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

[Toronado3800]

Remember this, from the first Republican President?

You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.


Looks like the Global Warming Scam has run its course.


"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



Oh, noooozzzzz!!!!

Now we're gonna have to find a whole new bunch of human piñatas!!!

The first Republican President.....now keep in mind I think he made a decision that saved humanity, man was it pretty liberal though. Nowhere in the Constitution did it say states can't leave the union.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Remember this, from the first Republican President?

You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.


Looks like the Global Warming Scam has run its course.


"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



Oh, noooozzzzz!!!!

Now we're gonna have to find a whole new bunch of human piñatas!!!

 

[Penelope]

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.

No one still believes it....at least no one with over a double digit IQ....

"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




The only thing you're missing is a unicycle, you clown.

list of articles on global warming tell us a lot more American are concerned than not concerned.

Search Results

 

[PoliticalChic]

"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.

No one still believes it....at least no one with over a double digit IQ....

"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




The only thing you're missing is a unicycle, you clown.

list of articles on global warming tell us a lot more American are concerned than not concerned.

Search Results

"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

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"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.

No one still believes it....at least no one with over a double digit IQ....

"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




The only thing you're missing is a unicycle, you clown.

list of articles on global warming tell us a lot more American are concerned than not concerned.

Search Results

And yet, Americans don't want to spend any money fixing the "problem".

 

[skookerasbil]

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.

No one still believes it....at least no one with over a double digit IQ....

"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




The only thing you're missing is a unicycle, you clown.

list of articles on global warming tell us a lot more American are concerned than not concerned.

Search Results

"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

Yep....been saying it for 10 years in here. Nobody cares about climate change. Americans have waaaaaaaaaaay more pressing worries. Doy.....fascinating that the climate k00ks think otherwise!

 

[PoliticalChic]

"A few years ago, an article in the journal "Nature Climate Change” assessed 117 climate predictions from the 1990s and found that only three had been accurate. The other 114 studies all overestimated the amount of warming, with predictions averaging twice the actual increase.

The Green New Deal relies on the highest estimated temperature predictions and most extreme estimated dollar costs from global warming, but doesn’t even cite them correctly. The proposed changes will cost many times more than any possible economic gains.


Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who sponsored the Green New Deal, claims, "The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change.” But Cortez’s cost estimates are for 80 years from now, belying her own apocalyptic hyperbole."
Analyzing the Green New Deal

 

[Billy_Bob]

"Weather, Climate, and Climate Doomsday: Why Do Climate Alarmist Predictions Fail?


Climate alarmists—the ones who believe we are approaching climate doomsday—are confident that the future climate is solely decided on the basis of changes in atmospheric CO2 levels.

However, this is not true with our environment. Their belief in such a hypothesis was put to the test over the past two decades when the temperature forecasts from their computer climate models were compared against the actual real-time temperature measurements for the same period.

The analysis revealed that the computer climate models failed dramatically because of their assumptions that CO2 was the major driver of increase in temperature levels.

The CO2 levels in the atmosphere increased at a very high rate between 1999-2017, but the temperature levels did not rise correspondingly, and the rate of increase fell behind the rate of increase that the temperatures displayed during the decades prior to 1999.

This should have been a major wake up call for the climate alarmists. But they remain stubborn and continue to warn us of an imminent climate doomsday.

Their warning is based on their erroneous theory of a steep temperature increase induced by human CO2 emissions, which has been proven wrong again and again at the highest academic levels and testified to atthe U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology by climate scientists."
Weather, Climate, and Climate Doomsday: Why Do Climate Alarmist Predictions Fail?

You are such a pathetic liar. The predictions made by the scientists were accurate, although a bit optimistic. The warming has been greater than the predictions, and the effects more severe.

You still tout that lying POS?

 

[Billy_Bob]

"A few years ago, an article in the journal "Nature Climate Change” assessed 117 climate predictions from the 1990s and found that only three had been accurate. The other 114 studies all overestimated the amount of warming, with predictions averaging twice the actual increase.

The Green New Deal relies on the highest estimated temperature predictions and most extreme estimated dollar costs from global warming, but doesn’t even cite them correctly. The proposed changes will cost many times more than any possible economic gains.


Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who sponsored the Green New Deal, claims, "The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change.” But Cortez’s cost estimates are for 80 years from now, belying her own apocalyptic hyperbole."
Analyzing the Green New Deal

Its all about drumming up fear... giving up our freedoms to her socialist command.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Funny;

Tell me, Do you believe your failed models? Why?

Where do you teach people about AGW lies? Certainly not a legitimate scientific institution. Are you talking about your beer club or something?

LOL

I am not as stupid as you are... Please get back to topic. Tell me, do you believe your failed modeling? Why do you believe it?

I don't think you teach anybody about climate science. You should go do some research and listen to what actual scientists have to say about the topic.

And again you ASSUME....

Yet you never address the facts I presented you? Now why would that be? So interested in my personal endevours and not so interested in the facts you refuse to address.

Are you simply a left wing hack who is set on finding me and trying to use force an fear to shut me up? Is that your game?

Some dumb redneck that thinks he understands climate science better than actual climate scientists is not worth that kind of effort. You should endeavor to have more than a rudimentary understanding of English before you start lying about your academic credentials.

Still waiting for you to address your epicly failed modeling...

 

[Sunsettommy]

"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.

No one still believes it....at least no one with over a double digit IQ....

"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




The only thing you're missing is a unicycle, you clown.

list of articles on global warming tell us a lot more American are concerned than not concerned.

Search Results

You fail to notice that ALL of your links is a SINGLE issue polling and surveys, while Political Chick started a thread about a major Gallup poll that used open ended questions such as this one:

"What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today? [OPEN-ENDED]"

The people never once brought up global warming/climate change to answer that open ended question, which is the point that skookerasibil has been making for years now. When you allow for open replies to ANY CONCERNS, global warming/climate change is at the bottom of the list or not even mentioned at all, a point YOU and many warmists fail to understand, which is obvious when you resort to bringing up SINGLE TOPIC polls and surveys that only asked questions about global warming/climate change and nothing else.

Stop being misleading and dishonest on this!

 

[PoliticalChic]

We have a winner in the category of "Unintentional Humor"!!!!!!!

Elizabeth Warren said our navy....threatened by rising sea levels!!!

Boats.....rising water.....they might...what?......float away???????


Warren: ‘Our Naval Bases Are Under Attack Not By Enemy Fleets But by Rising Sea Levels’
Warren: ‘Our Naval Bases Are Under Attack Not By Enemy Fleets But by Rising Sea Levels’


Democrats.....sick folks.

 

[Crick]

A quick quiz for you Ms Chic. What do all naval bases possess?

Piers. Fixed structures to which large ships may be moored. As sea level rises, moored ships rise with respect to the piers. Problem.

 

[Marion Morrison]

A quick quiz for you Ms Chic. What do all naval bases possess?

Piers. Fixed structures to which large ships may be moored. As sea level rises, moored ships rise with respect to the piers. Problem.

Mooring lines cannot be lengthened, dumbass?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A quick quiz for you Ms Chic. What do all naval bases possess?

Piers. Fixed structures to which large ships may be moored. As sea level rises, moored ships rise with respect to the piers. Problem.

If only there were a way to build taller piers...…….

 

[PoliticalChic]

A quick quiz for you Ms Chic. What do all naval bases possess?

Piers. Fixed structures to which large ships may be moored. As sea level rises, moored ships rise with respect to the piers. Problem.

If only there were a way to build taller piers...…….

Well.....there is.....
First we take over the world's economy
Then we build gulags for those deniers.....
Then....

 

[miketx]

A quick quiz for you Ms Chic. What do all naval bases possess?

Piers. Fixed structures to which large ships may be moored. As sea level rises, moored ships rise with respect to the piers. Problem.

Make the rope longer. Duh.

 

[Crick]

And the brows and the shore power leads and redesign the camels and rerun power and steam and phone lines..

I guess the Navy was confused. They should have asked you Mike. Silly sailors.

 

[miketx]

And the brows and the shore power leads and redesign the camels.

I guess the Navy was confused. They should have asked you Mike. Silly sailors.

Just about as sensible as your global warming BULLSHIT you carp about everyday.

 

[Crick]

How much mainstream science backed up your "make the ropes longer"?