Global Warming is such Wooly Mammoth Crap.

[ding]

For a supposed scientologist, Joe, sure don't know jack.

I'm an atheist... and I'll admit, I don't know all the science.

but the people who DO know the science, 95% of them say, yes, Global Warming is real and people are responsible.

The other 5% are being paid by the Koch brothers to get stupid people like you to enjoy your denial.

You worship science right up to the point it disagrees with you, Joe.

Too bad you don't know diddly squat about science, Joe.

 

[ding]

I don't think so. I know the formula for associated warming from CO2. You don't.

Yeah, but you are an AGW denier... so that discredits you.

Joe, there is a greenhouse gas effect. I can calculate it. Can you, Joe?

No, you can't.

 

[ding]

No, I'm not a liberal believer in AGW.

Right, you are right and 95% of Ph.D's in Climate Science are wrong. Got it.

As a GHG Methane is like 50 times worse than CO2, Joe.

Your point being? That the permafrost melting would be really bad? Yes, yes, it would, Bible Boy. We should probably do something to keep that from happening.

My point being that you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground, Joe. You're kind of slow on the uptake.

 

[JoeB131]

You worship science right up to the point it disagrees with you, Joe.

Too bad you don't know diddly squat about science, Joe.

I know enough to know we have a real fucking problem.

This is what I don't get about deniers. I can get having a valid disagreement on what to do about it, but the science is the science. CO2 traps heat. Human beings have increased CO2 levels well above normal levels at an accellerated rate.

 

[ding]

You worship science right up to the point it disagrees with you, Joe.

Too bad you don't know diddly squat about science, Joe.

I know enough to know we have a real fucking problem.

This is what I don't get about deniers. I can get having a valid disagreement on what to do about it, but the science is the science. CO2 traps heat. Human beings have increased CO2 levels well above normal levels at an accellerated rate.

There's no problem, Joe.

We're in an interglacial cycle.

That's what they look like.

 

[JoeB131]

There's no problem, Joe.

We're in an interglacial cycle.

That's what they look like.

Um, no. the fact that the temperature is rising as quickly as it is - much faster than a normal cycle, is the problem.

95% of Climate scientists disagree with you. Are they ALL wrong?

 

[Taz]

You worship science right up to the point it disagrees with you, Joe.

Too bad you don't know diddly squat about science, Joe.

I know enough to know we have a real fucking problem.

This is what I don't get about deniers. I can get having a valid disagreement on what to do about it, but the science is the science. CO2 traps heat. Human beings have increased CO2 levels well above normal levels at an accellerated rate.

There's no problem, Joe.

We're in an interglacial cycle.

That's what they look like.

The earth is being warmed unnaturally by humans at a fairly rapid rate. Interglacial period or not, humans are having some effect.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, I'm not a liberal believer in AGW.

Right, you are right and 95% of Ph.D's in Climate Science are wrong. Got it.

As a GHG Methane is like 50 times worse than CO2, Joe.

Your point being? That the permafrost melting would be really bad? Yes, yes, it would, Bible Boy. We should probably do something to keep that from happening.

Right, you are right and 95% of Ph.D's in Climate Science are wrong.

Did they say the 70s were unusually cold?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There's no problem, Joe.

We're in an interglacial cycle.

That's what they look like.

Um, no. the fact that the temperature is rising as quickly as it is - much faster than a normal cycle, is the problem.

95% of Climate scientists disagree with you. Are they ALL wrong?

the fact that the temperature is rising as quickly as it is - much faster than a normal cycle

How fast does it rise in a normal cycle?
Why don't you break it up into 20 year increments?
The last 30,000 years should be a good starting point.

Thanks!

 

[ding]

You worship science right up to the point it disagrees with you, Joe.

Too bad you don't know diddly squat about science, Joe.

I know enough to know we have a real fucking problem.

This is what I don't get about deniers. I can get having a valid disagreement on what to do about it, but the science is the science. CO2 traps heat. Human beings have increased CO2 levels well above normal levels at an accellerated rate.

