Obama Attacks ‘Climate Deniers’ For Wasting Time Debating ‘Fact’

[mudwhistle]

97% of Climate Scientists agree with man made global warming

That is a lie and you know it.

Then post the refuting evidence

You prove it numb-nuts. Nobody has asked every stiinking person in the scientific community what their opinions where. They simply took a sample poll. The question could have been worded; "Do you believe man had an effect on the weather?"

The answer is yes, but only slightly. The Sun, oceans, and volcanic erruptions have a much greater effect.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

No questions allowed, now give us our trillions......Before its too late !!!! lol

You're quoting the Koch brothers.

 

[Meister]

97% of Climate Scientists agree with man made global warming

The overwhelming majority of industrialized nations are in consensus

The US is split among party lines with the Democrats agreeing with the Climate Scientists and the Republicans agreeing with the oil companies

Not really.....just the IPCC scientists who's paper's were cherry picked by the committee.

No, that's the figure on all peer-reviewed studies.
If you have to make up stuff to try to defend your position, you really don't have a very solid position now do you?

No, you're wrong....IPCC stated from the get-go that 97% number and of those not all were in the boat with your AGW crowd. Sorry you've been spoon fed, but that's on you.

 

[ClosedCaption]

That is a lie and you know it.

Then post the refuting evidence

You prove it numb-nuts.

Say uncle

Nobody has asked every stiinking person in the scientific community what their opinions where.

Say uncle sommore

They simply took a sample poll. The question could have been worded; "Do you believe man had an effect on the weather?"

Thats not how peer reviewed information is checked Einstein

The answer is yes, but only slightly. The Sun, oceans, and volcanic erruptions have a much greater effect.

According to what? Let me hear you say "according to science" so we can all enjoy a laugh. I thought science was done with poll questions?

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Then post the refuting evidence

The refuting evidence has been posted on this forum at least three times that I can remember, in only the short time I have been here.

Posting it again so lying progressives can ignore it again would be a waste of my time.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Stuff it where the sun don't shine. The 97% number is an out-and-out lie, which has been debunked.

It is like freaking Groundhog Day with you alarmist nutters.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Not really.....just the IPCC scientists who's paper's were cherry picked by the committee.

No, that's the figure on all peer-reviewed studies.
If you have to make up stuff to try to defend your position, you really don't have a very solid position now do you?

No, you're wrong....IPCC stated from the get-go that 97% number and of those not all were in the boat with your AGW crowd. Sorry you've been spoon fed, but that's on you.

The 97% figure is from an analysis of ALL peer-reviewed studies.

I'm sorry if that doesn't fit your agenda - but that's just the way it is.

But at this point, I don't see the U.S. unilaterally turning things around so I don't see any need to inflict severe hardships on Americans who are already struggling with the costs of energy.

We're just going to have to do the best we can in trying to mitigate the impact rather than trying to prevent it.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The refuting evidence has been posted on this forum at least three times that I can remember, in only the short time I have been here.

Posting it again so lying progressives can ignore it again would be a waste of my time.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Stuff it where the sun don't shine. The 97% number is an out-and-out lie, which has been debunked.

It is like freaking Groundhog Day with you alarmist nutters.

You can tell when they have nothing. They just say its been debunked over and over yet have no information, links or anything to back it up.

They'll tell you they dont have time too but they have time to keeping typing responses tho

 

[HelenaHandbag]

No, that's the figure on all peer-reviewed studies.
If you have to make up stuff to try to defend your position, you really don't have a very solid position now do you?

No, you're wrong....IPCC stated from the get-go that 97% number and of those not all were in the boat with your AGW crowd. Sorry you've been spoon fed, but that's on you.

The 97% figure is from an analysis of ALL peer-reviewed studies.

No, it is not, you poopy-pants liar.

Not that I expect that you will accept the truth and will take to attacking the sources, but here you go, sport-o:

Blog: Debunking the 97% 'consensus' on global warming

Cooking climate consensus data: "97% of scientists affirm AGW" debunked -- Earth Changes -- Sott.net

97% Climate consensus ?denial?: the debunkers debunked | Watts Up With That?

Cooking Climate Consensus Data: ?97% of Scientists Affirm AGW" Debunked

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Stuff it where the sun don't shine. The 97% number is an out-and-out lie, which has been debunked.

It is like freaking Groundhog Day with you alarmist nutters.

You can tell when they have nothing. They just say its been debunked over and over yet have no information, links or anything to back it up.

They'll tell you they dont have time too but they have time to keeping typing responses tho

More Scientists Debunking Climate Change Myths

Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, a prominent Socialist and a father of Germany’s environmental movement, has become another strong critic of the IPCC’s alarmist global warming doctrine. His lack of trust began while serving as an expert reviewer for an IPCC renewable energy report as the renewable energy division head of Germany’s second largest utility company.

Upon discovering and pointing out numerous factual inaccuracies to IPCC officials, they simply brushed them aside. Stunned by this, he began to wonder if IPCC reports on climate change were similarly sloppy. After digging into the IPCC’s climate report he was horrified to find similar incompetency and misrepresentations, including climate models that were fudged to produce exaggerated temperature increases.

Dr. Vahrenholt concluded: “The facts need to be discussed sensibly and scientifically, without first deciding on the results.” And although CO2 may have some warming influence, he believes that the sun plays a far greater role in the whole scheme of things.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com More Scientists Debunking Climate Change Myths
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

Climate Change Myths Debunked

In Their Own Words: Climate Alarmists Debunk Their 'Science'

 

[nodoginnafight]

Lotta blogs
no peer-reviewed science

Wow - how compelling

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Stuff it where the sun don't shine. The 97% number is an out-and-out lie, which has been debunked.

