Looks Like The Cat's Out Of The Bag....

[Confounding]

There you go again using their POLITICAL statements as proof.. You really are a dupe...

At least be honest enough to admit that your opinion is at odds with what most scientists are saying. How can you hope to have a real discussion when you won't even talk inside reality? Is it embarrassing to acknowledge that? If it is I understand; it should be embarrassing.

at odds?

You really are detached from reality. Most every scientists I know, including those who were recently convinced by observation and science, now openly question the AGW hypothesis. You no longer have any kind of consensus. The organizations which spout that their political views are their members are devoid of fact and refuse to place it to a vote of those they claim to represent. The AGU did exactly that and lost. It was massively embarrassing for them.

Good luck in your fantasy world.

Yes, yes...

Here, have some breadcrumbs.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It isn't as if you have to be a rocket scientist to understand climate science

You and I don't understand climate science as well as the global body of scientists that disagree with you. It's a nonstarter as I said earlier. You lack the credentials to tell me they're wrong.

Gads, you're a dunce.

The surest sign of ignorance is the use of ‘ 98% of scientists agree….

It is even more dunce-proof than having an “Obama/Biden” bumper sticker.




“… where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3,000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.
That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!


77 out of 10,257 becomes 98%.

Yup…figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.




Oh….BTW….

“Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.” Ibid.

Scientific institutions all over the world are in agreement that man made climate change is real. Most first world countries are now taking measures to mitigate it. The most asinine thing you anti-science people do is try to talk back the consensus. If you want to keep insisting there isn't a powerful scientific consensus that's fine, but you're not dealing in reality. I know that doesn't normally bother you too much.

No, they're not, you moron.



"While real polling of climate scientists and organization memberships is rare, there are a few examples. A 2008 international survey of climate scientists conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch revealed deep disagreement regarding two-thirds of the 54 questions asked about their professional views. Responses to about half of those areas were skewed on the “skeptic” side, with no consensus to support any alarm. The majority did not believe that atmospheric models can deal with important influences of clouds, precipitation, atmospheric convection, ocean convection, or turbulence. Most also did not believe that climate models can predict precipitation, sea level rise, extreme weather events, or temperature values for the next 50 years.

A 2010 survey of media broadcast meteorologists conducted by the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication found that 63% of 571 who responded believe global warming is mostly caused by natural, not human, causes. Those polled included members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the National Weather Association.

...canvas of 51,000 Canadian scientists with the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysics of Alberta (APEGGA) found that although 99% of 1,077 replies believe climate is changing, 68% disagreed with the statement that “…the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.” Only 26% of them attributed global warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.” Regarding these results, APEGGA’s executive director, Neil Windsor, commented, “We’re not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of.”

...a major scientific institution in the European Union, agrees that the purported climate consensus argument is becoming increasingly untenable. It says, in part, that: “Over the past 400 thousand years - even without human intervention - the level of CO2 in the air, based on the Antarctic ice cores, has already been similar four times, and even higher than the current value. At the end of the last ice age, within a time [interval] of a few hundred years, the average annual temperature changed over the globe several times. In total, it has gone up by almost 10 °C in the northern hemisphere, [and] therefore the changes mentiohttps://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/#8d543fc3bb32ned above were incomparably more dramatic than the changes reported today.”




Oh….BTW….

“Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.” Ibid.

 

[skookerasbil]

There you go again using their POLITICAL statements as proof.. You really are a dupe...

At least be honest enough to admit that your opinion is at odds with what most scientists are saying. How can you hope to have a real discussion when you won't even talk inside reality? Is it embarrassing to acknowledge that? If it is I understand; it should be embarrassing.

Dang s0n....you really aren't getting it!! If 99% of the scientists concurred, if the people aren't caring, it's nothing more than internet banter. I mean, c'mon now....they've been saying it for 20 years. It's not mattering....perhaps it should.....none if us know for sure, but it's the only thing material to the discussion. China continues to build 2 new coal plants every month. Any discussion about the science of climate change is laughable....no different than two kids debating about who was a better baseball player, Mays or Mantle?

Do you know why climate change activists bring lawsuits against the oil companies? Do you really think it is about the environment? Anybody who thinks it is about climate change just can't connect the dots to how it plays out in the real world. Do you understand who foots the bill when these frivolous lawsuits are struck down by the court? It's the taxpayers.....duh..... they foot the bill for the defendants. Skyrocketing into the billions for city budgets.... AND THAT IS EXACTLY THE GOAL!!! Who wins when trickle up poverty economics become the plan for these cities? Well of course, the progressive politicians win because they gained many more voters. Duh.....

The Climate Change Industry goals have nothing to do with the environment.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong « Roy Spencer, PhD

… the recent (15+ year) pause in global average warming…when did it start, is it a full pause, shouldn’t we be taking the longer view, etc.

These are all interesting exercises, but they miss the most important point: the climate models that governments base policy decisions on have failed miserably.

I’ve updated our comparison of 90 climate models versus observations for global average surface temperatures through 2013, and we still see that >95% of the models have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH)"




95% of predictions wrong????

Well….gee, let’s make it public policy then.

 

[Confounding]

It isn't as if you have to be a rocket scientist to understand climate science

You and I don't understand climate science as well as the global body of scientists that disagree with you. It's a nonstarter as I said earlier. You lack the credentials to tell me they're wrong.

Gads, you're a dunce.

The surest sign of ignorance is the use of ‘ 98% of scientists agree….

It is even more dunce-proof than having an “Obama/Biden” bumper sticker.




“… where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3,000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.
That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!


77 out of 10,257 becomes 98%.

Yup…figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.




Oh….BTW….

“Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.” Ibid.

Scientific institutions all over the world are in agreement that man made climate change is real. Most first world countries are now taking measures to mitigate it. The most asinine thing you anti-science people do is try to talk back the consensus. If you want to keep insisting there isn't a powerful scientific consensus that's fine, but you're not dealing in reality. I know that doesn't normally bother you too much.

No, they're not, you moron.



