Climate what? Americans score a "D" in science!!!

[Foxfyre]

Love how you reference stuff in your head. WTF is von storch? Your new go-to blog?

Like I said, virtually every scientific organization in the world agrees with the general tenets of the IPCC.

Interesting.. All our warmers indeed DO SUFFER from CRS syndrome. Was just a couple days you were hawking the 97% consensus bullshit and I pulled out some ACTUAL polls of climate scientists that showed no resemblance to a consensus of any type. ONE OF THEM --- which I riffed on for about 10 posts was von Storch 2009 --- because CrickHam (((who has terminal CRS, at least when it comes to his favorite sport here in enviro))) --- pulled it out to bolster the Consensus garbage.. Ring any bells?

von Storch 2009 is the way us scientists avoid CRS.. Hey governor --- I work very hard to communicate with you. Kinda the purpose of a message board.. Least you could do is get off Mt Stupid and try to keep up...

What -- is all this NEW to you???

Hans von Storch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Opinion on global warming[edit]
He said that global warming exists:

"Based on the scientific evidence, I am convinced that we are facing anthropogenic climate change brought about by the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."[2]
He is also known for an article in Der Spiegel he co-wrote with Nico Stehr, which states that:

"Scientific research faces a crisis because its public figures are overselling the issues to gain attention in a hotly contested market for newsworthy information."[3]
"The alarmists think that climate change is something extremely dangerous, extremely bad and that overselling a little bit, if it serves a good purpose, is not that bad."[4]
In December 2009, he expressed concern about the credibility of science and criticized some publicly visible scientists for simplifying and dramatizing their communications. He pointed to the German Waldsterben (Forest dieback) hype of the 1980s:[5]

Research about the forest die back in Germany may serve as an example at the other end of the spectrum. The science of forest damages was in the 1980s heavily politicized, and used as support for a specific preconceived "good" policy of environmental protection. The resulting overselling and dramatization broke down in the 1990s, and news about adverse developments in German forests is now a hard sell in Germany. An observer wrote in 2004: "The damage for the scientists is enormous. Nobody believes them any longer." Of course, the damage was not only limited to the forest researchers, but also to other environmental scientists and politicians as well.
In January 2011, Storch was counted among the 100 most influential Germans by the Focus magazine for being a "climate realist".[6]

On 20 June 2013 Storch stated "So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year."[7]

Von Storch is in agreement that we are changing the climate. He is just on the end of the spectrum that states that that is not that bad of a deal. On the other end are the scientists of the AMEG;

Arctic Methane Emergency Group (AMEG)

In between are peope like myself that see the continuing warming drying out our forests with increasingly frequent droughts, warmer winters creating more problems with summer irrigation, and increasingly strong precipitation events costing us more in infrastructure costs. And the swings in natural variability being warmer on the highs, and warmer on the lows. Wilder and wider swings in the weather with an overall warming. Been making that predication for 20 years, that is what is happening, and will continue to happen.

So what you're saying is 'cvon Storch 2009 is a newspaper article.

Of course, you sorta made it sound like a scientific paper, but I'm sure you weren't being dishonest....

Hey douchebag.. It is the most IN-DEPTH opinion poll of Climate Scientists that I've ever seen. AN ACTUAL POLL -- with climate scientists Bray and von Storch designing the questions.. YOU on the other hand believe in the 97% farce that was concocted by a cartoonist and his sidekick that runs one of the schlockiest science websites in the webverse.

Besides -- you were IN THE FUCKING THREAD when I posted questions and results from this poll and you SHOULD KNOW ( if you are indeed awake and sentient ) that it was not just a newspaper article.

What kind of are you???

I can't remember all your pet denier articles by heart. So to clarify, it was a poll. Wow. That's sure definitive.

If you don't like Cook, BTW, you can go to about a half dozen other published surveys (was Von Storch published?, or just on a blog?) and they show similar stuff.

The more you know, the more you understand AGW. Don't know if you have figured it out yet, but that puts you on the Mt Stupid side of the chasm.

I suspect von Storch may know at least as much about climate change as any of us do:

Hans von Storch
Department: GKSS Research Center
Organization: Institute for Coastal Research
Geesthacht,
Germany
Expertise: climate modeling and analysis coastal impacts (storms, waves, storm surges)
Website: http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/

Hans von Storch (born 13 August 1949 in Wyk auf Fohr) is a German climate scientist. He is Professor at the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg, and (since 2001) Director of the Institute of Coastal Research at the GKSS Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany. He is a member of the advisory boards of the journals Journal of Climate and Annals of Geophysics.
AGCI Past Participants :: About Hans von Storch​

 

[Billy_Bob]

This is truly sickening Our lives are so much better because of science...The human mind always seem to move back to simple idiocy and against our own best interest.

Sad.

How many billions of people are alive today because of the cures of the 18th, 19th and 20th century?
People are living higher quality lives that are much longer.
People can discuss things on the other side of the world.
The internet has all the knowledge to make one think this is impossible...Damn.

Time to get the govt OUT of the way so that science, technology, math can be revived by newer methods of education . Methods that are more likely to reach the MAJORITY of kids in schools. And the expectations have to be set higher. All the govt does is to set the FLOOR for the expectations and learning..

I've got enough optimism that I believe I could kidnap several hundred young Burger flippers and mall saleskids --- and turn them into chemical engineers. Or physicists. Or at least citizens that have a PRAYER of defending themselves against tech/science propaganda and think for themselves WITHOUT praying to authority...

