Communists, Radicals Spotted Throughout Climate March In Nyc Demanding ‘revolution, Nothing Less’

[Stephanie]

The sad part in all this, is those people are so stupid they don't realize all they ARE is BEING USED by politicians like, Al Gore and his Millionaire buddies like the Kennedys... who wants to IMPOSE their rules on them and all OF YOU

It's an irrational fear of the Global Warming Boogeyman. Fear is the most important tool used to force agendas on others. Most if not all behind the Global Warming fear mongering are Left Wing/Communists. They want to force their agenda by way of Government intimidation & force. That's what Communists do.

But the People are beginning to wake up. They're deciding to take their chances with the Global Warming Boogeyman, rather than with the Communist assholes. They're choosing Freedom & Liberty instead.

Hitler used to his advantage and got millions of people killed while others cheered. this is the NEW progressive/democrat/commie parties ways today

THE PEOPLE in this country better wake up

 

[paulitician]

The sad part in all this, is those people are so stupid they don't realize all they ARE is BEING USED by politicians like, Al Gore and his Millionaire buddies like the Kennedys... who wants to IMPOSE their rules on them and all OF YOU

It's an irrational fear of the Global Warming Boogeyman. Fear is the most important tool used to force agendas on others. Most if not all behind the Global Warming fear mongering are Left Wing/Communists. They want to force their agenda by way of Government intimidation & force. That's what Communists do.

But the People are beginning to wake up. They're deciding to take their chances with the Global Warming Boogeyman, rather than with the Communist assholes. They're choosing Freedom & Liberty instead.

Hitler used to his advantage and got millions of people killed while others cheered. this is the NEW progressive/democrat/commie parties ways today

THE PEOPLE in this country better wake up

Fear is a very important tool. Hitler and the Nazis knew that very well. If you scare the People enough, most will go along with just about anything. Personally, i'm taking my chances with the Global Warming Boogeyman. Bring em on. Give me liberty or give me death. I'll die a free person.

 

[georgephillip]

The sad part in all this, is those people are so stupid they don't realize all they ARE is BEING USED by politicians like, Al Gore and his Millionaire buddies like the Kennedys... who wants to IMPOSE their rules on them and all OF YOU

It's an irrational fear of the Global Warming Boogeyman. Fear is the most important tool used to force agendas on others. Most if not all behind the Global Warming fear mongering are Left Wing/Communists. They want to force their agenda by way of Government intimidation & force. That's what Communists do.

But the People are beginning to wake up. They're deciding to take their chances with the Global Warming Boogeyman, rather than with the Communist assholes. They're choosing Freedom & Liberty instead.

Hitler used to his advantage and got millions of people killed while others cheered. this is the NEW progressive/democrat/commie parties ways today

THE PEOPLE in this country better wake up

Fear is a very important tool. Hitler and the Nazis knew that very well. If you scare the People enough, most will go along with just about anything. Personally, i'm taking my chances with the Global Warming Boogeyman. Bring em on. Give me liberty or give me death. I'll die a free person.

What about any descendants you leave behind?
IF there is a threat from AGW, we shouldn't leave it to Leo or the Koch brothers to determine our response.

 

[Stephanie]

The sad part in all this, is those people are so stupid they don't realize all they ARE is BEING USED by politicians like, Al Gore and his Millionaire buddies like the Kennedys... who wants to IMPOSE their rules on them and all OF YOU

It's an irrational fear of the Global Warming Boogeyman. Fear is the most important tool used to force agendas on others. Most if not all behind the Global Warming fear mongering are Left Wing/Communists. They want to force their agenda by way of Government intimidation & force. That's what Communists do.

But the People are beginning to wake up. They're deciding to take their chances with the Global Warming Boogeyman, rather than with the Communist assholes. They're choosing Freedom & Liberty instead.

Hitler used to his advantage and got millions of people killed while others cheered. this is the NEW progressive/democrat/commie parties ways today

THE PEOPLE in this country better wake up

Fear is a very important tool. Hitler and the Nazis knew that very well. If you scare the People enough, most will go along with just about anything. Personally, i'm taking my chances with the Global Warming Boogeyman. Bring em on. Give me liberty or give me death. I'll die a free person.