"While real polling of climate scientists and organization memberships is rare, there are a few examples. A 2008 international survey of climate scientists conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch revealed deep disagreement regarding two-thirds of the 54 questions asked about their professional views. Responses to about half of those areas were skewed on the “skeptic” side, with no consensus to support any alarm. The majority did not believe that atmospheric models can deal with important influences of clouds, precipitation, atmospheric convection, ocean convection, or turbulence. Most also did not believe that climate models can predict precipitation, sea level rise, extreme weather events, or temperature values for the next 50 years.

A 2010 survey of media broadcast meteorologists conducted by the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication found that 63% of 571 who responded believe global warming is mostly caused by natural, not human, causes. Those polled included members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the National Weather Association.

...canvas of 51,000 Canadian scientists with the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysics of Alberta (APEGGA) found that although 99% of 1,077 replies believe climate is changing, 68% disagreed with the statement that “…the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.” Only 26% of them attributed global warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.” Regarding these results, APEGGA’s executive director, Neil Windsor, commented, “We’re not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of.”

...a major scientific institution in the European Union, agrees that the purported climate consensus argument is becoming increasingly untenable. It says, in part, that: “Over the past 400 thousand years - even without human intervention - the level of CO2 in the air, based on the Antarctic ice cores, has already been similar four times, and even higher than the current value. At the end of the last ice age, within a time [interval] of a few hundred years, the average annual temperature changed over the globe several times. In total, it has gone up by almost 10 °C in the northern hemisphere, [and] therefore the changes mentiohttps://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/#8d543fc3bb32ned above were incomparably more dramatic than the changes reported today.”




Oh….BTW….

“Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.” Ibid.

A Forbes fact checker (since you like to use Forbes) seems to think it's a bit exaggerated. I guess the amount of scientists that are convinced the change is human caused is only in the high 80 to low 90 range, according to them.

Oh, wait, that's only when you don't limit it to climate scientists. You know, the ones who directly study this stuff.

Given these results, it is clear that support among scientists for human-caused climate change is below 97%. Most studies including specialties other than climatologists find support in the range of 80% to 90%. The 97% consensus of scientists, when used without limitation to climate scientists, is false.

Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change

Oh, and then there's these guys. Buncha idiots I know, but I tend to respect what they have to say.

Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


Even if only 50% agreed you'd be a fool for shrugging off what they have to say.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It isn't as if you have to be a rocket scientist to understand climate science

You and I don't understand climate science as well as the global body of scientists that disagree with you. It's a nonstarter as I said earlier. You lack the credentials to tell me they're wrong.

Gads, you're a dunce.

The surest sign of ignorance is the use of ‘ 98% of scientists agree….

It is even more dunce-proof than having an “Obama/Biden” bumper sticker.




“… where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3,000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.
That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!


77 out of 10,257 becomes 98%.

Yup…figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.




Oh….BTW….

“Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.” Ibid.

Scientific institutions all over the world are in agreement that man made climate change is real. Most first world countries are now taking measures to mitigate it. The most asinine thing you anti-science people do is try to talk back the consensus. If you want to keep insisting there isn't a powerful scientific consensus that's fine, but you're not dealing in reality. I know that doesn't normally bother you too much.

No, they're not, you moron.



"While real polling of climate scientists and organization memberships is rare, there are a few examples. A 2008 international survey of climate scientists conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch revealed deep disagreement regarding two-thirds of the 54 questions asked about their professional views. Responses to about half of those areas were skewed on the “skeptic” side, with no consensus to support any alarm. The majority did not believe that atmospheric models can deal with important influences of clouds, precipitation, atmospheric convection, ocean convection, or turbulence. Most also did not believe that climate models can predict precipitation, sea level rise, extreme weather events, or temperature values for the next 50 years.

A 2010 survey of media broadcast meteorologists conducted by the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication found that 63% of 571 who responded believe global warming is mostly caused by natural, not human, causes. Those polled included members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the National Weather Association.

...canvas of 51,000 Canadian scientists with the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysics of Alberta (APEGGA) found that although 99% of 1,077 replies believe climate is changing, 68% disagreed with the statement that “…the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.” Only 26% of them attributed global warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.” Regarding these results, APEGGA’s executive director, Neil Windsor, commented, “We’re not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of.”

...a major scientific institution in the European Union, agrees that the purported climate consensus argument is becoming increasingly untenable. It says, in part, that: “Over the past 400 thousand years - even without human intervention - the level of CO2 in the air, based on the Antarctic ice cores, has already been similar four times, and even higher than the current value. At the end of the last ice age, within a time [interval] of a few hundred years, the average annual temperature changed over the globe several times. In total, it has gone up by almost 10 °C in the northern hemisphere, [and] therefore the changes mentiohttps://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/#8d543fc3bb32ned above were incomparably more dramatic than the changes reported today.”




Oh….BTW….

“Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.” Ibid.

A Forbes fact checker (since you like to use Forbes) seems to think it's a bit exaggerated. I guess the amount of scientists that are convinced the change is human caused is only in the high 80 to low 90 range, according to them.

Oh, wait, that's only when you don't limit it to climate scientists. You know, the ones who directly study this stuff.

Given these results, it is clear that support among scientists for human-caused climate change is below 97%. Most studies including specialties other than climatologists find support in the range of 80% to 90%. The 97% consensus of scientists, when used without limitation to climate scientists, is false.

Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change

Oh, and then there's these guys. Buncha idiots I know, but I tend to respect what they have to say.

Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


Even if only 50% agreed you'd be a fool for shrugging off what they have to say.

" It is impossible to tell from this analysis how many actually believed it."
Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change

 

[Confounding]

You and I don't understand climate science as well as the global body of scientists that disagree with you. It's a nonstarter as I said earlier. You lack the credentials to tell me they're wrong.

Gads, you're a dunce.

The surest sign of ignorance is the use of ‘ 98% of scientists agree….

It is even more dunce-proof than having an “Obama/Biden” bumper sticker.




“… where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3,000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.
That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!