OK, I go to school with those kids. They are not fucking dummies. Yes, they show up tired, and sometimes nod off in class. No reason for that, just because they are working two jobs and trying to take two thirds load. You see, in Portland, Oregon, PCC's classes are 100+ a credit, and PSU's are twice that. And then there are books. $200 to $300 a whack. And there are only so many loans and scholarships to go around. Then there is the little matter of paying off the loans, that are often mortgage sized by the time school is finished.

The classes I have taken are all science and math. So I am talking about the people that we need and have jobs for. But between high school and that job is the cost of college.

Now you want to keep government out of education, Flacaltenn, so what is your solution to getting these kids in school, and keeping them there? How about the problem of a roof over their heads, and three square a day? And you are going to do that without government?

Give us a rational plan,.

The founders of this nation left the child rendering to their parents and their small communities. Funny how you liberals think your the end all authority on this yet its under your 40 year watch that you fucked it up and we have very low functioning kids today.. Government needs to get out of a whole host of areas it has no buisness in.

 

[threegoofs]

Generally, people are getting sma

This is truly sickening Our lives are so much better because of science...The human mind always seem to move back to simple idiocy and against our own best interest.

Sad.

How many billions of people are alive today because of the cures of the 18th, 19th and 20th century?
People are living higher quality lives that are much longer.
People can discuss things on the other side of the world.
The internet has all the knowledge to make one think this is impossible...Damn.

Time to get the govt OUT of the way so that science, technology, math can be revived by newer methods of education . Methods that are more likely to reach the MAJORITY of kids in schools. And the expectations have to be set higher. All the govt does is to set the FLOOR for the expectations and learning..

I've got enough optimism that I believe I could kidnap several hundred young Burger flippers and mall saleskids --- and turn them into chemical engineers. Or physicists. Or at least citizens that have a PRAYER of defending themselves against tech/science propaganda and think for themselves WITHOUT praying to authority...

OK, I go to school with those kids. They are not fucking dummies. Yes, they show up tired, and sometimes nod off in class. No reason for that, just because they are working two jobs and trying to take two thirds load. You see, in Portland, Oregon, PCC's classes are 100+ a credit, and PSU's are twice that. And then there are books. $200 to $300 a whack. And there are only so many loans and scholarships to go around. Then there is the little matter of paying off the loans, that are often mortgage sized by the time school is finished.

The classes I have taken are all science and math. So I am talking about the people that we need and have jobs for. But between high school and that job is the cost of college.

Now you want to keep government out of education, Flacaltenn, so what is your solution to getting these kids in school, and keeping them there? How about the problem of a roof over their heads, and three square a day? And you are going to do that without government?

Give us a rational plan,.

The founders of this nation left the child rendering to their parents and their small communities. Funny how you liberals think your the end all authority on this yet its under your 40 year watch that you fucked it up and we have very low functioning kids today.. Government needs to get out of a whole host of areas it has no buisness in.

generally, people are getting smarter over time.

It's even got its own name-The Flynn Effect.

Are humans getting cleverer? - BBC News

And in science, there's no question we are getting sharper as a population, as well as teaching our students well. My kids bring home stuff from their HS biology and Chem classes that I was only introduced to in college level classes. In fact, ourhighschool offers AP classes in things like organic chemistry, which was a second year college class.

Not only that, but the complexity and volume of material has increased exponentially since I attended college 25 years ago.

 

[flacaltenn]

3goofs..

((edit -- multigoofs has since removed the post that this addresses.))

I rarely drink whiskey, but when I do -- it's very expensive scotch on ice thank-you..

Wasn't talking to you ---- you've made yourself irrelevant because of your poor memory and learning disabilities. The response you're complaining about was responding to my warmer bud O-Rocks --- who seems more interested in actually discussing the topic..
Can't remember threads from Monday. Like the 30% of climate scientists that Bray and von Storch 2008 found skeptical of Climate Science as mature enough to REACH a consensus.


The Bray and von Storch-survey of the perceptions of climate scientists 2008: report, codebook and XLS data | Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch - Academia.edu



11d. Current theory development for climate change is
very inadequate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very adequate
Variable | Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max
------------------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q16 | 372 3.967742 1.275535 1 (almost none declared "very adequate"




11c. The state of theoretical understanding of climate change phenomena is
very inadequate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very adequate

STILL don't remember that conversation? You were there... Kinda... 30% or more consider their community understanding of climate phenomena to be less than adequate. von Storch 2008 --- 3rd time you've been informed. And I only opened that can --- because CrickHam tossed it out there to SUPPORT the silly claim of 97% consensus..

 

[threegoofs]

3goofs..

((edit -- multigoofs has since removed the post that this addresses.))

I rarely drink whiskey, but when I do -- it's very expensive scotch on ice thank-you..

Wasn't talking to you ---- you've made yourself irrelevant because of your poor memory and learning disabilities. The response you're complaining about was responding to my warmer bud O-Rocks --- who seems more interested in actually discussing the topic..
Can't remember threads from Monday. Like the 30% of climate scientists that Bray and von Storch 2008 found skeptical of Climate Science as mature enough to REACH a consensus.