There's no problem, Joe.

We're in an interglacial cycle.

That's what they look like.

The earth is being warmed unnaturally by humans at a fairly rapid rate. Interglacial period or not, humans are having some effect.

We hear a lot about how temperatures have begun to spike over the last 200 years, and they have too. In fact if one were to only look at the temperature data (from NASA) of the last 2000 years, they would naturally conclude that something was wrong. Here we see a declining temperature for 1800 years and then an abrupt uptick approximately 200 years ago. Pretty alarming, right?

Not really. It is all part of a natural cycle that has been occurring for the past 3 million years. This is the temperature data for the last 800,000 years (also from NASA). The peaks are the interglacial cycles and the troughs are the glacial cycles. From this data we can see two very important things. 1. that our current temperature is still 2C below the peaks of three of the last four interglacial temperature peaks and 2. that the temperature data for the past 2,000 years - where there is a declining temperature following by a sharp reversal - is seen in every interglacial cycle. It has the shape of a saw tooth. So our current temperature is within the normal range of an interglacial cycle, and the spike of the last 200 years which was preceded by an 1800 year decline is a normal saw tooth behavior that is seen in every interglacial cycle.

 

[BlindBoo]

Link?

BTW Gore is not a scientist and should not be treated as one.

Here's an example of what scientist predicted 10 years ago.

Projections of Future Changes in Climate - AR4 WGI Summary for Policymakers

His adviser is JAMES HANSEN who the fuck are you trying to fool?


.

So was it James Hansen that said back in 2000 the Earth was going to burn up in 10 years?

What are you trying to say here?

Do you know what a science advisor is?


Al gores was just a mouth peace for James Hansen and quit playing stupid.

Thanks Captain Obvious. Now which one said the Earth was going to burn up in 10 years?

Your like mamooth who keeps on saying the ice age scare of the 1970e was made the up out of thin air ..they had science advisor's



And who knows Jim Hansen? Who is more popular Einstein Al Gore or James Hansen to make a movie?

"mamooth who keeps on saying the ice age scare of the 1970e was made the up out of thin air "

Got a direct quote from that source?

The question was how much cooling effect did the aerosols and particulate matter have verse the rising
CO2 levels.


One gauge of the spread of the uncertainty of the 1970s was a 2008 study in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society titled The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus. It was a survey of climate articles published between 1965 and 1979 in the scientific literature, rather than of those published in the mass media. The authors found that 10% of the articles did indeed predict cooling, 28% found the data insufficient to make a prediction either way, and 62% predicted global warming. In other words, 90% of climate articles in scientific journals in the 1970s did not conclude the Earth was cooling. Pretty much the opposite of how it was portrayed in the popular mass media, which shouldn't surprise anyone whose profession is science communication.

About That 1970s Global Cooling...

 

[Taz]

You worship science right up to the point it disagrees with you, Joe.

Too bad you don't know diddly squat about science, Joe.

I know enough to know we have a real fucking problem.

This is what I don't get about deniers. I can get having a valid disagreement on what to do about it, but the science is the science. CO2 traps heat. Human beings have increased CO2 levels well above normal levels at an accellerated rate.

There's no problem, Joe.

We're in an interglacial cycle.

That's what they look like.

The earth is being warmed unnaturally by humans at a fairly rapid rate. Interglacial period or not, humans are having some effect.

We hear a lot about how temperatures have begun to spike over the last 200 years, and they have too. In fact if one were to only look at the temperature data (from NASA) of the last 2000 years, they would naturally conclude that something was wrong. Here we see a declining temperature for 1800 years and then an abrupt uptick approximately 200 years ago. Pretty alarming, right?

Not really. It is all part of a natural cycle that has been occurring for the past 3 million years. This is the temperature data for the last 800,000 years (also from NASA). The peaks are the interglacial cycles and the troughs are the glacial cycles. From this data we can see two very important things. 1. that our current temperature is still 2C below the peaks of three of the last four interglacial temperature peaks and 2. that the temperature data for the past 2,000 years - where there is a declining temperature following by a sharp reversal - is seen in every interglacial cycle. It has the shape of a saw tooth. So our current temperature is within the normal range of an interglacial cycle, and the spike of the last 200 years which was preceded by an 1800 year decline is a normal saw tooth behavior that is seen in every interglacial cycle.