What about any descendants you leave behind?
IF there is a threat from AGW, we shouldn't leave it to Leo or the Koch brothers to determine our response.

Just run them all off into gas chambers or abort them. isn't that the Democrat party way? problem solved and you saved mother earth all at the same time

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Its time for every American to stop having children, become vegetarian, sell their cars, paint their roofs white and give all their money to africans to help them cope with adverse weather.

Before its too late !

 

[paulitician]

Its time for every American to stop having children, become vegetarian, sell their cars, paint their roofs white and give all their money to africans to help them cope with adverse weather.

Before its too late !

There oughta be a Law. Seriously though, don't give the nutters any ideas.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Arbeit Macht Frei Guno.

 

[flacaltenn]

If you're looking for OPINIONS from climate scientists, the WORSE place to look would be in their technical papers. Not only that but the shittyscience.com inspired "poll" has been beaten to a pulp over fraudulent representations of "no opinion" as SUPPORTING Global Warming hype and exaggerations. NO reputable poll would EVER attempt such a dishonest statistical assertion...

"The study is the most comprehensive yet and identified 4000 summaries, otherwise known as abstracts, from papers published in the past 21 years that stated a position on the cause of recent global warming – 97 per cent of these endorsed the consensus that we are seeing man-made, or anthropogenic, global warming (AGW)."

For the record, do you believe AGW is a hoax?

Study reveals scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change

What those chronic liars DIDN'T tell ya was those 4000 papers and abstracts --- only about 50 expressed ANY OPINION at all.. Which is what I was telling you about seeking OPINION in a scientific paper. But the criminals at shittyscience.com didn't let that stop them. They just added in all the "no opinion" papers to their phoney ass consensus..

It's a fraud Georgie Boy -- and furthermore it was long ago before the temperature pause and those embarrassing leaks of emails from East Anglia. Just the fact that you don't SEE CURRENT POLLS of climate scientists like you used to --- ought to tip you off. If you're not a dumbass.

Short answer to what I believe.. The basic physics statement of the power of CO2 to warm the Atmos is about 1degC/doubling of CO2. BOTH sides of the AGW argument agree to that as I do..

But AGW is based on hysterics about feedbacks and dynamics of a climate system that we barely understand. And AGW using Magic Multipliers to get from 1degC/doubling to about 6 or 8 degC/doubling.
Mankind has yet to double the pre-industrial level of CO2. And all OBSERVED warming is closer to the basic Atmos Physics fact than the fantasically exaggerated AGW claims..

So I don't believe in the Magic part. And I certainly don't buy the argument that the Earth climate is so unstable that it would destroy itself without further help from man in a runaway thermal condition.. These are things I KNOW from studying the topic for about a decade.

So what do YOU BELIEVE Georgie? What's the Global Temp. anomaly gonna be in 2060? Please reply in kind..

I'm inclined to accept the following conclusion at face value; if you are not, please explain why:
"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.

"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.

"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

Nope.. Junk statistic.. NO REPUTABLE polling agency would take that interpretation. Because the VAST MAJORITY of folks expressed no opinion in their science products and were CORRECT to do that. Because you don't start the abstract of a science paper by stating your "beliefs or biases".

Furthermore -- there are typically 3 to a dozen authors on a science paper and they don't necessarily agree on much.

Not to mention, that there is no comprehensive compelling statement of what the temp. in 2060 is projected to be. Hell -- by the definition of the "questions" (that were never asked, but divined) I WOULD be probably in the 97%.. It's meaningless crap.. If you claim it's science consensus, find a RECENT poll since 2011 with some definitive statement and stop relying on this devious propaganda construct..

 

[flacaltenn]

It would take over 240,000 of the largest nuclear bombs ever built just to raise the temperature of the Antarctica ice cap...wait for it...1 degree. Not melt it just to raise it 1 degree, 240,000 big ass nukes. Tell us again libs how humans are causing global warming.

