reality of human induced climate change.

Impacts harmful to society, including increased extremes of heat, precipitation, and coastal high water are currently being experienced, and are projected to increase. Other projected outcomes involve threats to public health, water availability, agricultural productivity (particularly in low latitude developing countries), and coastal infrastructure, though some benefits may be seen at some times and places. Biodiversity loss is expected to accelerate due to both climate change and acidification of the oceans, which is a direct result of increasing carbon dioxide levels.

While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic changes than anticipated.

Actions that could diminish the threats posed by climate change to society and ecosystems include substantial emissions cuts to reduce the magnitude of climate change, as well as preparing for changes that are now unavoidable. The community of scientists has responsibilities to improve overall understanding of climate change and its impacts. Improvements will come from pursuing the research needed to understand climate change, working with stakeholders to identify relevant information, and conveying understanding clearly and accurately, both to decision makers and to the general public.

Adopted by the American Geophysical Union
December 2003; Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007, February 2012, August 2013.

That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not! - Forbes

So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.​

AGW "scientists" are as good at statistics as they are at science.

 

[Abraham3]

There have now been FOUR surveys of various sizes that have all found that 97% of active climate scientists believe that human GHG emissions are the primary cause of global warming.

 

[daveman]

You would be hard pressed to deny that a very strong majority of people who believe climate change is a consipiracy are politically conservative. You'd be even more hard pressed to deny the same is not true of those who believe evolution is a lie. I have been charged on numerous occasions to holding my scientific beliefs as a faith - regardless - or even in opposition of - the evidence. And on every occasion, the person making the charge was a political conservative.

Perhaps it was not wise to make the charges together. The number of conservatives guilty of all three misconceptions may be small. But the proportion of the nation's conservatives guilty of at least one of them is quite high.

Why do you complain? Where do you fall on those issues?

I complain because the lying sack of shit rDerp routinely paints all conservatives with the extremist brush. He's a bigot, and points to his bigoted opinions as proof that his claims are true, completely failing to understand that all he's proving is that he's a bigot.

Why do you defend a lying sack of shit?

I do not know rdean or rDerp. I only make a related (closely related) set of points.

A majority of people who believe the theory of evolution is false are political conservatives.

This does NOT mean the majority of conservatives believe evolution is false.

A majority of people who believe that global warming is not anthropogenic are political conservatives.

This does NOT mean the majority of conservatives reject AGW.

A majority of people who believe science operates on faith are political conservatives.

This does NOT mean the majority of conservatives believe science operates as a faith.

I believe these statements are more true than any statement built on "All conservatives do such-and-such"

Yay you.

A majority of people who believe in anthropogenic global warming espouse political and economic "solutions" that will do nothing but increase government power over individual lives.

 

[daveman]

There have now been FOUR surveys of various sizes that have all found that 97% of active climate scientists believe that human GHG emissions are the primary cause of global warming.

Are they ever going to get around to proving it with the scientific method?

 

[Abraham3]

There have now been FOUR surveys of various sizes that have all found that 97% of active climate scientists believe that human GHG emissions are the primary cause of global warming.

Are they ever going to get around to proving it with the scientific method?

There is no such thing as proof in the natural sciences. I suggest you do some reading on the scientific method.

From Wikipedia:

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature

Summary of opinions from climate and earth scientists regarding climate change.
Main article: Surveys of scientists' views on climate change

Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that the majority of scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[110] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Seventy-five per cent of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. Catastrophic effects in 50–100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.[111][112][113][114]

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries.[115] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[116]

The survey was composed of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from 'not at all' to 'very much'.

To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 67.1% said they very much agreed, 26.7% agreed to some large extent, 6.2% said to they agreed to some small extent (2–4), none said they did not agree at all. To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:
It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.[117]

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:
(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[118]
A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers, finding 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming and reporting:
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.[119]
Additionally, the authors of the studies were invited to categorise their own research papers, of which 1,381 discussed the cause of recent global warming, and:
Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.
*****************************************************************************************************
I think it's time that folks claiming the 97% is hocum, get their asses called on it. It's a very solid number. And it's certainly enormously better than any number you've got., isn't it.