77 out of 10,257 becomes 98%.

Yup…figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.




Oh….BTW….

“Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.” Ibid.

Scientific institutions all over the world are in agreement that man made climate change is real. Most first world countries are now taking measures to mitigate it. The most asinine thing you anti-science people do is try to talk back the consensus. If you want to keep insisting there isn't a powerful scientific consensus that's fine, but you're not dealing in reality. I know that doesn't normally bother you too much.

No, they're not, you moron.



"While real polling of climate scientists and organization memberships is rare, there are a few examples. A 2008 international survey of climate scientists conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch revealed deep disagreement regarding two-thirds of the 54 questions asked about their professional views. Responses to about half of those areas were skewed on the “skeptic” side, with no consensus to support any alarm. The majority did not believe that atmospheric models can deal with important influences of clouds, precipitation, atmospheric convection, ocean convection, or turbulence. Most also did not believe that climate models can predict precipitation, sea level rise, extreme weather events, or temperature values for the next 50 years.

A 2010 survey of media broadcast meteorologists conducted by the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication found that 63% of 571 who responded believe global warming is mostly caused by natural, not human, causes. Those polled included members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the National Weather Association.

...canvas of 51,000 Canadian scientists with the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysics of Alberta (APEGGA) found that although 99% of 1,077 replies believe climate is changing, 68% disagreed with the statement that “…the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.” Only 26% of them attributed global warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.” Regarding these results, APEGGA’s executive director, Neil Windsor, commented, “We’re not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of.”

...a major scientific institution in the European Union, agrees that the purported climate consensus argument is becoming increasingly untenable. It says, in part, that: “Over the past 400 thousand years - even without human intervention - the level of CO2 in the air, based on the Antarctic ice cores, has already been similar four times, and even higher than the current value. At the end of the last ice age, within a time [interval] of a few hundred years, the average annual temperature changed over the globe several times. In total, it has gone up by almost 10 °C in the northern hemisphere, [and] therefore the changes mentiohttps://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/#8d543fc3bb32ned above were incomparably more dramatic than the changes reported today.”




Oh….BTW….

“Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.” Ibid.

A Forbes fact checker (since you like to use Forbes) seems to think it's a bit exaggerated. I guess the amount of scientists that are convinced the change is human caused is only in the high 80 to low 90 range, according to them.

Oh, wait, that's only when you don't limit it to climate scientists. You know, the ones who directly study this stuff.

Given these results, it is clear that support among scientists for human-caused climate change is below 97%. Most studies including specialties other than climatologists find support in the range of 80% to 90%. The 97% consensus of scientists, when used without limitation to climate scientists, is false.

Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change

Oh, and then there's these guys. Buncha idiots I know, but I tend to respect what they have to say.

Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


Even if only 50% agreed you'd be a fool for shrugging off what they have to say.

" It is impossible to tell from this analysis how many actually believed it."
Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change

There is a scientific consensus. Worst case scenario it's in the high 80 low 90s range. If you're not going to operate inside reality there is no further discussion to be had. I'm not going to entertain your lunacy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Gads, you're a dunce.

The surest sign of ignorance is the use of ‘ 98% of scientists agree….

It is even more dunce-proof than having an “Obama/Biden” bumper sticker.




“… where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3,000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.
That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!


77 out of 10,257 becomes 98%.

Yup…figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.




Oh….BTW….

“Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.” Ibid.

Scientific institutions all over the world are in agreement that man made climate change is real. Most first world countries are now taking measures to mitigate it. The most asinine thing you anti-science people do is try to talk back the consensus. If you want to keep insisting there isn't a powerful scientific consensus that's fine, but you're not dealing in reality. I know that doesn't normally bother you too much.

No, they're not, you moron.



"While real polling of climate scientists and organization memberships is rare, there are a few examples. A 2008 international survey of climate scientists conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch revealed deep disagreement regarding two-thirds of the 54 questions asked about their professional views. Responses to about half of those areas were skewed on the “skeptic” side, with no consensus to support any alarm. The majority did not believe that atmospheric models can deal with important influences of clouds, precipitation, atmospheric convection, ocean convection, or turbulence. Most also did not believe that climate models can predict precipitation, sea level rise, extreme weather events, or temperature values for the next 50 years.

A 2010 survey of media broadcast meteorologists conducted by the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication found that 63% of 571 who responded believe global warming is mostly caused by natural, not human, causes. Those polled included members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the National Weather Association.

...canvas of 51,000 Canadian scientists with the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysics of Alberta (APEGGA) found that although 99% of 1,077 replies believe climate is changing, 68% disagreed with the statement that “…the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.” Only 26% of them attributed global warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.” Regarding these results, APEGGA’s executive director, Neil Windsor, commented, “We’re not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of.”

...a major scientific institution in the European Union, agrees that the purported climate consensus argument is becoming increasingly untenable. It says, in part, that: “Over the past 400 thousand years - even without human intervention - the level of CO2 in the air, based on the Antarctic ice cores, has already been similar four times, and even higher than the current value. At the end of the last ice age, within a time [interval] of a few hundred years, the average annual temperature changed over the globe several times. In total, it has gone up by almost 10 °C in the northern hemisphere, [and] therefore the changes mentiohttps://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/#8d543fc3bb32ned above were incomparably more dramatic than the changes reported today.”




Oh….BTW….

“Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.” Ibid.

A Forbes fact checker (since you like to use Forbes) seems to think it's a bit exaggerated. I guess the amount of scientists that are convinced the change is human caused is only in the high 80 to low 90 range, according to them.

Oh, wait, that's only when you don't limit it to climate scientists. You know, the ones who directly study this stuff.

Given these results, it is clear that support among scientists for human-caused climate change is below 97%. Most studies including specialties other than climatologists find support in the range of 80% to 90%. The 97% consensus of scientists, when used without limitation to climate scientists, is false.

Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change

Oh, and then there's these guys. Buncha idiots I know, but I tend to respect what they have to say.

Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


Even if only 50% agreed you'd be a fool for shrugging off what they have to say.