Show your math:
"...the temperature at the core of the (nuclear) explosion is always between 50 and 150 million degrees Fahrenheit... So the temperature of the center of a nuclear bomb can reach temperatures hotter than the core of our sun."

Introversion bull View topic - How hot is a nuclear explosion

This was in the news, go argue with the Algebra teacher who calculated this with his students as an exercise, let us know if you can prove him wrong my guess is you can't.

You can't supply a link proving your own allegation?

The math is probably correct. This Aint' just a propaganda tool for skeptics.. Go look at the worst GW science site on the site for warmers.

skepticalscience.com has a running ATOM BOMB counter on most of their pages to try and pull and equality between the 0.5degC change in your lifetime and 100s of Thousands of atom bombs.

I don't doubt the math.. It's just a bad analogy. When a bomb goes off, the dispersion of that energy is pretty immediate. And the resultant "warming" of that volume of atmosphere that remains is quite low..

 

[BluesLegend]

It would take over 240,000 of the largest nuclear bombs ever built just to raise the temperature of the Antarctica ice cap...wait for it...1 degree. Not melt it just to raise it 1 degree, 240,000 big ass nukes. Tell us again libs how humans are causing global warming.

Show your math:
"...the temperature at the core of the (nuclear) explosion is always between 50 and 150 million degrees Fahrenheit... So the temperature of the center of a nuclear bomb can reach temperatures hotter than the core of our sun."

Introversion bull View topic - How hot is a nuclear explosion

This was in the news, go argue with the Algebra teacher who calculated this with his students as an exercise, let us know if you can prove him wrong my guess is you can't.

You can't supply a link proving your own allegation?

The math is probably correct. This Aint' just a propaganda tool for skeptics.. Go look at the worst GW science site on the site for warmers.

skepticalscience.com has a running ATOM BOMB counter on most of their pages to try and pull and equality between the 0.5degC change in your lifetime and 100s of Thousands of atom bombs.

I don't doubt the math.. It's just a bad analogy. When a bomb goes off, the dispersion of that energy is pretty immediate. And the resultant "warming" of that volume of atmosphere that remains is quite low..

Okay but we are not talking about 1 atom bomb we are talking about 240,000 of the biggest hydrogen bombs every built. Compare that to driving a V8 pickup truck damaging the planet.

 

[flacaltenn]

The math is probably correct. This Aint' just a propaganda tool for skeptics.. Go look at the worst GW science site on the site for warmers.

skepticalscience.com has a running ATOM BOMB counter on most of their pages to try and pull and equality between the 0.5degC change in your lifetime and 100s of Thousands of atom bombs.

I don't doubt the math.. It's just a bad analogy. When a bomb goes off, the dispersion of that energy is pretty immediate. And the resultant "warming" of that volume of atmosphere that remains is quite low..

Okay but we are not talking about 1 atom bomb we are talking about 240,000 of the biggest hydrogen bombs every built. Compare that to driving a V8 pickup truck damaging the planet.

The tactic of making comparisons like this is because you can produce large scary numbers quite easily for most everything. OR you can minimize the same large scary numbers by distributing that number over some large volume or population.. As in the US budget item for Public Television and Radio.. It's $0.32/person/year or $100,000,000 (dont know the actual) -- depending on what side you are on..

The total warming we experienced attributed to GWarming is about 1Watt/m2. That's an LED shining every square meter of surface. Not too scary. But when you multiply that by the total Meter-squared of the Earth's surface -- it gives you room to exaggerate...

 

[georgephillip]

If you're looking for OPINIONS from climate scientists, the WORSE place to look would be in their technical papers. Not only that but the shittyscience.com inspired "poll" has been beaten to a pulp over fraudulent representations of "no opinion" as SUPPORTING Global Warming hype and exaggerations. NO reputable poll would EVER attempt such a dishonest statistical assertion...

"The study is the most comprehensive yet and identified 4000 summaries, otherwise known as abstracts, from papers published in the past 21 years that stated a position on the cause of recent global warming – 97 per cent of these endorsed the consensus that we are seeing man-made, or anthropogenic, global warming (AGW)."

For the record, do you believe AGW is a hoax?

