LMAO....so much for "global warming"!!!!

[Obiwan]

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

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. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - Abstract - Environmental Research Letters - IOPscience

 

[JimBowie1958]

This argument is akin to saying that when you drop a ball off a cliff, it falls because it used to be higher.

Yes, genius, a ball can only have fallen if it was once in a higher position.

SMH

 

[JimBowie1958]

also if its the top story on Drudge well then buster that cancels out any other source of information...because wing nuts will wing nut....

Do you realize that you just used a flawed argument? That false argument is called 'Ad Hominem'.

But I guess it fits in with your walking sleep state you have been in once you decided to betray your people and ruin America.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Yes, genius, a ball can only have fallen if it was once in a higher position.

SMH

There is a physical mechanism for these changes. In the case of the ball, it falls because of the gravitational pull at the Earth's surface. In the case of the global temperature, it is warming from the increased greenhouse effect due to human activities.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

also if its the top story on Drudge well then buster that cancels out any other source of information...because wing nuts will wing nut....

Do you realize that you just used a flawed argument? That false argument is called 'Ad Hominem'.

But I guess it fits in with your walking sleep state you have been in once you decided to betray your people and ruin America.

No whining ....OK I don't care about your "fee fee s"

 

[JimBowie1958]

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming

You do realize that science is not based on polls or consensus, right?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming

You do realize that science is not based on polls or consensus, right?

Yes I know ..give me a list of your scientist and papers they wrote...is Drudge one ....woo hoo

 

[Obiwan]

 

[jon_berzerk]

Papers about Consensus

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
(Cook et al., 2013)

The scientific consensus on climate change
(Naomi Oreskes, 2004)

The scientific consensus on climate change: how do we know we’re not wrong?
(Naomi Oreskes, 2007)

Examining the scientific consensus on climate change
(Peter Doran & Maggie Zimmerman, 2009)

Expert credibility in climate change
(William Anderegg, James Prall, Jacob Harold & Stephen Schneider, 2010)

Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement
(Ding et al., 2011)

Perceived scientific agreement and support for government action on climate change in the USA
(McCright et al., 2013)

at one time there was a big consensus that the world was flat

--LOL

consensus is not science

put up some science sucker.... just blowing hard don't cut it...name your experts chump...

--LOL

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

--LOL

Update July 2015:

 

[JimBowie1958]

Yes, genius, a ball can only have fallen if it was once in a higher position.

SMH

There is a physical mechanism for these changes. In the case of the ball, it falls because of the gravitational pull at the Earth's surface. In the case of the global temperature, it is warming from the increased greenhouse effect due to human activities.

All you have is correlation of what you think are causes with what you think are their effects. The Earth has been much warmer than it is now. Not only did life survive but it also demonstrates that there are cycles in play that over-ride mere human pollution.

The Volstock ice cores show this record of climate cycles long before a modern human being ever lit a fire.

Temperature record with CO2 levels for the last 600 million years

Last 10,000 years

In order to show 'climate change' is continuing, AGW zealots have to fiddle with the temperature data, as they were caught doing here:

NOTE: This is an actual snippet of code from the CRU contained in the source file: briffa_Sep98_d.pro

1;
2; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
3;
4 yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
5 valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
6 if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
7
8 yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)[/quote]

So the fudge factor is adjusting each year by their calendar year starting with 1904, in five year increments. Note that starting in 1930 the function arbitrarily subtracts 0.1 degrees, then in 1936 it removes 0.25, etc. Then in 1955 it begins to ADD temperature adjustments beginning with 0.3, etc.

Climategate The Smoking Code Watts Up With That

In short, your AGW bullshit con game is over, dude.

 

[Obiwan]

Update July 2015:

Face it, Tyrone...

When Libs talk about denial, everybody just thinks about their claims that Hillary isn't a crook and laughs ...

 

[JimBowie1958]

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming

You do realize that science is not based on polls or consensus, right?

Yes I know ..give me a list of your scientist and papers they wrote...is Drudge one ....woo hoo

An argument from authority that is without merit since there is contrary evidence advanced by dissenting authorities.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Climategate The Smoking Code Watts Up With That

In short, your AGW bullshit con game is over, dude.

yeah sure its over wing nut...

The video that Anthony Watts does not want you to see: The ...

Dissecting Anthony Watt's Pathetic Climate Disinformation ..

Anthony Watts - SourceWatch

1. 
   Climate misinformer: Anthony Watts - Skeptical Science
   Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examinedAnthony_Watts_blog.htm
2. Skeptical Science
   Anthony Watts is an American TV weather presenter and runs the blog Watts Up With That. He founded ... Typically more than half of Watts' live presentations feature photos of poorly sited weather stations. ... THE DEBUNKING HANDBOOK.
3. Eight Pseudoscientific Climate Claims Debunked by Real ...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Nice troll, Mr. CrudaderFrank.

Repeating chats from your cult is trolling?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Update July 2015:

Face it, Tyrone...

When Libs talk about denial, everybody just thinks about their claims that Hillary isn't a crook and laughs ...

I think about "we don't want the smoking gun to be a nuclear cloud" when I think about liars

 

[JimBowie1958]

Climategate The Smoking Code Watts Up With That

In short, your AGW bullshit con game is over, dude.

yeah sure its over wing nut...

The video that Anthony Watts does not want you to see: The ...

Dissecting Anthony Watt's Pathetic Climate Disinformation ..

Anthony Watts - SourceWatch

1. 
   
   
   • 
     Climate misinformer: Anthony Watts - Skeptical Science
     Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examinedAnthony_Watts_blog.htm
   • Skeptical Science
     Anthony Watts is an American TV weather presenter and runs the blog Watts Up With That. He founded ... Typically more than half of Watts' live presentations feature photos of poorly sited weather stations. ... THE DEBUNKING HANDBOOK.
   • Eight Pseudoscientific Climate Claims Debunked by Real ...

The code is available online for anyone to verify, and the graphs are accepted science.

And no matter what kind of 'denier' Watts is, the facts he presents are not in contention.

Again, you substitute Ad Hominem for an analysis and verification of the data itself.

Maybe one day you will wake up and stop betraying the working class.

 

[Obiwan]

TyroneSlothrop

Just love the way you use this site to prove your point...
Popular Technology.net The Truth about SourceWatch

SourceWatch is a propaganda site funded by an extreme left-wing, anti-capitalist and anti-corporate organization, the Center for Media and Democracy. Just like the untrustworthy Wikipedia the content can be written and edited by ordinary web users. Users who all conveniently share an extreme left-wing bias. SourceWatch is frequently cited by those seeking to smear individuals and organizations who do not share their extreme left-wing bias since they cannot find any legitimate criticisms from respected news sources.

SourceWatch (Discover the Networks)
A project of the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), [...]

SourceWatch also seeks to expose what it calls the "propaganda activities of public relations firms" and the activities of organizations working "on behalf of corporations, governments and special interests." These "exposes," which tend to be critical of their subjects, deal predominantly with conservative entities. [...]

As with the online reference Wikipedia, the contents of SourceWatch are written and edited by ordinary Web users. Says SourceWatch: "You don't need any special credentials to participate -- we shun credentialism along with other propaganda techniques." While stating that it seeks to maintain fairness in the profiles and articles appearing on its website, SourceWatch does acknowledge that "ignoring systemic bias and claiming objectivity is itself one of many well-known propaganda techniques." [...]