Atlantic hurricane season - a record-breaking dud?

Didn't NBC pay Al Rokenberg to blame Sandy on Global Warming? I still remember that moment when he said so on live TV. you would have to be a total dimwit to believe that theory.
 
95% of CLIMATE scientists think AGW is real.

I've got a thread proving that study is flawed.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/311921-consensus-what-consensus.html#post7802034

I'm sure you have a lot of threads.

Until you are a scientist, I couldn't give a fuck about your threads.
Yes, you've made it quite clear you don't click on any links unless you're certain they echo your programming.

You're terrified of conflicting views.
 

I'm sure you have a lot of threads.

Until you are a scientist, I couldn't give a fuck about your threads.
Yes, you've made it quite clear you don't click on any links unless you're certain they echo your programming.

You're terrified of conflicting views.

No, I just realize that life is too short to waste time on bullshit.

I just have to look out my window RIGHT NOW to see AGW is real.
 
No, Vox, actually, it is.

AGW is not an issue amongst people who study it.

no, it is NOT.

there might be cyclical warming ( which is NORMAL) but there is absolutely no proof it is ANTHROPOGENIC.

and only 0.3% of the papers on the issue support this claim - that the warming is ANTHROPOGENIC.
 
The OP obviously doesn't understand the difference between climate and weather.

Per the cult, it's like this:

Climate: Any atmospheric phenomenon that supports AGW.

Weather: Any atmospheric phenomenon that contradicts AGW.

No-

Climate- the state of weather over a period of time in a given area.

Weather - a transitory one day thing, such as "Gee, it's cold today, Global Warming must be a hoax because the Oil Companies said so."

95% of CLIMATE scientists think AGW is real.
Actually it's 97 percent , all these right wingers are a fucking joke
 
95% of CLIMATE scientists think AGW is real.

I've got a thread proving that study is flawed.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/311921-consensus-what-consensus.html#post7802034

I'm sure you have a lot of threads.

Until you are a scientist, I couldn't give a fuck about your threads.

here is the paper form the scientists:

Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.

Climate Consensus and ?Misinformation?: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change - Online First - Springer
 
Per the cult, it's like this:

Climate: Any atmospheric phenomenon that supports AGW.

Weather: Any atmospheric phenomenon that contradicts AGW.

No-

Climate- the state of weather over a period of time in a given area.

Weather - a transitory one day thing, such as "Gee, it's cold today, Global Warming must be a hoax because the Oil Companies said so."

95% of CLIMATE scientists think AGW is real.
Actually it's 97 percent , all these right wingers are a fucking joke

actually it is 0.3 % :lol:
 
iInspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.

97% "consensus" :lol:

Libtards are real loons :lol:
 
This is from NASA.

Climate Change: Consensus

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
 
The whole debacle about the claim is described here by the very editor of Earth System Dynamics scientific journal (which originally in it's issue 4 for this year published Benestadt/Cook's garbage) :


http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/4/C400/2013/esdd-4-C400-2013.pdf


this is the original paper with a claim of "97%" which has caused a tsunami of debunking and which resulted in an angry summary by the editor and which the whole scientific community is referring as nothing more as garbage:


http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/4/451/2013/esdd-4-451-2013.pdf
 
Here is the storm that is going to end the hurricane drought!!!!
 

Attachments

  • $avn0-lalohumberto.jpg
    $avn0-lalohumberto.jpg
    118.5 KB · Views: 81
I'm sure you have a lot of threads.

Until you are a scientist, I couldn't give a fuck about your threads.
Yes, you've made it quite clear you don't click on any links unless you're certain they echo your programming.

You're terrified of conflicting views.

No, I just realize that life is too short to waste time on bullshit.

I just have to look out my window RIGHT NOW to see AGW is real.
What you see out your window RIGHT NOW is weather, you moron.
 

Forum List

Back
Top