Study reveals scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change

What those chronic liars DIDN'T tell ya was those 4000 papers and abstracts --- only about 50 expressed ANY OPINION at all.. Which is what I was telling you about seeking OPINION in a scientific paper. But the criminals at shittyscience.com didn't let that stop them. They just added in all the "no opinion" papers to their phoney ass consensus..

It's a fraud Georgie Boy -- and furthermore it was long ago before the temperature pause and those embarrassing leaks of emails from East Anglia. Just the fact that you don't SEE CURRENT POLLS of climate scientists like you used to --- ought to tip you off. If you're not a dumbass.

Short answer to what I believe.. The basic physics statement of the power of CO2 to warm the Atmos is about 1degC/doubling of CO2. BOTH sides of the AGW argument agree to that as I do..

But AGW is based on hysterics about feedbacks and dynamics of a climate system that we barely understand. And AGW using Magic Multipliers to get from 1degC/doubling to about 6 or 8 degC/doubling.
Mankind has yet to double the pre-industrial level of CO2. And all OBSERVED warming is closer to the basic Atmos Physics fact than the fantasically exaggerated AGW claims..

So I don't believe in the Magic part. And I certainly don't buy the argument that the Earth climate is so unstable that it would destroy itself without further help from man in a runaway thermal condition.. These are things I KNOW from studying the topic for about a decade.

So what do YOU BELIEVE Georgie? What's the Global Temp. anomaly gonna be in 2060? Please reply in kind..

I'm inclined to accept the following conclusion at face value; if you are not, please explain why:
"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.

"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.

"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

Nope.. Junk statistic.. NO REPUTABLE polling agency would take that interpretation. Because the VAST MAJORITY of folks expressed no opinion in their science products and were CORRECT to do that. Because you don't start the abstract of a science paper by stating your "beliefs or biases".

Furthermore -- there are typically 3 to a dozen authors on a science paper and they don't necessarily agree on much.

Not to mention, that there is no comprehensive compelling statement of what the temp. in 2060 is projected to be. Hell -- by the definition of the "questions" (that were never asked, but divined) I WOULD be probably in the 97%.. It's meaningless crap.. If you claim it's science consensus, find a RECENT poll since 2011 with some definitive statement and stop relying on this devious propaganda construct..

"Surveys of climate scientists have found strong agreement (97–98%) regarding AGW amongst publishing climate experts (Doran and Zimmerman 2009, Anderegg et al2010). Repeated surveys of scientists found that scientific agreement about AGW steadily increased from 1996 to 2009 (Bray 2010). This is reflected in the increasingly definitive statements issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the attribution of recent GW (Houghton et al1996, 2001, Solomon et al2007)"

Why are you obsessing over what the temperature will be in 2060? There appears to be a consensus approaching 98% among scientists that AGW is real TODAY.

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

 

[bripat9643]

If you're looking for OPINIONS from climate scientists, the WORSE place to look would be in their technical papers. Not only that but the shittyscience.com inspired "poll" has been beaten to a pulp over fraudulent representations of "no opinion" as SUPPORTING Global Warming hype and exaggerations. NO reputable poll would EVER attempt such a dishonest statistical assertion...

"The study is the most comprehensive yet and identified 4000 summaries, otherwise known as abstracts, from papers published in the past 21 years that stated a position on the cause of recent global warming – 97 per cent of these endorsed the consensus that we are seeing man-made, or anthropogenic, global warming (AGW)."

For the record, do you believe AGW is a hoax?

Study reveals scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change

What those chronic liars DIDN'T tell ya was those 4000 papers and abstracts --- only about 50 expressed ANY OPINION at all.. Which is what I was telling you about seeking OPINION in a scientific paper. But the criminals at shittyscience.com didn't let that stop them. They just added in all the "no opinion" papers to their phoney ass consensus..

It's a fraud Georgie Boy -- and furthermore it was long ago before the temperature pause and those embarrassing leaks of emails from East Anglia. Just the fact that you don't SEE CURRENT POLLS of climate scientists like you used to --- ought to tip you off. If you're not a dumbass.