" It is impossible to tell from this analysis how many actually believed it."
Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change

There is a scientific consensus. Worst case scenario it's in the high 80 low 90s range. If you're not going to operate inside reality there is no further discussion to be had. I'm not going to entertain your lunacy.

" It is impossible to tell from this analysis how many actually believed it."
Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change[/QUOTE]




"New Gallup Poll: Americans do not even mention global warming as a problem – 36 ‘problems’ cited, but not climate

According to the latest Gallup poll, NOBODY thinks global warming is our most important problem, contrary to what NRCM, Audubon and CLF sock puppets tell us."
New Gallup Poll: Americans do not even mention global warming as a problem – 36 ‘problems’ cited, but not climate



It's only you and a handful of other indoctrinees.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Gads, you're a dunce.

The surest sign of ignorance is the use of ‘ 98% of scientists agree….

It is even more dunce-proof than having an “Obama/Biden” bumper sticker.




“… where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3,000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.
That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!


77 out of 10,257 becomes 98%.

Yup…figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.




Oh….BTW….

“Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.” Ibid.

Scientific institutions all over the world are in agreement that man made climate change is real. Most first world countries are now taking measures to mitigate it. The most asinine thing you anti-science people do is try to talk back the consensus. If you want to keep insisting there isn't a powerful scientific consensus that's fine, but you're not dealing in reality. I know that doesn't normally bother you too much.

No, they're not, you moron.



"While real polling of climate scientists and organization memberships is rare, there are a few examples. A 2008 international survey of climate scientists conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch revealed deep disagreement regarding two-thirds of the 54 questions asked about their professional views. Responses to about half of those areas were skewed on the “skeptic” side, with no consensus to support any alarm. The majority did not believe that atmospheric models can deal with important influences of clouds, precipitation, atmospheric convection, ocean convection, or turbulence. Most also did not believe that climate models can predict precipitation, sea level rise, extreme weather events, or temperature values for the next 50 years.

A 2010 survey of media broadcast meteorologists conducted by the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication found that 63% of 571 who responded believe global warming is mostly caused by natural, not human, causes. Those polled included members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the National Weather Association.

...canvas of 51,000 Canadian scientists with the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysics of Alberta (APEGGA) found that although 99% of 1,077 replies believe climate is changing, 68% disagreed with the statement that “…the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.” Only 26% of them attributed global warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.” Regarding these results, APEGGA’s executive director, Neil Windsor, commented, “We’re not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of.”

...a major scientific institution in the European Union, agrees that the purported climate consensus argument is becoming increasingly untenable. It says, in part, that: “Over the past 400 thousand years - even without human intervention - the level of CO2 in the air, based on the Antarctic ice cores, has already been similar four times, and even higher than the current value. At the end of the last ice age, within a time [interval] of a few hundred years, the average annual temperature changed over the globe several times. In total, it has gone up by almost 10 °C in the northern hemisphere, [and] therefore the changes mentiohttps://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/#8d543fc3bb32ned above were incomparably more dramatic than the changes reported today.”




Oh….BTW….

“Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.” Ibid.

A Forbes fact checker (since you like to use Forbes) seems to think it's a bit exaggerated. I guess the amount of scientists that are convinced the change is human caused is only in the high 80 to low 90 range, according to them.

Oh, wait, that's only when you don't limit it to climate scientists. You know, the ones who directly study this stuff.

Given these results, it is clear that support among scientists for human-caused climate change is below 97%. Most studies including specialties other than climatologists find support in the range of 80% to 90%. The 97% consensus of scientists, when used without limitation to climate scientists, is false.

Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change

Oh, and then there's these guys. Buncha idiots I know, but I tend to respect what they have to say.

Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


Even if only 50% agreed you'd be a fool for shrugging off what they have to say.

" It is impossible to tell from this analysis how many actually believed it."
Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change

There is a scientific consensus. Worst case scenario it's in the high 80 low 90s range. If you're not going to operate inside reality there is no further discussion to be had. I'm not going to entertain your lunacy.

Until a real scientifically based question pool is done and the core premises questioned all you have is feel good conjecture.. Even the current work involving CO2 la

Gads, you're a dunce.

The surest sign of ignorance is the use of ‘ 98% of scientists agree….

It is even more dunce-proof than having an “Obama/Biden” bumper sticker.




“… where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3,000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.
That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!


77 out of 10,257 becomes 98%.

Yup…figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.




Oh….BTW….

“Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.” Ibid.

Scientific institutions all over the world are in agreement that man made climate change is real. Most first world countries are now taking measures to mitigate it. The most asinine thing you anti-science people do is try to talk back the consensus. If you want to keep insisting there isn't a powerful scientific consensus that's fine, but you're not dealing in reality. I know that doesn't normally bother you too much.

No, they're not, you moron.



"While real polling of climate scientists and organization memberships is rare, there are a few examples. A 2008 international survey of climate scientists conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch revealed deep disagreement regarding two-thirds of the 54 questions asked about their professional views. Responses to about half of those areas were skewed on the “skeptic” side, with no consensus to support any alarm. The majority did not believe that atmospheric models can deal with important influences of clouds, precipitation, atmospheric convection, ocean convection, or turbulence. Most also did not believe that climate models can predict precipitation, sea level rise, extreme weather events, or temperature values for the next 50 years.

A 2010 survey of media broadcast meteorologists conducted by the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication found that 63% of 571 who responded believe global warming is mostly caused by natural, not human, causes. Those polled included members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the National Weather Association.

...canvas of 51,000 Canadian scientists with the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysics of Alberta (APEGGA) found that although 99% of 1,077 replies believe climate is changing, 68% disagreed with the statement that “…the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.” Only 26% of them attributed global warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.” Regarding these results, APEGGA’s executive director, Neil Windsor, commented, “We’re not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of.”