But the real question is: are humans accelerating the natural warming, how and by how much?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You worship science right up to the point it disagrees with you, Joe.

Too bad you don't know diddly squat about science, Joe.

I know enough to know we have a real fucking problem.

This is what I don't get about deniers. I can get having a valid disagreement on what to do about it, but the science is the science. CO2 traps heat. Human beings have increased CO2 levels well above normal levels at an accellerated rate.

There's no problem, Joe.

We're in an interglacial cycle.

That's what they look like.

The earth is being warmed unnaturally by humans at a fairly rapid rate. Interglacial period or not, humans are having some effect.

We hear a lot about how temperatures have begun to spike over the last 200 years, and they have too. In fact if one were to only look at the temperature data (from NASA) of the last 2000 years, they would naturally conclude that something was wrong. Here we see a declining temperature for 1800 years and then an abrupt uptick approximately 200 years ago. Pretty alarming, right?

Not really. It is all part of a natural cycle that has been occurring for the past 3 million years. This is the temperature data for the last 800,000 years (also from NASA). The peaks are the interglacial cycles and the troughs are the glacial cycles. From this data we can see two very important things. 1. that our current temperature is still 2C below the peaks of three of the last four interglacial temperature peaks and 2. that the temperature data for the past 2,000 years - where there is a declining temperature following by a sharp reversal - is seen in every interglacial cycle. It has the shape of a saw tooth. So our current temperature is within the normal range of an interglacial cycle, and the spike of the last 200 years which was preceded by an 1800 year decline is a normal saw tooth behavior that is seen in every interglacial cycle.

But the real question is: are humans accelerating the natural warming, how and by how much?

No, the REAL questions are what is the optimum temperature and how do you know?

 

[Taz]

I know enough to know we have a real fucking problem.

This is what I don't get about deniers. I can get having a valid disagreement on what to do about it, but the science is the science. CO2 traps heat. Human beings have increased CO2 levels well above normal levels at an accellerated rate.

There's no problem, Joe.

We're in an interglacial cycle.

That's what they look like.

The earth is being warmed unnaturally by humans at a fairly rapid rate. Interglacial period or not, humans are having some effect.

We hear a lot about how temperatures have begun to spike over the last 200 years, and they have too. In fact if one were to only look at the temperature data (from NASA) of the last 2000 years, they would naturally conclude that something was wrong. Here we see a declining temperature for 1800 years and then an abrupt uptick approximately 200 years ago. Pretty alarming, right?

Not really. It is all part of a natural cycle that has been occurring for the past 3 million years. This is the temperature data for the last 800,000 years (also from NASA). The peaks are the interglacial cycles and the troughs are the glacial cycles. From this data we can see two very important things. 1. that our current temperature is still 2C below the peaks of three of the last four interglacial temperature peaks and 2. that the temperature data for the past 2,000 years - where there is a declining temperature following by a sharp reversal - is seen in every interglacial cycle. It has the shape of a saw tooth. So our current temperature is within the normal range of an interglacial cycle, and the spike of the last 200 years which was preceded by an 1800 year decline is a normal saw tooth behavior that is seen in every interglacial cycle.

But the real question is: are humans accelerating the natural warming, how and by how much?

No, the REAL questions are what is the optimum temperature and how do you know?

So you think we should all be ignorant of what humans are doing to climate?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There's no problem, Joe.

We're in an interglacial cycle.

That's what they look like.

The earth is being warmed unnaturally by humans at a fairly rapid rate. Interglacial period or not, humans are having some effect.