Short answer to what I believe.. The basic physics statement of the power of CO2 to warm the Atmos is about 1degC/doubling of CO2. BOTH sides of the AGW argument agree to that as I do..

But AGW is based on hysterics about feedbacks and dynamics of a climate system that we barely understand. And AGW using Magic Multipliers to get from 1degC/doubling to about 6 or 8 degC/doubling.
Mankind has yet to double the pre-industrial level of CO2. And all OBSERVED warming is closer to the basic Atmos Physics fact than the fantasically exaggerated AGW claims..

So I don't believe in the Magic part. And I certainly don't buy the argument that the Earth climate is so unstable that it would destroy itself without further help from man in a runaway thermal condition.. These are things I KNOW from studying the topic for about a decade.

So what do YOU BELIEVE Georgie? What's the Global Temp. anomaly gonna be in 2060? Please reply in kind..

I'm inclined to accept the following conclusion at face value; if you are not, please explain why:
"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.

"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.

"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

Nope.. Junk statistic.. NO REPUTABLE polling agency would take that interpretation. Because the VAST MAJORITY of folks expressed no opinion in their science products and were CORRECT to do that. Because you don't start the abstract of a science paper by stating your "beliefs or biases".

Furthermore -- there are typically 3 to a dozen authors on a science paper and they don't necessarily agree on much.

Not to mention, that there is no comprehensive compelling statement of what the temp. in 2060 is projected to be. Hell -- by the definition of the "questions" (that were never asked, but divined) I WOULD be probably in the 97%.. It's meaningless crap.. If you claim it's science consensus, find a RECENT poll since 2011 with some definitive statement and stop relying on this devious propaganda construct..

"Surveys of climate scientists have found strong agreement (97–98%) regarding AGW amongst publishing climate experts (Doran and Zimmerman 2009, Anderegg et al2010). Repeated surveys of scientists found that scientific agreement about AGW steadily increased from 1996 to 2009 (Bray 2010). This is reflected in the increasingly definitive statements issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the attribution of recent GW (Houghton et al1996, 2001, Solomon et al2007)"

Why are you obsessing over what the temperature will be in 2060? There appears to be a consensus approaching 98% among scientists that AGW is real TODAY.

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

Temperatures today are the same or lower than they were 20 years ago, so apparently you're wrong: there is no globull warming today.

 

[georgephillip]

"The study is the most comprehensive yet and identified 4000 summaries, otherwise known as abstracts, from papers published in the past 21 years that stated a position on the cause of recent global warming – 97 per cent of these endorsed the consensus that we are seeing man-made, or anthropogenic, global warming (AGW)."

For the record, do you believe AGW is a hoax?

Study reveals scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change

What those chronic liars DIDN'T tell ya was those 4000 papers and abstracts --- only about 50 expressed ANY OPINION at all.. Which is what I was telling you about seeking OPINION in a scientific paper. But the criminals at shittyscience.com didn't let that stop them. They just added in all the "no opinion" papers to their phoney ass consensus..

It's a fraud Georgie Boy -- and furthermore it was long ago before the temperature pause and those embarrassing leaks of emails from East Anglia. Just the fact that you don't SEE CURRENT POLLS of climate scientists like you used to --- ought to tip you off. If you're not a dumbass.

Short answer to what I believe.. The basic physics statement of the power of CO2 to warm the Atmos is about 1degC/doubling of CO2. BOTH sides of the AGW argument agree to that as I do..

But AGW is based on hysterics about feedbacks and dynamics of a climate system that we barely understand. And AGW using Magic Multipliers to get from 1degC/doubling to about 6 or 8 degC/doubling.
Mankind has yet to double the pre-industrial level of CO2. And all OBSERVED warming is closer to the basic Atmos Physics fact than the fantasically exaggerated AGW claims..

So I don't believe in the Magic part. And I certainly don't buy the argument that the Earth climate is so unstable that it would destroy itself without further help from man in a runaway thermal condition.. These are things I KNOW from studying the topic for about a decade.

So what do YOU BELIEVE Georgie? What's the Global Temp. anomaly gonna be in 2060? Please reply in kind..

I'm inclined to accept the following conclusion at face value; if you are not, please explain why:
"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.