...a major scientific institution in the European Union, agrees that the purported climate consensus argument is becoming increasingly untenable. It says, in part, that: “Over the past 400 thousand years - even without human intervention - the level of CO2 in the air, based on the Antarctic ice cores, has already been similar four times, and even higher than the current value. At the end of the last ice age, within a time [interval] of a few hundred years, the average annual temperature changed over the globe several times. In total, it has gone up by almost 10 °C in the northern hemisphere, [and] therefore the changes mentiohttps://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/#8d543fc3bb32ned above were incomparably more dramatic than the changes reported today.”




Oh….BTW….

“Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.” Ibid.

A Forbes fact checker (since you like to use Forbes) seems to think it's a bit exaggerated. I guess the amount of scientists that are convinced the change is human caused is only in the high 80 to low 90 range, according to them.

Oh, wait, that's only when you don't limit it to climate scientists. You know, the ones who directly study this stuff.

Given these results, it is clear that support among scientists for human-caused climate change is below 97%. Most studies including specialties other than climatologists find support in the range of 80% to 90%. The 97% consensus of scientists, when used without limitation to climate scientists, is false.

Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change

Oh, and then there's these guys. Buncha idiots I know, but I tend to respect what they have to say.

Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


Even if only 50% agreed you'd be a fool for shrugging off what they have to say.

" It is impossible to tell from this analysis how many actually believed it."
Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change

There is a scientific consensus. Worst case scenario it's in the high 80 low 90s range. If you're not going to operate inside reality there is no further discussion to be had. I'm not going to entertain your lunacy.

Where did you pull that from? Your ass?

 

[Sunsettommy]

It isn't as if you have to be a rocket scientist to understand climate science

You and I don't understand climate science as well as the global body of scientists that disagree with you. It's a nonstarter as I said earlier. You lack the credentials to tell me they're wrong.

Gads, you're a dunce.

The surest sign of ignorance is the use of ‘ 98% of scientists agree….

It is even more dunce-proof than having an “Obama/Biden” bumper sticker.




“… where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3,000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.
That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!


77 out of 10,257 becomes 98%.

Yup…figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.




Oh….BTW….

“Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.” Ibid.

Scientific institutions all over the world are in agreement that man made climate change is real. Most first world countries are now taking measures to mitigate it. The most asinine thing you anti-science people do is try to talk back the consensus. If you want to keep insisting there isn't a powerful scientific consensus that's fine, but you're not dealing in reality. I know that doesn't normally bother you too much.

You again and again follow the Consensus fallacy, which does NOTHING for science research. It is a political tool to gauge support for something lawmakers seek.

All those "scientific" institutions BOARD of DIRECTORS made those statements, NOT the full members of the listed organizations, who didn't get to vote on it at all, some resigned in protest and others say this is wrong.

People like you ignore that too which is indicative that you have no idea why the concept of The Scientific Method and the REPRODUCIBILITY of published research flies over your head.

There have been many consensus failures in science that harmed research and caused deaths to people who suffered under consensus bullcrap. Recall that for many years it was a consensus that Ulcers were caused by stress or spicy foods, until someone decided to do actual research to find out what the underlying cause was. It was BACTERIA that caused them.

Get out of the consensus stupidity, maybe you finally realize that science advances one reproducible paper at a time. Consensus pablums doesn't do shit for learning.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It isn't as if you have to be a rocket scientist to understand climate science

You and I don't understand climate science as well as the global body of scientists that disagree with you. It's a nonstarter as I said earlier. You lack the credentials to tell me they're wrong.

Gads, you're a dunce.

The surest sign of ignorance is the use of ‘ 98% of scientists agree….

It is even more dunce-proof than having an “Obama/Biden” bumper sticker.




“… where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3,000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.
That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!


77 out of 10,257 becomes 98%.

Yup…figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.




Oh….BTW….

“Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.” Ibid.

Scientific institutions all over the world are in agreement that man made climate change is real. Most first world countries are now taking measures to mitigate it. The most asinine thing you anti-science people do is try to talk back the consensus. If you want to keep insisting there isn't a powerful scientific consensus that's fine, but you're not dealing in reality. I know that doesn't normally bother you too much.

You again and again follow the Consensus fallacy, which does NOTHING for science research. It is a political tool to gauge support for something lawmakers seek.

All those "scientific" institutions BOARD of DIRECTORS made those statements, NOT the full members of the listed organizations, who didn't get to vote on it at all, some resigned in protest and others say this is wrong.

People like you ignore that too which is indicative that you have no idea why the concept of The Scientific Method and the REPRODUCIBILITY of published research flies over your head.

There have been many consensus failures in science that harmed research and caused deaths to people who suffered under consensus bullcrap. Recall that for many years it was a consensus that Ulcers were caused by stress or spicy foods, until someone decided to do actual research to find out what the underlying cause was. It was BACTERIA that caused them.

Get out of the consensus stupidity, maybe you finally realize that science advances one reproducible paper at a time. Consensus pablums doesn't do shit for learning.

"All those "scientific" institutions BOARD of DIRECTORS made those statements, NOT the full members of the listed organizations, who didn't get to vote on it at all,..."

BINGO!


O'Sullivan's First Law (a.k.a. O'Sullivan's Law), paraphrased by George Will as stating that any institution that is not libertarian and classically liberal will, over time, become collectivist and statist. O'Sullivan's First Law: All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing. I cite as supporting evidence the ACLU, the Ford Foundation, and the Episcopal Church. The reason is, of course, that people who staff such bodies tend to be the sort who don't like private profit, business, making money, the current organization of society, and, by extension, the Western world. At which point Michels's Iron Law of Oligarchy takes over — and the rest follows. http://old.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback-jos062603.asp


This law, of course, reflects the leadership, not the members.

 

[SSDD]

The fact is that if you pick any given scientific "consensus" and go against it, given time, the odds are heavily in your favor that in time, your position will prove to be right while the consensus joins the dust pile of history.

Consensus is a political state, not a scientific state and sadly suggests that curiosity is dead.

The fact remains that for all the talk of consensus on this thread, my request for a single piece of observed, measured data which supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability remains unanswered..and has been unanswered for more than 2 decades now.