The Bray and von Storch-survey of the perceptions of climate scientists 2008: report, codebook and XLS data | Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch - Academia.edu



11d. Current theory development for climate change is
very inadequate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very adequate
Variable | Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max
------------------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q16 | 372 3.967742 1.275535 1 (almost none declared "very adequate"




11c. The state of theoretical understanding of climate change phenomena is
very inadequate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very adequate

STILL don't remember that conversation? You were there... Kinda... 30% or more consider their community understanding of climate phenomena to be less than adequate. von Storch 2008 --- 3rd time you've been informed. And I only opened that can --- because CrickHam tossed it out there to SUPPORT the silly claim of 97% consensus..

Oh, wait. Bray and van Storch?

Now I'm supposed to remember the SECOND author of the denier material only you hold dear.

The funny thing is, Bray and Van Storch are sick of you guys misrepresenting their study.

Read his letter to you here:

Die Klimazwiebel: Misrepresentation of Bray and von Storch survey


Jesus. You are just constantly full of fail.

 

[skookerasbil]

3goofs..

((edit -- multigoofs has since removed the post that this addresses.))

I rarely drink whiskey, but when I do -- it's very expensive scotch on ice thank-you..

Wasn't talking to you ---- you've made yourself irrelevant because of your poor memory and learning disabilities. The response you're complaining about was responding to my warmer bud O-Rocks --- who seems more interested in actually discussing the topic..
Can't remember threads from Monday. Like the 30% of climate scientists that Bray and von Storch 2008 found skeptical of Climate Science as mature enough to REACH a consensus.


The Bray and von Storch-survey of the perceptions of climate scientists 2008: report, codebook and XLS data | Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch - Academia.edu



11d. Current theory development for climate change is
very inadequate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very adequate
Variable | Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max
------------------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q16 | 372 3.967742 1.275535 1 (almost none declared "very adequate"




11c. The state of theoretical understanding of climate change phenomena is
very inadequate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very adequate

STILL don't remember that conversation? You were there... Kinda... 30% or more consider their community understanding of climate phenomena to be less than adequate. von Storch 2008 --- 3rd time you've been informed. And I only opened that can --- because CrickHam tossed it out there to SUPPORT the silly claim of 97% consensus..

Oh, wait. Bray and van Storch?

Now I'm supposed to remember the SECOND author of the denier material only you hold dear.

The funny thing is, Bray and Van Storch are sick of you guys misrepresenting their study.

Read his letter to you here:

Die Klimazwiebel: Misrepresentation of Bray and von Storch survey


Jesus. You are just constantly full of fail.

s0n.......you want fAiL? Heres fAiL.............nobody cares about the science!!!!



[URL='http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/Assholes.jpg.html'][/URL][/URL]
[URL='http://[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/Assholes.jpg.html][IMG]http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/baldaltima/Assholes.jpg[/IMG][/URL]'][URL='http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/Assholes.jpg.html'][/URL]
[URL='http://[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/Assholes.jpg.html][IMG]http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/baldaltima/Assholes.jpg[/IMG][/URL]'][URL='http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/Assholes.jpg.html'][/URL]
[URL='http://[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/Assholes.jpg.html][IMG]http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/baldaltima/Assholes.jpg[/IMG][/URL]'][URL='http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/Assholes.jpg.html'][/URL]
[URL='http://[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/Assholes.jpg.html][IMG]http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/baldaltima/Assholes.jpg[/IMG][/URL]'][URL='http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/Assholes.jpg.html'][/URL]
[URL='http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/pew-report-climate-change.jpg.html']





[URL='http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/burger%20king.jpg.html'][/URL]


flacaltenn needs only to show up in this forum and he wins.........[/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]

 

[skookerasbil]

Make no mistake.........the whole "denier" campaign has been a bust for progressives. They haven't moved the ball even one yard towards the goalposts when this campaign kicked off 5 years ago. Chessedickishness is ghey.........the progressives try this phony crap all the time and it always crashes and burns yet they continue the slam your won heads up against the wall strategy.

Every poll shows...........global warming is a huge yawn to most people..............heres another..............

[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/Assholes.jpg.html][/URL]




And lets face it.........many of these goofballs who spend countless hours in the nether-regions of the internet with the global warming banter lack real responsibilities in life. Very few people have the time or energy to engage in debate in a scientific theory that constantly gets nuked due to failed predictions.

 

[threegoofs]

3goofs..

((edit -- multigoofs has since removed the post that this addresses.))

I rarely drink whiskey, but when I do -- it's very expensive scotch on ice thank-you..

Wasn't talking to you ---- you've made yourself irrelevant because of your poor memory and learning disabilities. The response you're complaining about was responding to my warmer bud O-Rocks --- who seems more interested in actually discussing the topic..
Can't remember threads from Monday. Like the 30% of climate scientists that Bray and von Storch 2008 found skeptical of Climate Science as mature enough to REACH a consensus.


The Bray and von Storch-survey of the perceptions of climate scientists 2008: report, codebook and XLS data | Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch - Academia.edu



11d. Current theory development for climate change is
very inadequate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very adequate
Variable | Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max
------------------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q16 | 372 3.967742 1.275535 1 (almost none declared "very adequate"




11c. The state of theoretical understanding of climate change phenomena is
very inadequate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very adequate

STILL don't remember that conversation? You were there... Kinda... 30% or more consider their community understanding of climate phenomena to be less than adequate. von Storch 2008 --- 3rd time you've been informed. And I only opened that can --- because CrickHam tossed it out there to SUPPORT the silly claim of 97% consensus..

Oh, wait. Bray and van Storch?

Now I'm supposed to remember the SECOND author of the denier material only you hold dear.

The funny thing is, Bray and Van Storch are sick of you guys misrepresenting their study.