We hear a lot about how temperatures have begun to spike over the last 200 years, and they have too. In fact if one were to only look at the temperature data (from NASA) of the last 2000 years, they would naturally conclude that something was wrong. Here we see a declining temperature for 1800 years and then an abrupt uptick approximately 200 years ago. Pretty alarming, right?

Not really. It is all part of a natural cycle that has been occurring for the past 3 million years. This is the temperature data for the last 800,000 years (also from NASA). The peaks are the interglacial cycles and the troughs are the glacial cycles. From this data we can see two very important things. 1. that our current temperature is still 2C below the peaks of three of the last four interglacial temperature peaks and 2. that the temperature data for the past 2,000 years - where there is a declining temperature following by a sharp reversal - is seen in every interglacial cycle. It has the shape of a saw tooth. So our current temperature is within the normal range of an interglacial cycle, and the spike of the last 200 years which was preceded by an 1800 year decline is a normal saw tooth behavior that is seen in every interglacial cycle.

But the real question is: are humans accelerating the natural warming, how and by how much?

No, the REAL questions are what is the optimum temperature and how do you know?

So you think we should all be ignorant of what humans are doing to climate?

As soon as we can isolate the human contribution from the natural fluctuation, please let me know.

 

[Wyatt earp]

His adviser is JAMES HANSEN who the fuck are you trying to fool?


.

So was it James Hansen that said back in 2000 the Earth was going to burn up in 10 years?

What are you trying to say here?

Do you know what a science advisor is?


Al gores was just a mouth peace for James Hansen and quit playing stupid.

Thanks Captain Obvious. Now which one said the Earth was going to burn up in 10 years?

Your like mamooth who keeps on saying the ice age scare of the 1970e was made the up out of thin air ..they had science advisor's



And who knows Jim Hansen? Who is more popular Einstein Al Gore or James Hansen to make a movie?

"mamooth who keeps on saying the ice age scare of the 1970e was made the up out of thin air "

Got a direct quote from that source?

The question was how much cooling effect did the aerosols and particulate matter have verse the rising
CO2 levels.


One gauge of the spread of the uncertainty of the 1970s was a 2008 study in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society titled The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus. It was a survey of climate articles published between 1965 and 1979 in the scientific literature, rather than of those published in the mass media. The authors found that 10% of the articles did indeed predict cooling, 28% found the data insufficient to make a prediction either way, and 62% predicted global warming. In other words, 90% of climate articles in scientific journals in the 1970s did not conclude the Earth was cooling. Pretty much the opposite of how it was portrayed in the popular mass media, which shouldn't surprise anyone whose profession is science communication.

About That 1970s Global Cooling...

His adviser is JAMES HANSEN who the fuck are you trying to fool?


.

So was it James Hansen that said back in 2000 the Earth was going to burn up in 10 years?

What are you trying to say here?

Do you know what a science advisor is?


Al gores was just a mouth peace for James Hansen and quit playing stupid.

Thanks Captain Obvious. Now which one said the Earth was going to burn up in 10 years?

Your like mamooth who keeps on saying the ice age scare of the 1970e was made the up out of thin air ..they had science advisor's



And who knows Jim Hansen? Who is more popular Einstein Al Gore or James Hansen to make a movie?

"mamooth who keeps on saying the ice age scare of the 1970e was made the up out of thin air "

Got a direct quote from that source?

The question was how much cooling effect did the aerosols and particulate matter have verse the rising
CO2 levels.


One gauge of the spread of the uncertainty of the 1970s was a 2008 study in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society titled The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus. It was a survey of climate articles published between 1965 and 1979 in the scientific literature, rather than of those published in the mass media. The authors found that 10% of the articles did indeed predict cooling, 28% found the data insufficient to make a prediction either way, and 62% predicted global warming. In other words, 90% of climate articles in scientific journals in the 1970s did not conclude the Earth was cooling. Pretty much the opposite of how it was portrayed in the popular mass media, which shouldn't surprise anyone whose profession is science communication.

About That 1970s Global Cooling...

So tell us was Walter Cronkite spreading fake news and making shit up or was he posting news from scientist?