If there is no actual evidence in support of the AGW hypothesis, what might prompt scientific consensus other than a very large pool of money? Ay answers to that one out there among the believers?

 

[Sunsettommy]

There is endless nonsense on the internet for unscientific dimwits like you to cling to while you say with a straight face that the scientists are wrong. I've danced this dance before and it's a waste of time. You've already made up your mind, so I'll just laugh at you instead.

Shuck and jive....dodge and weave....tuck tail and run...it is always the same with you guys. Here I am, asking not for absolute proof that we are causing cliamte change...not even an overwhelming body of evidence that we are causing climate change...I am asking for a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability and you can't produce it...all of climate science can't produce it.

That being the case, what exactly do you think has all these scientists convinced.

And laughing, when you are being made a laughing stock presents some interesting psychology...you can't provide a single shred of actual evidence to support your position and when called on it, you laugh. ......interesting.

No, no I get it now. There's no evidence; you're right. It's all a big conspiracy. Scientists all over the world are lying to the public so they can help spread globalism and socialism. How did I not see it before? Thank you Dingus. My life is forever changed.

And still not a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

Here, let me show you what it looks like to provide evidence that supports your position....

Here is a gold standard temperature reconstruction derived from the GISP2 ice cores taken from above the Arctic Circle. Even climate science acknowledges that ice cores are the gold standard for temperature reconstruction. Note the present temperature relative to the past 10,000 years.

Here is another gold standard temperature reconstruction derived from the Vostok ice cores taken from Antarctica.

Again, note the present temperature relative to the past 10,000 years. Close examination of the two graphs shows very similar temperature spikes over the past 10K years. Now, if you can think of a rational, scientifically valid reason why gold standard ice cores taken from opposite poles indicate that most of the past 10,000 years was warmer than the present but the globe in between was not, I would like to hear it.

Then there is this...dozens of studies showing the past was warmer than the present.


Project: Mapping the Medieval Warm Period | Die kalte Sonne

So I have supported my position with gold standard temperature reconstructions and dozens of peer reviewed, published papers which show that the past was warmer than the present...and I have just barely scratched the surface. What do you have? answer: nothing at all but impotent bluster.

Thank you for enlightening me, Dingus. We need to let the scientists know. Where should we start?

Wow you don't even realize that SSDD referred to published data that came from SCIENTISTS research in his post 74, my you are THAT ignorant!

 

[Sunsettommy]

Looks like Conservative misinformation is working

It's seriously embarrassing. A bunch of fuck mouthed rednecks from the United States have unraveled the global conspiracy being pushed by some of the most educated people on Earth. Right...

Every other nation on earth recognizes the dangers of global warming

Conservatives in this country have convinced people it is fake news

You think warming is more dangerous than cooling? What dangers are you talking about? This should be interesting since most of the past 10,000 years have been warmer than the present.

Yup

Warming is great if you enjoy hurricanes

We had Hurricanes when there was global cooling for a few decades, Camille came along in 1969 with estimated 200 MPH winds.

U.S. Mainland Hurricane Strikes By Decade: 1851-2016

The list shows that warming or cooling trends did little to Hurricane landfalling frequency.

 

[skookerasbil]

Looks like Conservative misinformation is working

It's seriously embarrassing. A bunch of fuck mouthed rednecks from the United States have unraveled the global conspiracy being pushed by some of the most educated people on Earth. Right...

Every other nation on earth recognizes the dangers of global warming

Conservatives in this country have convinced people it is fake news

You think warming is more dangerous than cooling? What dangers are you talking about? This should be interesting since most of the past 10,000 years have been warmer than the present.

Yup

Warming is great if you enjoy hurricanes

We had Hurricanes when there was global cooling for a few decades, Camille came along in 1969 with estimated 200 MPH winds.

U.S. Mainland Hurricane Strikes By Decade: 1851-2016

The list shows that warming or cooling trends did little to Hurricane landfalling frequency.

And every climate k00k in here jumped on the bandwagon after Katrina screaming gloom and doom with the Cat 5 hurricanes! And....what....we didnt see a hurricane come anywhere near the US for 12 years. Fucking suckers

 

[polarbear]

There you go again using their POLITICAL statements as proof.. You really are a dupe...

At least be honest enough to admit that your opinion is at odds with what most scientists are saying. How can you hope to have a real discussion when you won't even talk inside reality? Is it embarrassing to acknowledge that? If it is I understand; it should be embarrassing.

at odds?

You really are detached from reality. Most every scientists I know, including those who were recently convinced by observation and science, now openly question the AGW hypothesis. You no longer have any kind of consensus. The organizations which spout that their political views are their members are devoid of fact and refuse to place it to a vote of those they claim to represent. The AGU did exactly that and lost. It was massively embarrassing for them.

Good luck in your fantasy world.

Yes, yes...

Here, have some breadcrumbs.

Yes, yes...Here, have some breadcrumbs.
And with those breadcrumbs we caught the crow for you to eat...enjoy !

 

[Old Rocks]

It isn't as if you have to be a rocket scientist to understand climate science

You and I don't understand climate science as well as the global body of scientists that disagree with you. It's a nonstarter as I said earlier. You lack the credentials to tell me they're wrong.

Gads, you're a dunce.

The surest sign of ignorance is the use of ‘ 98% of scientists agree….

It is even more dunce-proof than having an “Obama/Biden” bumper sticker.




“… where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3,000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.
That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!


77 out of 10,257 becomes 98%.

Yup…figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.




Oh….BTW….

“Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.” Ibid.

Scientific institutions all over the world are in agreement that man made climate change is real. Most first world countries are now taking measures to mitigate it. The most asinine thing you anti-science people do is try to talk back the consensus. If you want to keep insisting there isn't a powerful scientific consensus that's fine, but you're not dealing in reality. I know that doesn't normally bother you too much.

You again and again follow the Consensus fallacy, which does NOTHING for science research. It is a political tool to gauge support for something lawmakers seek.