Read his letter to you here:

Die Klimazwiebel: Misrepresentation of Bray and von Storch survey


Jesus. You are just constantly full of fail.

s0n.......you want fAiL? Heres fAiL.............nobody cares about the science!!!!



[/URL]


']

[/URL]']

[/URL]']

[/URL]'][/URL]


']

[/URL]']flacaltenn needs only to show up in this forum and he wins.........[/URL]

Love how you constantly make my point for me.

I especially love how clueless you are about it.

You say the public is terrible at science. And then show us that they are so terrible, they don't understand AGW is a problem.

I agree- we should listen to the experts. Like NASA.

 

[skookerasbil]

3goofs..

((edit -- multigoofs has since removed the post that this addresses.))

I rarely drink whiskey, but when I do -- it's very expensive scotch on ice thank-you..

Wasn't talking to you ---- you've made yourself irrelevant because of your poor memory and learning disabilities. The response you're complaining about was responding to my warmer bud O-Rocks --- who seems more interested in actually discussing the topic..
Can't remember threads from Monday. Like the 30% of climate scientists that Bray and von Storch 2008 found skeptical of Climate Science as mature enough to REACH a consensus.


The Bray and von Storch-survey of the perceptions of climate scientists 2008: report, codebook and XLS data | Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch - Academia.edu



11d. Current theory development for climate change is
very inadequate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very adequate
Variable | Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max
------------------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q16 | 372 3.967742 1.275535 1 (almost none declared "very adequate"




11c. The state of theoretical understanding of climate change phenomena is
very inadequate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very adequate

STILL don't remember that conversation? You were there... Kinda... 30% or more consider their community understanding of climate phenomena to be less than adequate. von Storch 2008 --- 3rd time you've been informed. And I only opened that can --- because CrickHam tossed it out there to SUPPORT the silly claim of 97% consensus..

Oh, wait. Bray and van Storch?

Now I'm supposed to remember the SECOND author of the denier material only you hold dear.

The funny thing is, Bray and Van Storch are sick of you guys misrepresenting their study.

Read his letter to you here:

Die Klimazwiebel: Misrepresentation of Bray and von Storch survey


Jesus. You are just constantly full of fail.

s0n.......you want fAiL? Heres fAiL.............nobody cares about the science!!!!



[/URL]


']

[/URL]']

[/URL]']

[/URL]']

[/URL]'][/URL]


']

[/URL]']

[/URL]']flacaltenn needs only to show up in this forum and he wins.........[/URL]

Love how you constantly make my point for me.

I especially love how clueless you are about it.

You say the public is terrible at science. And then show us that they are so terrible, they don't understand AGW is a problem.

I agree- we should listen to the experts. Like NASA.

Oh.......you mean NASA that admits it cant explain why global warming has stopped?

NASA Admits It's Unable to Solve 'Mystery of Why Global Warming Appears to Have Slowed'

THAT NASA??!!!!!


And who cares if people dont understand the problem......that makes the AGW climate crusaders irrelevant. ( like the polls above clearly display!!!)


I'll take clueless any day.......as long as Im winning!! And I win because renewable energy is still a massive joke and will be for decades ( well......at least according to the Obama administration )

 

[flacaltenn]

3goofs..

((edit -- multigoofs has since removed the post that this addresses.))

I rarely drink whiskey, but when I do -- it's very expensive scotch on ice thank-you..

Wasn't talking to you ---- you've made yourself irrelevant because of your poor memory and learning disabilities. The response you're complaining about was responding to my warmer bud O-Rocks --- who seems more interested in actually discussing the topic..
Can't remember threads from Monday. Like the 30% of climate scientists that Bray and von Storch 2008 found skeptical of Climate Science as mature enough to REACH a consensus.


The Bray and von Storch-survey of the perceptions of climate scientists 2008: report, codebook and XLS data | Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch - Academia.edu



11d. Current theory development for climate change is
very inadequate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very adequate
Variable | Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max
------------------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q16 | 372 3.967742 1.275535 1 (almost none declared "very adequate"




11c. The state of theoretical understanding of climate change phenomena is
very inadequate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very adequate

STILL don't remember that conversation? You were there... Kinda... 30% or more consider their community understanding of climate phenomena to be less than adequate. von Storch 2008 --- 3rd time you've been informed. And I only opened that can --- because CrickHam tossed it out there to SUPPORT the silly claim of 97% consensus..

Oh, wait. Bray and van Storch?

Now I'm supposed to remember the SECOND author of the denier material only you hold dear.

The funny thing is, Bray and Van Storch are sick of you guys misrepresenting their study.

Read his letter to you here:

Die Klimazwiebel: Misrepresentation of Bray and von Storch survey


Jesus. You are just constantly full of fail.

The numbers speak for themselves. I misrepresented nothing.. Perhaps Bray and von Storch found their peer reviewed papers being systematically rejected and had to make amends.

If you can read graphs and understand the questions --- It is crystal clear that there is no absolute consensus or confidence in climate science AS OF THAT DATE.. Even less -- afterwards. A couple similar actual surveys confirmed about tthe same results. That fully a THIRD of climate scientists express doubt that their field is mature enough to be making such certain predictions..

 

[threegoofs]

3goofs..

((edit -- multigoofs has since removed the post that this addresses.))

I rarely drink whiskey, but when I do -- it's very expensive scotch on ice thank-you..