 

[Wyatt earp]

His adviser is JAMES HANSEN who the fuck are you trying to fool?


.

So was it James Hansen that said back in 2000 the Earth was going to burn up in 10 years?

What are you trying to say here?

Do you know what a science advisor is?


Al gores was just a mouth peace for James Hansen and quit playing stupid.

Thanks Captain Obvious. Now which one said the Earth was going to burn up in 10 years?

Your like mamooth who keeps on saying the ice age scare of the 1970e was made the up out of thin air ..they had science advisor's



And who knows Jim Hansen? Who is more popular Einstein Al Gore or James Hansen to make a movie?

"mamooth who keeps on saying the ice age scare of the 1970e was made the up out of thin air "

Got a direct quote from that source?

The question was how much cooling effect did the aerosols and particulate matter have verse the rising
CO2 levels.


One gauge of the spread of the uncertainty of the 1970s was a 2008 study in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society titled The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus. It was a survey of climate articles published between 1965 and 1979 in the scientific literature, rather than of those published in the mass media. The authors found that 10% of the articles did indeed predict cooling, 28% found the data insufficient to make a prediction either way, and 62% predicted global warming. In other words, 90% of climate articles in scientific journals in the 1970s did not conclude the Earth was cooling. Pretty much the opposite of how it was portrayed in the popular mass media, which shouldn't surprise anyone whose profession is science communication.

About That 1970s Global Cooling...

His adviser is JAMES HANSEN who the fuck are you trying to fool?


.

So was it James Hansen that said back in 2000 the Earth was going to burn up in 10 years?

What are you trying to say here?

Do you know what a science advisor is?


Al gores was just a mouth peace for James Hansen and quit playing stupid.

Thanks Captain Obvious. Now which one said the Earth was going to burn up in 10 years?

Your like mamooth who keeps on saying the ice age scare of the 1970e was made the up out of thin air ..they had science advisor's



And who knows Jim Hansen? Who is more popular Einstein Al Gore or James Hansen to make a movie?

"mamooth who keeps on saying the ice age scare of the 1970e was made the up out of thin air "

Got a direct quote from that source?

The question was how much cooling effect did the aerosols and particulate matter have verse the rising
CO2 levels.


One gauge of the spread of the uncertainty of the 1970s was a 2008 study in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society titled The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus. It was a survey of climate articles published between 1965 and 1979 in the scientific literature, rather than of those published in the mass media. The authors found that 10% of the articles did indeed predict cooling, 28% found the data insufficient to make a prediction either way, and 62% predicted global warming. In other words, 90% of climate articles in scientific journals in the 1970s did not conclude the Earth was cooling. Pretty much the opposite of how it was portrayed in the popular mass media, which shouldn't surprise anyone whose profession is science communication.

About That 1970s Global Cooling...

And with your link now you get your science from a Writer?


Brian Dunning (author)
Brian Andrew Dunning (born 1965) is an American writer and producer who focuses on science and skepticism.[1]He has hosted a weekly podcast, Skeptoid, since 2006, and he is an author of a series of books on the subject of scientific skepticism, some of which are based on the podcast. Skeptoid has been the recipient of several podcast awards such as the Parsec Award. Dunning also created a Skeptoid spin-off video series, inFact, available on YouTube.

 

[BlindBoo]

So was it James Hansen that said back in 2000 the Earth was going to burn up in 10 years?

What are you trying to say here?

Do you know what a science advisor is?


Al gores was just a mouth peace for James Hansen and quit playing stupid.

Thanks Captain Obvious. Now which one said the Earth was going to burn up in 10 years?

Your like mamooth who keeps on saying the ice age scare of the 1970e was made the up out of thin air ..they had science advisor's



And who knows Jim Hansen? Who is more popular Einstein Al Gore or James Hansen to make a movie?

"mamooth who keeps on saying the ice age scare of the 1970e was made the up out of thin air "

Got a direct quote from that source?

The question was how much cooling effect did the aerosols and particulate matter have verse the rising
CO2 levels.