"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.

"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

Nope.. Junk statistic.. NO REPUTABLE polling agency would take that interpretation. Because the VAST MAJORITY of folks expressed no opinion in their science products and were CORRECT to do that. Because you don't start the abstract of a science paper by stating your "beliefs or biases".

Furthermore -- there are typically 3 to a dozen authors on a science paper and they don't necessarily agree on much.

Not to mention, that there is no comprehensive compelling statement of what the temp. in 2060 is projected to be. Hell -- by the definition of the "questions" (that were never asked, but divined) I WOULD be probably in the 97%.. It's meaningless crap.. If you claim it's science consensus, find a RECENT poll since 2011 with some definitive statement and stop relying on this devious propaganda construct..

"Surveys of climate scientists have found strong agreement (97–98%) regarding AGW amongst publishing climate experts (Doran and Zimmerman 2009, Anderegg et al2010). Repeated surveys of scientists found that scientific agreement about AGW steadily increased from 1996 to 2009 (Bray 2010). This is reflected in the increasingly definitive statements issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the attribution of recent GW (Houghton et al1996, 2001, Solomon et al2007)"

Why are you obsessing over what the temperature will be in 2060? There appears to be a consensus approaching 98% among scientists that AGW is real TODAY.

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

Temperatures today are the same or lower than they were 20 years ago, so apparently you're wrong: there is no globull warming today.

Temperatures where?
Have you asked a polar bear?
Capitalism is a prescription for the next Mass Extinction.
You're living proof.

 

[bripat9643]

What those chronic liars DIDN'T tell ya was those 4000 papers and abstracts --- only about 50 expressed ANY OPINION at all.. Which is what I was telling you about seeking OPINION in a scientific paper. But the criminals at shittyscience.com didn't let that stop them. They just added in all the "no opinion" papers to their phoney ass consensus..

It's a fraud Georgie Boy -- and furthermore it was long ago before the temperature pause and those embarrassing leaks of emails from East Anglia. Just the fact that you don't SEE CURRENT POLLS of climate scientists like you used to --- ought to tip you off. If you're not a dumbass.

Short answer to what I believe.. The basic physics statement of the power of CO2 to warm the Atmos is about 1degC/doubling of CO2. BOTH sides of the AGW argument agree to that as I do..

But AGW is based on hysterics about feedbacks and dynamics of a climate system that we barely understand. And AGW using Magic Multipliers to get from 1degC/doubling to about 6 or 8 degC/doubling.
Mankind has yet to double the pre-industrial level of CO2. And all OBSERVED warming is closer to the basic Atmos Physics fact than the fantasically exaggerated AGW claims..

So I don't believe in the Magic part. And I certainly don't buy the argument that the Earth climate is so unstable that it would destroy itself without further help from man in a runaway thermal condition.. These are things I KNOW from studying the topic for about a decade.

So what do YOU BELIEVE Georgie? What's the Global Temp. anomaly gonna be in 2060? Please reply in kind..

I'm inclined to accept the following conclusion at face value; if you are not, please explain why:
"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.

"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.

"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

Nope.. Junk statistic.. NO REPUTABLE polling agency would take that interpretation. Because the VAST MAJORITY of folks expressed no opinion in their science products and were CORRECT to do that. Because you don't start the abstract of a science paper by stating your "beliefs or biases".

Furthermore -- there are typically 3 to a dozen authors on a science paper and they don't necessarily agree on much.

Not to mention, that there is no comprehensive compelling statement of what the temp. in 2060 is projected to be. Hell -- by the definition of the "questions" (that were never asked, but divined) I WOULD be probably in the 97%.. It's meaningless crap.. If you claim it's science consensus, find a RECENT poll since 2011 with some definitive statement and stop relying on this devious propaganda construct..

"Surveys of climate scientists have found strong agreement (97–98%) regarding AGW amongst publishing climate experts (Doran and Zimmerman 2009, Anderegg et al2010). Repeated surveys of scientists found that scientific agreement about AGW steadily increased from 1996 to 2009 (Bray 2010). This is reflected in the increasingly definitive statements issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the attribution of recent GW (Houghton et al1996, 2001, Solomon et al2007)"

Why are you obsessing over what the temperature will be in 2060? There appears to be a consensus approaching 98% among scientists that AGW is real TODAY.