Wasn't talking to you ---- you've made yourself irrelevant because of your poor memory and learning disabilities. The response you're complaining about was responding to my warmer bud O-Rocks --- who seems more interested in actually discussing the topic..
Can't remember threads from Monday. Like the 30% of climate scientists that Bray and von Storch 2008 found skeptical of Climate Science as mature enough to REACH a consensus.


The Bray and von Storch-survey of the perceptions of climate scientists 2008: report, codebook and XLS data | Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch - Academia.edu



11d. Current theory development for climate change is
very inadequate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very adequate
Variable | Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max
------------------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q16 | 372 3.967742 1.275535 1 (almost none declared "very adequate"




11c. The state of theoretical understanding of climate change phenomena is
very inadequate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very adequate

STILL don't remember that conversation? You were there... Kinda... 30% or more consider their community understanding of climate phenomena to be less than adequate. von Storch 2008 --- 3rd time you've been informed. And I only opened that can --- because CrickHam tossed it out there to SUPPORT the silly claim of 97% consensus..

Oh, wait. Bray and van Storch?

Now I'm supposed to remember the SECOND author of the denier material only you hold dear.

The funny thing is, Bray and Van Storch are sick of you guys misrepresenting their study.

Read his letter to you here:

Die Klimazwiebel: Misrepresentation of Bray and von Storch survey


Jesus. You are just constantly full of fail.

s0n.......you want fAiL? Heres fAiL.............nobody cares about the science!!!!



[/URL]


']

[/URL]']

[/URL]']

[/URL]']

[/URL]'][/URL]


']

[/URL]']

[/URL]']flacaltenn needs only to show up in this forum and he wins.........[/URL]

Love how you constantly make my point for me.

I especially love how clueless you are about it.

You say the public is terrible at science. And then show us that they are so terrible, they don't understand AGW is a problem.

I agree- we should listen to the experts. Like NASA.

Oh.......you mean NASA that admits it cant explain why global warming has stopped?

NASA Admits It's Unable to Solve 'Mystery of Why Global Warming Appears to Have Slowed'

THAT NASA??!!!!!


And who cares if people dont understand the problem......that makes the AGW climate crusaders irrelevant. ( like the polls above clearly display!!!)


I'll take clueless any day.......as long as Im winning!! And I win because renewable energy is still a massive joke and will be for decades ( well......at least according to the Obama administration )

I'm sure that in your own mind, you are winning big.

Congratulations.

 

[threegoofs]

3goofs..

((edit -- multigoofs has since removed the post that this addresses.))

I rarely drink whiskey, but when I do -- it's very expensive scotch on ice thank-you..

Wasn't talking to you ---- you've made yourself irrelevant because of your poor memory and learning disabilities. The response you're complaining about was responding to my warmer bud O-Rocks --- who seems more interested in actually discussing the topic..
Can't remember threads from Monday. Like the 30% of climate scientists that Bray and von Storch 2008 found skeptical of Climate Science as mature enough to REACH a consensus.


The Bray and von Storch-survey of the perceptions of climate scientists 2008: report, codebook and XLS data | Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch - Academia.edu



11d. Current theory development for climate change is
very inadequate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very adequate
Variable | Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max
------------------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q16 | 372 3.967742 1.275535 1 (almost none declared "very adequate"




11c. The state of theoretical understanding of climate change phenomena is
very inadequate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very adequate

STILL don't remember that conversation? You were there... Kinda... 30% or more consider their community understanding of climate phenomena to be less than adequate. von Storch 2008 --- 3rd time you've been informed. And I only opened that can --- because CrickHam tossed it out there to SUPPORT the silly claim of 97% consensus..

Oh, wait. Bray and van Storch?

Now I'm supposed to remember the SECOND author of the denier material only you hold dear.

The funny thing is, Bray and Van Storch are sick of you guys misrepresenting their study.

Read his letter to you here:

Die Klimazwiebel: Misrepresentation of Bray and von Storch survey


Jesus. You are just constantly full of fail.

The numbers speak for themselves. I misrepresented nothing.. Perhaps Bray and von Storch found their peer reviewed papers being systematically rejected and had to make amends.

If you can read graphs and understand the questions --- It is crystal clear that there is no absolute consensus or confidence in climate science AS OF THAT DATE.. Even less -- afterwards. A couple similar actual surveys confirmed about tthe same results. That fully a THIRD of climate scientists express doubt that their field is mature enough to be making such certain predictions..

Read the link. It might help.

 

[flacaltenn]

3goofs..

((edit -- multigoofs has since removed the post that this addresses.))

I rarely drink whiskey, but when I do -- it's very expensive scotch on ice thank-you..

Wasn't talking to you ---- you've made yourself irrelevant because of your poor memory and learning disabilities. The response you're complaining about was responding to my warmer bud O-Rocks --- who seems more interested in actually discussing the topic..
Can't remember threads from Monday. Like the 30% of climate scientists that Bray and von Storch 2008 found skeptical of Climate Science as mature enough to REACH a consensus.


The Bray and von Storch-survey of the perceptions of climate scientists 2008: report, codebook and XLS data | Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch - Academia.edu



11d. Current theory development for climate change is
very inadequate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very adequate
Variable | Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max
------------------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q16 | 372 3.967742 1.275535 1 (almost none declared "very adequate"




11c. The state of theoretical understanding of climate change phenomena is
very inadequate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very adequate

STILL don't remember that conversation? You were there... Kinda... 30% or more consider their community understanding of climate phenomena to be less than adequate. von Storch 2008 --- 3rd time you've been informed. And I only opened that can --- because CrickHam tossed it out there to SUPPORT the silly claim of 97% consensus..

