CDZ Those who believe in man made global warming...what will you actually do?

[EvilCat Breath]

I know how to stop global warming. It's easy. Just have Al Gore travel around the world. If the arctic is melting, just send Gore up there. He carries cold like it's his own BO. The Gore effect will freeze the arctic solid.

 

[FA_Q2]

This has always been the problem with AGW. No matter what you belive the outcome is going to be, there are no actual solutions presented.

No solutions that cost a lot of money and resources to implement.

You can't change anything without a massive shift in how we generate energy. And that takes money. Yes, I agree with the 90% scientific consensus that we have have created this drastic change in climate by our use of fossil fuels, and we need to stop.

OK so we need to stop using fossil fuels but the wackos on the left refuse to even consider nuclear power for reliable abundant emission free power

We don't need to stop using fossil fuels.....they want us to stop using them because in order to use solar and wind, would require a drastic surrendering of our economies and freedoms to central planners in the government.....that is why they want us to get rid of fossil fuels....also, it would mean they can impose strict birth control regimes in the 3rd world.....to keep them from using the fossil fuels they need to advance their countries developments.......

Fossil fuels are a finite resource so we will have to stop using them eventually

Considering that they are continually generated by the earth itself that is not entirely true.

We will, eventually, essentially stop using fossil fuels at some point but it is not going to be because they have run out but because we will discover a better source (or more likely sources) of energy.

 

[2aguy]

This has always been the problem with AGW. No matter what you belive the outcome is going to be, there are no actual solutions presented.

No solutions that cost a lot of money and resources to implement.

You can't change anything without a massive shift in how we generate energy. And that takes money. Yes, I agree with the 90% scientific consensus that we have have created this drastic change in climate by our use of fossil fuels, and we need to stop.

OK so we need to stop using fossil fuels but the wackos on the left refuse to even consider nuclear power for reliable abundant emission free power

We don't need to stop using fossil fuels.....they want us to stop using them because in order to use solar and wind, would require a drastic surrendering of our economies and freedoms to central planners in the government.....that is why they want us to get rid of fossil fuels....also, it would mean they can impose strict birth control regimes in the 3rd world.....to keep them from using the fossil fuels they need to advance their countries developments.......

Fossil fuels are a finite resource so we will have to stop using them eventually

Considering that they are continually generated by the earth itself that is not entirely true.

We will, eventually, essentially stop using fossil fuels at some point but it is not going to be because they have run out but because we will discover a better source (or more likely sources) of energy.

Yep.....until we find that source oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear are great. They have freed us from misery and suffering since we have discovered them.

 

[FA_Q2]

You can't change anything without a massive shift in how we generate energy. And that takes money. Yes, I agree with the 90% scientific consensus that we have have created this drastic change in climate by our use of fossil fuels, and we need to stop.

OK so we need to stop using fossil fuels but the wackos on the left refuse to even consider nuclear power for reliable abundant emission free power

We don't need to stop using fossil fuels.....they want us to stop using them because in order to use solar and wind, would require a drastic surrendering of our economies and freedoms to central planners in the government.....that is why they want us to get rid of fossil fuels....also, it would mean they can impose strict birth control regimes in the 3rd world.....to keep them from using the fossil fuels they need to advance their countries developments.......

Fossil fuels are a finite resource so we will have to stop using them eventually

Considering that they are continually generated by the earth itself that is not entirely true.

We will, eventually, essentially stop using fossil fuels at some point but it is not going to be because they have run out but because we will discover a better source (or more likely sources) of energy.

Yep.....until we find that source oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear are great. They have freed us from misery and suffering since we have discovered them.

Nuclear is a key source. Unfortunately, the masses are afraid of nuclear without cause and that makes it politically difficult.

 

[DonaldFG]

This has always been the problem with AGW. No matter what you belive the outcome is going to be, there are no actual solutions presented.

No solutions that cost a lot of money and resources to implement.

You can't change anything without a massive shift in how we generate energy. And that takes money. Yes, I agree with the 90% scientific consensus that we have have created this drastic change in climate by our use of fossil fuels, and we need to stop.

There is not a 90% consensus.....

Well, we are flooded with propaganda like your linked video. Google will give you tons of this on both sides of the issue. This is how propaganda divides people. What we have to do is look at the source and its credibility. Scientific publications should be considered trusted sources.

Here is an article that quotes the science directly and its source.

And Scientific American offers How to Determine the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming.

It's no wonder citizens are confused.

 

[2aguy]

This has always been the problem with AGW. No matter what you belive the outcome is going to be, there are no actual solutions presented.

No solutions that cost a lot of money and resources to implement.