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

Temperatures today are the same or lower than they were 20 years ago, so apparently you're wrong: there is no globull warming today.

Temperatures where?
Have you asked a polar bear?
Capitalism is a prescription for the next Mass Extinction.
You're living proof.

I refer to the average temperature of the Earth's climate reported by the AGW wizards you worship.

Here's a clue: pretending to be stupid isn't a convincing argument. It only makes people think you're stupid.

 

[flacaltenn]

If you're looking for OPINIONS from climate scientists, the WORSE place to look would be in their technical papers. Not only that but the shittyscience.com inspired "poll" has been beaten to a pulp over fraudulent representations of "no opinion" as SUPPORTING Global Warming hype and exaggerations. NO reputable poll would EVER attempt such a dishonest statistical assertion...

"The study is the most comprehensive yet and identified 4000 summaries, otherwise known as abstracts, from papers published in the past 21 years that stated a position on the cause of recent global warming – 97 per cent of these endorsed the consensus that we are seeing man-made, or anthropogenic, global warming (AGW)."

For the record, do you believe AGW is a hoax?

Study reveals scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change

What those chronic liars DIDN'T tell ya was those 4000 papers and abstracts --- only about 50 expressed ANY OPINION at all.. Which is what I was telling you about seeking OPINION in a scientific paper. But the criminals at shittyscience.com didn't let that stop them. They just added in all the "no opinion" papers to their phoney ass consensus..

It's a fraud Georgie Boy -- and furthermore it was long ago before the temperature pause and those embarrassing leaks of emails from East Anglia. Just the fact that you don't SEE CURRENT POLLS of climate scientists like you used to --- ought to tip you off. If you're not a dumbass.

Short answer to what I believe.. The basic physics statement of the power of CO2 to warm the Atmos is about 1degC/doubling of CO2. BOTH sides of the AGW argument agree to that as I do..

But AGW is based on hysterics about feedbacks and dynamics of a climate system that we barely understand. And AGW using Magic Multipliers to get from 1degC/doubling to about 6 or 8 degC/doubling.
Mankind has yet to double the pre-industrial level of CO2. And all OBSERVED warming is closer to the basic Atmos Physics fact than the fantasically exaggerated AGW claims..

So I don't believe in the Magic part. And I certainly don't buy the argument that the Earth climate is so unstable that it would destroy itself without further help from man in a runaway thermal condition.. These are things I KNOW from studying the topic for about a decade.

So what do YOU BELIEVE Georgie? What's the Global Temp. anomaly gonna be in 2060? Please reply in kind..

I'm inclined to accept the following conclusion at face value; if you are not, please explain why:
"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.

"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.

"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

Nope.. Junk statistic.. NO REPUTABLE polling agency would take that interpretation. Because the VAST MAJORITY of folks expressed no opinion in their science products and were CORRECT to do that. Because you don't start the abstract of a science paper by stating your "beliefs or biases".

Furthermore -- there are typically 3 to a dozen authors on a science paper and they don't necessarily agree on much.

Not to mention, that there is no comprehensive compelling statement of what the temp. in 2060 is projected to be. Hell -- by the definition of the "questions" (that were never asked, but divined) I WOULD be probably in the 97%.. It's meaningless crap.. If you claim it's science consensus, find a RECENT poll since 2011 with some definitive statement and stop relying on this devious propaganda construct..

"Surveys of climate scientists have found strong agreement (97–98%) regarding AGW amongst publishing climate experts (Doran and Zimmerman 2009, Anderegg et al2010). Repeated surveys of scientists found that scientific agreement about AGW steadily increased from 1996 to 2009 (Bray 2010). This is reflected in the increasingly definitive statements issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the attribution of recent GW (Houghton et al1996, 2001, Solomon et al2007)"

Why are you obsessing over what the temperature will be in 2060? There appears to be a consensus approaching 98% among scientists that AGW is real TODAY.