Oh, wait. Bray and van Storch?

Now I'm supposed to remember the SECOND author of the denier material only you hold dear.

The funny thing is, Bray and Van Storch are sick of you guys misrepresenting their study.

Read his letter to you here:

Die Klimazwiebel: Misrepresentation of Bray and von Storch survey


Jesus. You are just constantly full of fail.

The numbers speak for themselves. I misrepresented nothing.. Perhaps Bray and von Storch found their peer reviewed papers being systematically rejected and had to make amends.

If you can read graphs and understand the questions --- It is crystal clear that there is no absolute consensus or confidence in climate science AS OF THAT DATE.. Even less -- afterwards. A couple similar actual surveys confirmed about tthe same results. That fully a THIRD of climate scientists express doubt that their field is mature enough to be making such certain predictions..

Read the link. It might help.

Did that.. von Storch is a very strange character. You'd know that if you followed his public statements.
That whole deal with Spencer was like a pitcher tossing back to 2nd -- to keep the runner on base.

Didn't want his polls USED for propaganda from either side.. I like the guy,.. He's honest and frank. And like I said --- there are numbers in all of his polls that sink the 97% consensus bullshit.. That's my only target here. The 97% number never existed for any IMPORTANT question on climate science.. Other than that. Study the results of his polls and learn something for a change..

 

[threegoofs]

3goofs..

((edit -- multigoofs has since removed the post that this addresses.))

I rarely drink whiskey, but when I do -- it's very expensive scotch on ice thank-you..

Wasn't talking to you ---- you've made yourself irrelevant because of your poor memory and learning disabilities. The response you're complaining about was responding to my warmer bud O-Rocks --- who seems more interested in actually discussing the topic..
Can't remember threads from Monday. Like the 30% of climate scientists that Bray and von Storch 2008 found skeptical of Climate Science as mature enough to REACH a consensus.


The Bray and von Storch-survey of the perceptions of climate scientists 2008: report, codebook and XLS data | Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch - Academia.edu



11d. Current theory development for climate change is
very inadequate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very adequate
Variable | Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max
------------------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q16 | 372 3.967742 1.275535 1 (almost none declared "very adequate"




11c. The state of theoretical understanding of climate change phenomena is
very inadequate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very adequate

STILL don't remember that conversation? You were there... Kinda... 30% or more consider their community understanding of climate phenomena to be less than adequate. von Storch 2008 --- 3rd time you've been informed. And I only opened that can --- because CrickHam tossed it out there to SUPPORT the silly claim of 97% consensus..

Oh, wait. Bray and van Storch?

Now I'm supposed to remember the SECOND author of the denier material only you hold dear.

The funny thing is, Bray and Van Storch are sick of you guys misrepresenting their study.

Read his letter to you here:

Die Klimazwiebel: Misrepresentation of Bray and von Storch survey


Jesus. You are just constantly full of fail.

The numbers speak for themselves. I misrepresented nothing.. Perhaps Bray and von Storch found their peer reviewed papers being systematically rejected and had to make amends.

If you can read graphs and understand the questions --- It is crystal clear that there is no absolute consensus or confidence in climate science AS OF THAT DATE.. Even less -- afterwards. A couple similar actual surveys confirmed about tthe same results. That fully a THIRD of climate scientists express doubt that their field is mature enough to be making such certain predictions..

Read the link. It might help.

Did that.. von Storch is a very strange character. You'd know that if you followed his public statements.
That whole deal with Spencer was like a pitcher tossing back to 2nd -- to keep the runner on base.

Didn't want his polls USED for propaganda from either side.. I like the guy,.. He's honest and frank. And like I said --- there are numbers in all of his polls that sink the 97% consensus bullshit.. That's my only target here. The 97% number never existed for any IMPORTANT question on climate science.. Other than that. Study the results of his polls and learn something for a change..

In other words- you pick what you agree with and dismiss everything else.

 

[Shrimpbox]

I am embarrassed about the test. Got three wrong. Had to say magnifying glass and loudness of a sound I really had no clue, but the water boiling was just overthinking. I knew pressure had effect but thought it was a trick question. Not sure it bothers me because at my age I have been away from any science education for 50 years. I think I can still feel competent enough to follow most science conversations. Critical thinking is not judged by this test, I hope.

Why you guys consistently use up so much usmb oxygen with these pissing contests about global warming is a mystery for me. Does it matter who wins the argument? Any change is supposed to be insignificant in its effect. The world is aware that some people have concerns but we are moving in the right direction. How bad is global warming so far? Earths population is still increasing and every year we are marginally better off. If we are going to measure the human condition by the loss of human life, we have much more to fear from wars, regional conflicts, and religious differences than global warming. A new plague could make all this handwringing about global warming moot. As far as I am concerned, the argument is really about who is going to make the most money and the average citizen be damned, read al gore.

 

[flacaltenn]

I am embarrassed about the test. Got three wrong. Had to say magnifying glass and loudness of a sound I really had no clue, but the water boiling was just overthinking. I knew pressure had effect but thought it was a trick question. Not sure it bothers me because at my age I have been away from any science education for 50 years. I think I can still feel competent enough to follow most science conversations. Critical thinking is not judged by this test, I hope.