One gauge of the spread of the uncertainty of the 1970s was a 2008 study in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society titled The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus. It was a survey of climate articles published between 1965 and 1979 in the scientific literature, rather than of those published in the mass media. The authors found that 10% of the articles did indeed predict cooling, 28% found the data insufficient to make a prediction either way, and 62% predicted global warming. In other words, 90% of climate articles in scientific journals in the 1970s did not conclude the Earth was cooling. Pretty much the opposite of how it was portrayed in the popular mass media, which shouldn't surprise anyone whose profession is science communication.

About That 1970s Global Cooling...

So was it James Hansen that said back in 2000 the Earth was going to burn up in 10 years?

What are you trying to say here?

Do you know what a science advisor is?


Al gores was just a mouth peace for James Hansen and quit playing stupid.

Thanks Captain Obvious. Now which one said the Earth was going to burn up in 10 years?

Your like mamooth who keeps on saying the ice age scare of the 1970e was made the up out of thin air ..they had science advisor's



And who knows Jim Hansen? Who is more popular Einstein Al Gore or James Hansen to make a movie?

"mamooth who keeps on saying the ice age scare of the 1970e was made the up out of thin air "

Got a direct quote from that source?

The question was how much cooling effect did the aerosols and particulate matter have verse the rising
CO2 levels.


One gauge of the spread of the uncertainty of the 1970s was a 2008 study in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society titled The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus. It was a survey of climate articles published between 1965 and 1979 in the scientific literature, rather than of those published in the mass media. The authors found that 10% of the articles did indeed predict cooling, 28% found the data insufficient to make a prediction either way, and 62% predicted global warming. In other words, 90% of climate articles in scientific journals in the 1970s did not conclude the Earth was cooling. Pretty much the opposite of how it was portrayed in the popular mass media, which shouldn't surprise anyone whose profession is science communication.

About That 1970s Global Cooling...

So tell us was Walter Cronkite spreading fake news and making shit up or was he posting news from scientist?

He mentioned a study from one scientist. Interesting fellow too.

https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2015/02/Lamb.pdf

 

[BlindBoo]

So was it James Hansen that said back in 2000 the Earth was going to burn up in 10 years?

What are you trying to say here?

Do you know what a science advisor is?


Al gores was just a mouth peace for James Hansen and quit playing stupid.

Thanks Captain Obvious. Now which one said the Earth was going to burn up in 10 years?

Your like mamooth who keeps on saying the ice age scare of the 1970e was made the up out of thin air ..they had science advisor's



And who knows Jim Hansen? Who is more popular Einstein Al Gore or James Hansen to make a movie?

"mamooth who keeps on saying the ice age scare of the 1970e was made the up out of thin air "

Got a direct quote from that source?

The question was how much cooling effect did the aerosols and particulate matter have verse the rising
CO2 levels.


One gauge of the spread of the uncertainty of the 1970s was a 2008 study in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society titled The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus. It was a survey of climate articles published between 1965 and 1979 in the scientific literature, rather than of those published in the mass media. The authors found that 10% of the articles did indeed predict cooling, 28% found the data insufficient to make a prediction either way, and 62% predicted global warming. In other words, 90% of climate articles in scientific journals in the 1970s did not conclude the Earth was cooling. Pretty much the opposite of how it was portrayed in the popular mass media, which shouldn't surprise anyone whose profession is science communication.

About That 1970s Global Cooling...

So was it James Hansen that said back in 2000 the Earth was going to burn up in 10 years?

What are you trying to say here?

Do you know what a science advisor is?


Al gores was just a mouth peace for James Hansen and quit playing stupid.

Thanks Captain Obvious. Now which one said the Earth was going to burn up in 10 years?

Your like mamooth who keeps on saying the ice age scare of the 1970e was made the up out of thin air ..they had science advisor's



And who knows Jim Hansen? Who is more popular Einstein Al Gore or James Hansen to make a movie?

"mamooth who keeps on saying the ice age scare of the 1970e was made the up out of thin air "

Got a direct quote from that source?