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

There is no useful theory of Global Warming to have consensus on if all the models are failing to predict even 10 years into the future. If you can't make an intelligient guess at what the temperature will BE in 2060 -- How is it possible that there is any MEANINGFUL consensus or guidelines for mediation?

We all agree the planet has been mildly warming.. As for your reliance on consensus --- not a single poll in there since 2010. The year the leaked ClimateGate emails exposed the fraternity pranking going on behind the scenes and before 4 MORE years of no warming..

Time to realize the science is no where near "settled"...

 

[MaxGrit]

What those chronic liars DIDN'T tell ya was those 4000 papers and abstracts --- only about 50 expressed ANY OPINION at all.. Which is what I was telling you about seeking OPINION in a scientific paper. But the criminals at shittyscience.com didn't let that stop them. They just added in all the "no opinion" papers to their phoney ass consensus..

It's a fraud Georgie Boy -- and furthermore it was long ago before the temperature pause and those embarrassing leaks of emails from East Anglia. Just the fact that you don't SEE CURRENT POLLS of climate scientists like you used to --- ought to tip you off. If you're not a dumbass.

Short answer to what I believe.. The basic physics statement of the power of CO2 to warm the Atmos is about 1degC/doubling of CO2. BOTH sides of the AGW argument agree to that as I do..

But AGW is based on hysterics about feedbacks and dynamics of a climate system that we barely understand. And AGW using Magic Multipliers to get from 1degC/doubling to about 6 or 8 degC/doubling.
Mankind has yet to double the pre-industrial level of CO2. And all OBSERVED warming is closer to the basic Atmos Physics fact than the fantasically exaggerated AGW claims..

So I don't believe in the Magic part. And I certainly don't buy the argument that the Earth climate is so unstable that it would destroy itself without further help from man in a runaway thermal condition.. These are things I KNOW from studying the topic for about a decade.

So what do YOU BELIEVE Georgie? What's the Global Temp. anomaly gonna be in 2060? Please reply in kind..

I'm inclined to accept the following conclusion at face value; if you are not, please explain why:
"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.

"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.

"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

Nope.. Junk statistic.. NO REPUTABLE polling agency would take that interpretation. Because the VAST MAJORITY of folks expressed no opinion in their science products and were CORRECT to do that. Because you don't start the abstract of a science paper by stating your "beliefs or biases".

Furthermore -- there are typically 3 to a dozen authors on a science paper and they don't necessarily agree on much.

Not to mention, that there is no comprehensive compelling statement of what the temp. in 2060 is projected to be. Hell -- by the definition of the "questions" (that were never asked, but divined) I WOULD be probably in the 97%.. It's meaningless crap.. If you claim it's science consensus, find a RECENT poll since 2011 with some definitive statement and stop relying on this devious propaganda construct..

"Surveys of climate scientists have found strong agreement (97–98%) regarding AGW amongst publishing climate experts (Doran and Zimmerman 2009, Anderegg et al2010). Repeated surveys of scientists found that scientific agreement about AGW steadily increased from 1996 to 2009 (Bray 2010). This is reflected in the increasingly definitive statements issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the attribution of recent GW (Houghton et al1996, 2001, Solomon et al2007)"

Why are you obsessing over what the temperature will be in 2060? There appears to be a consensus approaching 98% among scientists that AGW is real TODAY.

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

Temperatures today are the same or lower than they were 20 years ago, so apparently you're wrong: there is no globull warming today.

Temperatures where?
Have you asked a polar bear?
Capitalism is a prescription for the next Mass Extinction.
You're living proof.

lol yeah they said it colder

 

[Missouri_Mike]

So apparently the fix to the fake global warming bullshit is...a tax. Because we know for sure any real problem in the world can be fixed with a tax.

 

[Vigilante]

This sure doesn't look like 300K people to me....not even 100K people!

 

[Wildman]

it amuses me to the point of that liberfools feeeel humans can control "climate change" , stop glowbull warming/cooling or any other Earthly process.

i personally am convinced that Earth has been warming ever since the last "Ice Age" and humans had no part in it.