Why you guys consistently use up so much usmb oxygen with these pissing contests about global warming is a mystery for me. Does it matter who wins the argument? Any change is supposed to be insignificant in its effect. The world is aware that some people have concerns but we are moving in the right direction. How bad is global warming so far? Earths population is still increasing and every year we are marginally better off. If we are going to measure the human condition by the loss of human life, we have much more to fear from wars, regional conflicts, and religious differences than global warming. A new plague could make all this handwringing about global warming moot. As far as I am concerned, the argument is really about who is going to make the most money and the average citizen be damned, read al gore.

It's OK ShrimBox -- just remember, if you're boiling keep a lid on it. And if you ever have the urge to bake a cake at 5000ft --- follow the high altitude instructions. If you don't === the birthday cake comes out looking like a Crepe..

Personal experience....... from a guy who got the question right...

 

[IanC]

3goofs..

((edit -- multigoofs has since removed the post that this addresses.))

I rarely drink whiskey, but when I do -- it's very expensive scotch on ice thank-you..

Wasn't talking to you ---- you've made yourself irrelevant because of your poor memory and learning disabilities. The response you're complaining about was responding to my warmer bud O-Rocks --- who seems more interested in actually discussing the topic..
Can't remember threads from Monday. Like the 30% of climate scientists that Bray and von Storch 2008 found skeptical of Climate Science as mature enough to REACH a consensus.


The Bray and von Storch-survey of the perceptions of climate scientists 2008: report, codebook and XLS data | Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch - Academia.edu



11d. Current theory development for climate change is
very inadequate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very adequate
Variable | Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max
------------------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q16 | 372 3.967742 1.275535 1 (almost none declared "very adequate"




11c. The state of theoretical understanding of climate change phenomena is
very inadequate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very adequate

STILL don't remember that conversation? You were there... Kinda... 30% or more consider their community understanding of climate phenomena to be less than adequate. von Storch 2008 --- 3rd time you've been informed. And I only opened that can --- because CrickHam tossed it out there to SUPPORT the silly claim of 97% consensus..

Oh, wait. Bray and van Storch?

Now I'm supposed to remember the SECOND author of the denier material only you hold dear.

The funny thing is, Bray and Van Storch are sick of you guys misrepresenting their study.

Read his letter to you here:

Die Klimazwiebel: Misrepresentation of Bray and von Storch survey


Jesus. You are just constantly full of fail.

The numbers speak for themselves. I misrepresented nothing.. Perhaps Bray and von Storch found their peer reviewed papers being systematically rejected and had to make amends.

If you can read graphs and understand the questions --- It is crystal clear that there is no absolute consensus or confidence in climate science AS OF THAT DATE.. Even less -- afterwards. A couple similar actual surveys confirmed about tthe same results. That fully a THIRD of climate scientists express doubt that their field is mature enough to be making such certain predictions..

Read the link. It might help.

I read the link. Did you read the comments?

I don't have time to find it right now but in a past discussion on this subject I linked an interview with Bray where he talked about 'consensus', and he made the same points as flac-. The guy has to work in climate science so he has to watch what he says. Not unlike the more recent uproar over Steven's paper on aerosols.

 

[skookerasbil]

3goofs..

((edit -- multigoofs has since removed the post that this addresses.))

I rarely drink whiskey, but when I do -- it's very expensive scotch on ice thank-you..

Wasn't talking to you ---- you've made yourself irrelevant because of your poor memory and learning disabilities. The response you're complaining about was responding to my warmer bud O-Rocks --- who seems more interested in actually discussing the topic..
Can't remember threads from Monday. Like the 30% of climate scientists that Bray and von Storch 2008 found skeptical of Climate Science as mature enough to REACH a consensus.


The Bray and von Storch-survey of the perceptions of climate scientists 2008: report, codebook and XLS data | Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch - Academia.edu



11d. Current theory development for climate change is
very inadequate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very adequate
Variable | Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max
------------------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q16 | 372 3.967742 1.275535 1 (almost none declared "very adequate"




11c. The state of theoretical understanding of climate change phenomena is
very inadequate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very adequate

STILL don't remember that conversation? You were there... Kinda... 30% or more consider their community understanding of climate phenomena to be less than adequate. von Storch 2008 --- 3rd time you've been informed. And I only opened that can --- because CrickHam tossed it out there to SUPPORT the silly claim of 97% consensus..

Oh, wait. Bray and van Storch?

Now I'm supposed to remember the SECOND author of the denier material only you hold dear.

The funny thing is, Bray and Van Storch are sick of you guys misrepresenting their study.

Read his letter to you here:

Die Klimazwiebel: Misrepresentation of Bray and von Storch survey


Jesus. You are just constantly full of fail.

s0n.......you want fAiL? Heres fAiL.............nobody cares about the science!!!!



[/URL]


']

[/URL]']

[/URL]']

[/URL]']

[/URL]']

[/URL]'][/URL]


']

[/URL]']

[/URL]']

[/URL]']flacaltenn needs only to show up in this forum and he wins.........[/URL]

Love how you constantly make my point for me.

I especially love how clueless you are about it.

You say the public is terrible at science. And then show us that they are so terrible, they don't understand AGW is a problem.

I agree- we should listen to the experts. Like NASA.

Oh.......you mean NASA that admits it cant explain why global warming has stopped?

NASA Admits It's Unable to Solve 'Mystery of Why Global Warming Appears to Have Slowed'

THAT NASA??!!!!!


And who cares if people dont understand the problem......that makes the AGW climate crusaders irrelevant. ( like the polls above clearly display!!!)