All those "scientific" institutions BOARD of DIRECTORS made those statements, NOT the full members of the listed organizations, who didn't get to vote on it at all, some resigned in protest and others say this is wrong.

People like you ignore that too which is indicative that you have no idea why the concept of The Scientific Method and the REPRODUCIBILITY of published research flies over your head.

There have been many consensus failures in science that harmed research and caused deaths to people who suffered under consensus bullcrap. Recall that for many years it was a consensus that Ulcers were caused by stress or spicy foods, until someone decided to do actual research to find out what the underlying cause was. It was BACTERIA that caused them.

Get out of the consensus stupidity, maybe you finally realize that science advances one reproducible paper at a time. Consensus pablums doesn't do shit for learning.

"All those "scientific" institutions BOARD of DIRECTORS made those statements, NOT the full members of the listed organizations, who didn't get to vote on it at all,..."

BINGO!


O'Sullivan's First Law (a.k.a. O'Sullivan's Law), paraphrased by George Will as stating that any institution that is not libertarian and classically liberal will, over time, become collectivist and statist. O'Sullivan's First Law: All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing. I cite as supporting evidence the ACLU, the Ford Foundation, and the Episcopal Church. The reason is, of course, that people who staff such bodies tend to be the sort who don't like private profit, business, making money, the current organization of society, and, by extension, the Western world. At which point Michels's Iron Law of Oligarchy takes over — and the rest follows. http://old.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback-jos062603.asp


This law, of course, reflects the leadership, not the members.

Silly ass, all your lies will not change the fact that the people in this world with scientific training totally think you are full of shit. Since you cannot see anything is any other light other than political, you think everyone else is like that. Most are not. And many, especially scientists, are grounded in reality, a reality that you totally deny. And that reality cares not a bit about your denial, it just continues to be real.

So, by all means, continue to post your cut and paste flap yap, and expose for the whole world to see, the depths of your delusion. The officers of the various Scientific Societies are voted on by the members. If the members do not like the direction of the policy statements of the organization, they can vote in new people that will change that direction. And you claim that all the officers of the Scientific Societies are in on a grand conspiracy, a world wide one, because these are the Scientific Societies of the whole world with it's various nations and cultures, then you little tin hat is on far too tight.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You and I don't understand climate science as well as the global body of scientists that disagree with you. It's a nonstarter as I said earlier. You lack the credentials to tell me they're wrong.

Gads, you're a dunce.

The surest sign of ignorance is the use of ‘ 98% of scientists agree….

It is even more dunce-proof than having an “Obama/Biden” bumper sticker.




“… where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3,000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.
That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!


77 out of 10,257 becomes 98%.

Yup…figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.




Oh….BTW….

“Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.” Ibid.

Scientific institutions all over the world are in agreement that man made climate change is real. Most first world countries are now taking measures to mitigate it. The most asinine thing you anti-science people do is try to talk back the consensus. If you want to keep insisting there isn't a powerful scientific consensus that's fine, but you're not dealing in reality. I know that doesn't normally bother you too much.

You again and again follow the Consensus fallacy, which does NOTHING for science research. It is a political tool to gauge support for something lawmakers seek.

All those "scientific" institutions BOARD of DIRECTORS made those statements, NOT the full members of the listed organizations, who didn't get to vote on it at all, some resigned in protest and others say this is wrong.

People like you ignore that too which is indicative that you have no idea why the concept of The Scientific Method and the REPRODUCIBILITY of published research flies over your head.

There have been many consensus failures in science that harmed research and caused deaths to people who suffered under consensus bullcrap. Recall that for many years it was a consensus that Ulcers were caused by stress or spicy foods, until someone decided to do actual research to find out what the underlying cause was. It was BACTERIA that caused them.

Get out of the consensus stupidity, maybe you finally realize that science advances one reproducible paper at a time. Consensus pablums doesn't do shit for learning.

"All those "scientific" institutions BOARD of DIRECTORS made those statements, NOT the full members of the listed organizations, who didn't get to vote on it at all,..."

BINGO!


O'Sullivan's First Law (a.k.a. O'Sullivan's Law), paraphrased by George Will as stating that any institution that is not libertarian and classically liberal will, over time, become collectivist and statist. O'Sullivan's First Law: All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing. I cite as supporting evidence the ACLU, the Ford Foundation, and the Episcopal Church. The reason is, of course, that people who staff such bodies tend to be the sort who don't like private profit, business, making money, the current organization of society, and, by extension, the Western world. At which point Michels's Iron Law of Oligarchy takes over — and the rest follows. http://old.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback-jos062603.asp


This law, of course, reflects the leadership, not the members.

Silly ass, all your lies will not change the fact that the people in this world with scientific training totally think you are full of shit. Since you cannot see anything is any other light other than political, you think everyone else is like that. Most are not. And many, especially scientists, are grounded in reality, a reality that you totally deny. And that reality cares not a bit about your denial, it just continues to be real.

So, by all means, continue to post your cut and paste flap yap, and expose for the whole world to see, the depths of your delusion. The officers of the various Scientific Societies are voted on by the members. If the members do not like the direction of the policy statements of the organization, they can vote in new people that will change that direction. And you claim that all the officers of the Scientific Societies are in on a grand conspiracy, a world wide one, because these are the Scientific Societies of the whole world with it's various nations and cultures, then you little tin hat is on far too tight.

"...all your lies will not change the fact that the people in this world with scientific training...."




Let's check:

1. “… where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”. That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!





77 out of 10,257 becomes 98%.

Yup…figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.





2. Oh….BTW….

“Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.” Ibid.




You remain another one of the mindless drones that leftist 'education' system cranks out like cogs and sprockets. Unique, just like every other reliable Democrat voter.

 

[Old Rocks]

The fact is that if you pick any given scientific "consensus" and go against it, given time, the odds are heavily in your favor that in time, your position will prove to be right while the consensus joins the dust pile of history.

Consensus is a political state, not a scientific state and sadly suggests that curiosity is dead.

The fact remains that for all the talk of consensus on this thread, my request for a single piece of observed, measured data which supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability remains unanswered..and has been unanswered for more than 2 decades now.