It is like freaking Groundhog Day with you alarmist nutters.

You can tell when they have nothing. They just say its been debunked over and over yet have no information, links or anything to back it up.

They'll tell you they dont have time too but they have time to keeping typing responses tho

More Scientists Debunking Climate Change Myths

Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, a prominent Socialist and a father of Germany’s environmental movement, has become another strong critic of the IPCC’s alarmist global warming doctrine. His lack of trust began while serving as an expert reviewer for an IPCC renewable energy report as the renewable energy division head of Germany’s second largest utility company.

Upon discovering and pointing out numerous factual inaccuracies to IPCC officials, they simply brushed them aside. Stunned by this, he began to wonder if IPCC reports on climate change were similarly sloppy. After digging into the IPCC’s climate report he was horrified to find similar incompetency and misrepresentations, including climate models that were fudged to produce exaggerated temperature increases.

Dr. Vahrenholt concluded: “The facts need to be discussed sensibly and scientifically, without first deciding on the results.” And although CO2 may have some warming influence, he believes that the sun plays a far greater role in the whole scheme of things.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com More Scientists Debunking Climate Change Myths
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

Climate Change Myths Debunked

In Their Own Words: Climate Alarmists Debunk Their 'Science'

I am telling you, they don't freaking care!

You could start this thread next week and they would be right back at it, parroting that same lie!

It is, like I said, like freaking Groundhog Day!

 

[Meister]

No, that's the figure on all peer-reviewed studies.
If you have to make up stuff to try to defend your position, you really don't have a very solid position now do you?

No, you're wrong....IPCC stated from the get-go that 97% number and of those not all were in the boat with your AGW crowd. Sorry you've been spoon fed, but that's on you.

The 97% figure is from an analysis of ALL peer-reviewed studies.

I'm sorry if that doesn't fit your agenda - but that's just the way it is.

But at this point, I don't see the U.S. unilaterally turning things around so I don't see any need to inflict severe hardships on Americans who are already struggling with the costs of energy.

We're just going to have to do the best we can in trying to mitigate the impact rather than trying to prevent it.

No....it's from the 97% number from the IPCC.

Global warming alarmists have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97 percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97 percent consensus relied on them misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question that allowed them to twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.

Misleading Question
Global warming alarmist John Cook, founder of the misleadingly named blog site Skeptical Science, published a paper with several other global warming alarmists claiming they reviewed nearly 12,000 abstracts of studies published in the peer-reviewed climate literature. Cook reported he and his colleagues found 97 percent of the papers that expressed a position on human-caused global warming “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”
Investigative journalists at Popular Technology looked into which papers were classified within Cook’s asserted 97 percent. The investigatiors found Cook and his colleagues classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner, and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97 percent consensus.

Cook and his colleagues, for example, classified a peer-reviewed paper by scientist Craig Idso as explicitly supporting the ‘consensus’ position on global warming “without minimizing” the asserted severity of global warming. When Popular Technology asked Idso whether this was an accurate characterization of his paper, Idso responded, “That is not an accurate representation of my paper.
Climate Alarmists Caught Doctoring ?97 Percent Consensus? Claims | Human Events

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Lotta blogs
no peer-reviewed science

Wow - how compelling

I so called it!

Freaking nutbars!

 

[ClosedCaption]

It doesnt matter who disagrees with it if they refuse to present their findings to scientists for scrutiny.

Thats why my findings that I am awesome have never been debunked

 

[ClosedCaption]

Lotta blogs
no peer-reviewed science

Wow - how compelling

I so called it!

Freaking nutbars!

Ok, when else is one guy or a blog the judge, jury and executioner? Just Global Warming?

 

[HelenaHandbag]

It doesnt matter who disagrees with it if they refuse to present their findings to scientists for scrutiny.

Thats why my findings that I am awesome have never been debunked

They presented their findings in the blogs that you so blithely dismissed.

You don't care.

You are a willing participant in spreading a lie. That makes you a liar.

 

[rightwinger]

Lotta blogs
no peer-reviewed science

Wow - how compelling

I so called it!

Freaking nutbars!

You called that Republicans do not have legitimate scientific studies?

 

[Meister]

Lotta blogs
no peer-reviewed science

Wow - how compelling

Might want to read #72...just sayin'

 

[KNB]

Not that I expect that you will accept the truth and will take to attacking the sources

That pre-emptive defense of your sources tells us that you know they're garbage. Why don't you people know what real information is? More than one right-wing member on this board quotes childish scribblings from "Squirrel Zippers.com", which is the intellectual opposite of an international scientific review.

The majority of international scientists agree that human activity is having an adverse effect on our atmosphere but WattsUpWithThat.com says otherwise, so the majority of learned global scientists are obviously wrong.

Why do you defend the petroleum industry so passionately? Do you think that oil executives would ever defend you? You and your children are sent to war for the oil executives. You're a broke joke on a messageboard like the rest of us, with oil executives making billions off of the deaths of Americans and Muslims alike. The oil companies don't care about you so why do you defend them by quoting sources that wouldn't even pass for a highschool report?

 

[Meister]

Lotta blogs
no peer-reviewed science

Wow - how compelling

I so called it!

Freaking nutbars!

You called that Republicans do not have legitimate scientific studies?

Why? They're still waiting for the democrats "legitimate scientific studies".