I'll take clueless any day.......as long as Im winning!! And I win because renewable energy is still a massive joke and will be for decades ( well......at least according to the Obama administration )

I'm sure that in your own mind, you are winning big.

Congratulations.

More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!! | Page 436 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[threegoofs]

3goofs..

((edit -- multigoofs has since removed the post that this addresses.))

I rarely drink whiskey, but when I do -- it's very expensive scotch on ice thank-you..

Wasn't talking to you ---- you've made yourself irrelevant because of your poor memory and learning disabilities. The response you're complaining about was responding to my warmer bud O-Rocks --- who seems more interested in actually discussing the topic..
Can't remember threads from Monday. Like the 30% of climate scientists that Bray and von Storch 2008 found skeptical of Climate Science as mature enough to REACH a consensus.


The Bray and von Storch-survey of the perceptions of climate scientists 2008: report, codebook and XLS data | Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch - Academia.edu



11d. Current theory development for climate change is
very inadequate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very adequate
Variable | Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max
------------------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q16 | 372 3.967742 1.275535 1 (almost none declared "very adequate"




11c. The state of theoretical understanding of climate change phenomena is
very inadequate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very adequate

STILL don't remember that conversation? You were there... Kinda... 30% or more consider their community understanding of climate phenomena to be less than adequate. von Storch 2008 --- 3rd time you've been informed. And I only opened that can --- because CrickHam tossed it out there to SUPPORT the silly claim of 97% consensus..

Oh, wait. Bray and van Storch?

Now I'm supposed to remember the SECOND author of the denier material only you hold dear.

The funny thing is, Bray and Van Storch are sick of you guys misrepresenting their study.

Read his letter to you here:

Die Klimazwiebel: Misrepresentation of Bray and von Storch survey


Jesus. You are just constantly full of fail.

The numbers speak for themselves. I misrepresented nothing.. Perhaps Bray and von Storch found their peer reviewed papers being systematically rejected and had to make amends.

If you can read graphs and understand the questions --- It is crystal clear that there is no absolute consensus or confidence in climate science AS OF THAT DATE.. Even less -- afterwards. A couple similar actual surveys confirmed about tthe same results. That fully a THIRD of climate scientists express doubt that their field is mature enough to be making such certain predictions..

Read the link. It might help.

I read the link. Did you read the comments?

I don't have time to find it right now but in a past discussion on this subject I linked an interview with Bray where he talked about 'consensus', and he made the same points as flac-. The guy has to work in climate science so he has to watch what he says. Not unlike the more recent uproar over Steven's paper on aerosols.

No idea what paper you mean, so I looked it up. As I suspected, the 'uproar' was manufactured on denier blogs.

How to Misinterpret Climate Change Research

You're living in a fantasy world.

 

[IanC]

3goofs..

((edit -- multigoofs has since removed the post that this addresses.))

I rarely drink whiskey, but when I do -- it's very expensive scotch on ice thank-you..

Wasn't talking to you ---- you've made yourself irrelevant because of your poor memory and learning disabilities. The response you're complaining about was responding to my warmer bud O-Rocks --- who seems more interested in actually discussing the topic..
Can't remember threads from Monday. Like the 30% of climate scientists that Bray and von Storch 2008 found skeptical of Climate Science as mature enough to REACH a consensus.


The Bray and von Storch-survey of the perceptions of climate scientists 2008: report, codebook and XLS data | Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch - Academia.edu



11d. Current theory development for climate change is
very inadequate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very adequate
Variable | Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max
------------------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q16 | 372 3.967742 1.275535 1 (almost none declared "very adequate"




11c. The state of theoretical understanding of climate change phenomena is
very inadequate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very adequate

STILL don't remember that conversation? You were there... Kinda... 30% or more consider their community understanding of climate phenomena to be less than adequate. von Storch 2008 --- 3rd time you've been informed. And I only opened that can --- because CrickHam tossed it out there to SUPPORT the silly claim of 97% consensus..

Oh, wait. Bray and van Storch?

Now I'm supposed to remember the SECOND author of the denier material only you hold dear.

The funny thing is, Bray and Van Storch are sick of you guys misrepresenting their study.

Read his letter to you here:

Die Klimazwiebel: Misrepresentation of Bray and von Storch survey


Jesus. You are just constantly full of fail.

The numbers speak for themselves. I misrepresented nothing.. Perhaps Bray and von Storch found their peer reviewed papers being systematically rejected and had to make amends.

If you can read graphs and understand the questions --- It is crystal clear that there is no absolute consensus or confidence in climate science AS OF THAT DATE.. Even less -- afterwards. A couple similar actual surveys confirmed about tthe same results. That fully a THIRD of climate scientists express doubt that their field is mature enough to be making such certain predictions..

Read the link. It might help.

I read the link. Did you read the comments?

I don't have time to find it right now but in a past discussion on this subject I linked an interview with Bray where he talked about 'consensus', and he made the same points as flac-. The guy has to work in climate science so he has to watch what he says. Not unlike the more recent uproar over Steven's paper on aerosols.

one of bray's comments in 3goofs link

We did not try to hide any results, all of the survey results are freely available on line. What we didn't do was claim this means this or that means that - often conclusions drawn based on a normative judgment. We thought it best to leave such work for others. It is amusing that Bast accuses us of hiding what could be considered fodder for the skeptic canons while his antithesis accuses us of cherry picking to support the skeptic camp. In reality, we simply present the data without normative comment.