If there is no actual evidence in support of the AGW hypothesis, what might prompt scientific consensus other than a very large pool of money? Ay answers to that one out there among the believers?

Like Political Chit, you are a liar. And you know it. The absorption spectra of the GHGs, water vapor, CO2, CH4, NOx, ect. are the physical evidence that we are changing the climate. We have increased the amount of these gases in the atmosphere, we have the records of the emissions, and there source. As with evolution, you people are going to deny the science no matter what the evidence or consequences. In the meantime, the sane portion of the world moves on.

 

[Old Rocks]

Gads, you're a dunce.

The surest sign of ignorance is the use of ‘ 98% of scientists agree….

It is even more dunce-proof than having an “Obama/Biden” bumper sticker.




“… where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3,000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.
That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!


77 out of 10,257 becomes 98%.

Yup…figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.




Oh….BTW….

“Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.” Ibid.

Scientific institutions all over the world are in agreement that man made climate change is real. Most first world countries are now taking measures to mitigate it. The most asinine thing you anti-science people do is try to talk back the consensus. If you want to keep insisting there isn't a powerful scientific consensus that's fine, but you're not dealing in reality. I know that doesn't normally bother you too much.

You again and again follow the Consensus fallacy, which does NOTHING for science research. It is a political tool to gauge support for something lawmakers seek.

All those "scientific" institutions BOARD of DIRECTORS made those statements, NOT the full members of the listed organizations, who didn't get to vote on it at all, some resigned in protest and others say this is wrong.

People like you ignore that too which is indicative that you have no idea why the concept of The Scientific Method and the REPRODUCIBILITY of published research flies over your head.

There have been many consensus failures in science that harmed research and caused deaths to people who suffered under consensus bullcrap. Recall that for many years it was a consensus that Ulcers were caused by stress or spicy foods, until someone decided to do actual research to find out what the underlying cause was. It was BACTERIA that caused them.

Get out of the consensus stupidity, maybe you finally realize that science advances one reproducible paper at a time. Consensus pablums doesn't do shit for learning.

"All those "scientific" institutions BOARD of DIRECTORS made those statements, NOT the full members of the listed organizations, who didn't get to vote on it at all,..."

BINGO!


O'Sullivan's First Law (a.k.a. O'Sullivan's Law), paraphrased by George Will as stating that any institution that is not libertarian and classically liberal will, over time, become collectivist and statist. O'Sullivan's First Law: All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing. I cite as supporting evidence the ACLU, the Ford Foundation, and the Episcopal Church. The reason is, of course, that people who staff such bodies tend to be the sort who don't like private profit, business, making money, the current organization of society, and, by extension, the Western world. At which point Michels's Iron Law of Oligarchy takes over — and the rest follows. http://old.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback-jos062603.asp


This law, of course, reflects the leadership, not the members.

Silly ass, all your lies will not change the fact that the people in this world with scientific training totally think you are full of shit. Since you cannot see anything is any other light other than political, you think everyone else is like that. Most are not. And many, especially scientists, are grounded in reality, a reality that you totally deny. And that reality cares not a bit about your denial, it just continues to be real.

So, by all means, continue to post your cut and paste flap yap, and expose for the whole world to see, the depths of your delusion. The officers of the various Scientific Societies are voted on by the members. If the members do not like the direction of the policy statements of the organization, they can vote in new people that will change that direction. And you claim that all the officers of the Scientific Societies are in on a grand conspiracy, a world wide one, because these are the Scientific Societies of the whole world with it's various nations and cultures, then you little tin hat is on far too tight.

"...all your lies will not change the fact that the people in this world with scientific training...."




Let's check:

1. “… where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”. That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!





77 out of 10,257 becomes 98%.

Yup…figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.





2. Oh….BTW….

“Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.” Ibid.




You remain another one of the mindless drones that leftist 'education' system cranks out like cogs and sprockets. Unique, just like every other reliable Democrat voter.

And Political Chit continues to be an idiot and a liar. And afraid to reference that '31,000' scientists source. OISM is a fruitcake organization in the metropolis of Cave Junction, Oregon. They support many rightwingnut causes, and are considered to be the fringe of the fringe. A rebuttal to their nonsense;

How the OISM Petition Project casts doubt on the scientific consensus on climate change

There are several claims that large numbers of scientists do not agree with the theory of climate change, the best known of which is a petition organised by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (the OISM petition). This petition now appears to be signed by over 32,000 people with a BSc or higher qualification. The signatories agree with these statements:

• The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
• There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.

No evidence has ever been offered to support the first statement, and the second statement is in flat contradiction with the scientists who study climate change. There are also valid issues regarding the methodology:

• The organisers have never revealed how many people they canvassed (so the response rate is unknown) nor have they revealed the sampling methodology, an ironic omission considering how much fuss is made about scientists being candid and making public their methods and data.
• The petition is, in terms of climate change science, rather out of date.

In the professional field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change and additional anthropogenic CO2 may cause great disruption to the climate.

32,000 Sounds Like A Lot
In fact, OISM signatories represent a tiny fraction (~0.3%) of all US science graduates (petition cards were only sent to individuals within the U.S)

According to figures from the US Department of Education Digest of Education Statistics: 2008, 10.6 million science graduates have gained qualifications consistent with the OISM polling criteria since the 1970-71 school year. 32,000 out of 10 million is not a very compelling figure, but a tiny minority - approximately 0.3 per cent.

There are many issues casting doubt on the validity of this petition. On investigation, attempts to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change often appear to have ideological roots, vested business interests or political sponsors. The claims made for the OISM petition do not withstand objective scrutiny, and the assertions made in the petition are not supported by evidence, data or scientific research.

Several studies conducted independently (Oreskes 2004, Oreskes 2007, Doran and Zimmerman (2009), Anderegg et al. (2010), Cook et. al., 2013) have shown that 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing the climate to change, and that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing global changes to the climate. These views form the scientific consensus on climate change.