The question was how much cooling effect did the aerosols and particulate matter have verse the rising
CO2 levels.


One gauge of the spread of the uncertainty of the 1970s was a 2008 study in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society titled The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus. It was a survey of climate articles published between 1965 and 1979 in the scientific literature, rather than of those published in the mass media. The authors found that 10% of the articles did indeed predict cooling, 28% found the data insufficient to make a prediction either way, and 62% predicted global warming. In other words, 90% of climate articles in scientific journals in the 1970s did not conclude the Earth was cooling. Pretty much the opposite of how it was portrayed in the popular mass media, which shouldn't surprise anyone whose profession is science communication.

About That 1970s Global Cooling...

And with your link now you get your science from a Writer?


Brian Dunning (author)
Brian Andrew Dunning (born 1965) is an American writer and producer who focuses on science and skepticism.[1]He has hosted a weekly podcast, Skeptoid, since 2006, and he is an author of a series of books on the subject of scientific skepticism, some of which are based on the podcast. Skeptoid has been the recipient of several podcast awards such as the Parsec Award. Dunning also created a Skeptoid spin-off video series, inFact, available on YouTube.

Do you think what the writer wrote was science?

Are you questioning the information he wrote about? The 90-10 split among climate scientist in the 60's-70's? If so do you have another study that you'd care to cite?

 

[IanC]

Do you know what a science advisor is?


Al gores was just a mouth peace for James Hansen and quit playing stupid.

Thanks Captain Obvious. Now which one said the Earth was going to burn up in 10 years?

Your like mamooth who keeps on saying the ice age scare of the 1970e was made the up out of thin air ..they had science advisor's



And who knows Jim Hansen? Who is more popular Einstein Al Gore or James Hansen to make a movie?

"mamooth who keeps on saying the ice age scare of the 1970e was made the up out of thin air "

Got a direct quote from that source?

The question was how much cooling effect did the aerosols and particulate matter have verse the rising
CO2 levels.


One gauge of the spread of the uncertainty of the 1970s was a 2008 study in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society titled The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus. It was a survey of climate articles published between 1965 and 1979 in the scientific literature, rather than of those published in the mass media. The authors found that 10% of the articles did indeed predict cooling, 28% found the data insufficient to make a prediction either way, and 62% predicted global warming. In other words, 90% of climate articles in scientific journals in the 1970s did not conclude the Earth was cooling. Pretty much the opposite of how it was portrayed in the popular mass media, which shouldn't surprise anyone whose profession is science communication.

About That 1970s Global Cooling...

Do you know what a science advisor is?


Al gores was just a mouth peace for James Hansen and quit playing stupid.

Thanks Captain Obvious. Now which one said the Earth was going to burn up in 10 years?

Your like mamooth who keeps on saying the ice age scare of the 1970e was made the up out of thin air ..they had science advisor's



And who knows Jim Hansen? Who is more popular Einstein Al Gore or James Hansen to make a movie?

"mamooth who keeps on saying the ice age scare of the 1970e was made the up out of thin air "

Got a direct quote from that source?

The question was how much cooling effect did the aerosols and particulate matter have verse the rising
CO2 levels.


One gauge of the spread of the uncertainty of the 1970s was a 2008 study in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society titled The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus. It was a survey of climate articles published between 1965 and 1979 in the scientific literature, rather than of those published in the mass media. The authors found that 10% of the articles did indeed predict cooling, 28% found the data insufficient to make a prediction either way, and 62% predicted global warming. In other words, 90% of climate articles in scientific journals in the 1970s did not conclude the Earth was cooling. Pretty much the opposite of how it was portrayed in the popular mass media, which shouldn't surprise anyone whose profession is science communication.

About That 1970s Global Cooling...

So tell us was Walter Cronkite spreading fake news and making shit up or was he posting news from scientist?

He mentioned a study from one scientist. Interesting fellow too.

https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2015/02/Lamb.pdf

Thanks for that. Lamb would be disgusted at the state of climate science today.