You can't change anything without a massive shift in how we generate energy. And that takes money. Yes, I agree with the 90% scientific consensus that we have have created this drastic change in climate by our use of fossil fuels, and we need to stop.

There is not a 90% consensus.....

Well, we are flooded with propaganda like your linked video. Google will give you tons of this on both sides of the issue. This is how propaganda divides people. What we have to do is look at the source and its credibility. Scientific publications should be considered trusted sources.

Here is an article that quotes the science directly and its source.

And Scientific American offers How to Determine the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming.

It's no wonder citizens are confused.

No....politics have taken control of the issue.....the left wants to use global warming/climate change to pass laws that give them more power...they have lied about the science, going so far as hiding data and destroying data...that is what ClimateGate was all about.......

And scientific publications......have you seen the recent research into the peer review process.....you wouldn't be so sure of the scientific publications if you had...

 

[2aguy]

This has always been the problem with AGW. No matter what you belive the outcome is going to be, there are no actual solutions presented.

No solutions that cost a lot of money and resources to implement.

You can't change anything without a massive shift in how we generate energy. And that takes money. Yes, I agree with the 90% scientific consensus that we have have created this drastic change in climate by our use of fossil fuels, and we need to stop.

There is not a 90% consensus.....

Well, we are flooded with propaganda like your linked video. Google will give you tons of this on both sides of the issue. This is how propaganda divides people. What we have to do is look at the source and its credibility. Scientific publications should be considered trusted sources.

Here is an article that quotes the science directly and its source.

And Scientific American offers How to Determine the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming.

It's no wonder citizens are confused.

The 97% consensus is a lie......

Popular Technology.net: 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them

Dr. Idso, your paper 'Ultra-enhanced spring branch growth in CO2-enriched trees: can it alter the phase of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle?' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Implicitly endorsing AGW without minimizing it".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?


Idso: "That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere's seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion's share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming."

Dr. Scafetta, your paper 'Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%"

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Scafetta: "Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission.

What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.

This implies that the true climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is likely around 1.5 C or less, and that the 21st century projections must be reduced by at least a factor of 2 or more. Of that the sun contributed (more or less) as much as the anthropogenic forcings.

The "less" claim is based on alternative solar models (e.g. ACRIM instead of PMOD) and also on the observation that part of the observed global warming might be due to urban heat island effect, and not to CO2.

By using the 50% borderline a lot of so-called "skeptical works" including some of mine are included in their 97%."


Any further comment on the Cook et al. (2013) paper?


Scafetta: "Please note that it is very important to clarify that the AGW advocated by the IPCC has always claimed that 90-100% of the warming observed since 1900 is due to anthropogenic emissions. While critics like me have always claimed that the data would approximately indicate a 50-50 natural-anthropogenic contribution at most.

What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates.

Instead of apologizing and honestly acknowledging that the AGW theory as advocated by the IPCC is wrong because based on climate models that poorly reconstruct the solar signature and do not reproduce the natural oscillations of the climate (AMO, PDO, NAO etc.) and honestly acknowledging that the truth, as it is emerging, is closer to what claimed by IPCC critics like me since 2005, these people are trying to get the credit.

------

Dr. Shaviv, your paper 'On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise"

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?


Shaviv: "Nope... it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitiviity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low.

This means that part of the 20th century should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).

I couldn't write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don't have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper."

Any further comment on the Cook et al. (2013) paper?


Shaviv: "Science is not a democracy, even if the majority of scientists think one thing (and it translates to more papers saying so), they aren't necessarily correct. Moreover, as you can see from the above example, the analysis itself is faulty, namely, it doesn't even quantify correctly the number of scientists or the number of papers which endorse or diminish the importance of AGW."

 

[2aguy]

This has always been the problem with AGW. No matter what you belive the outcome is going to be, there are no actual solutions presented.

No solutions that cost a lot of money and resources to implement.

You can't change anything without a massive shift in how we generate energy. And that takes money. Yes, I agree with the 90% scientific consensus that we have have created this drastic change in climate by our use of fossil fuels, and we need to stop.

There is not a 90% consensus.....

Well, we are flooded with propaganda like your linked video. Google will give you tons of this on both sides of the issue. This is how propaganda divides people. What we have to do is look at the source and its credibility. Scientific publications should be considered trusted sources.

Here is an article that quotes the science directly and its source.

And Scientific American offers How to Determine the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming.

It's no wonder citizens are confused.

And more on the lie of the 97% consensus on man made global warming.....

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media 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-pecent consensus relied on the authors 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 so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.

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 that he and his colleagues found that 97 percent of the papers that expressed a position on human-caused global warming “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”

As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics.

The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action.

 

[DonaldFG]

This has always been the problem with AGW. No matter what you belive the outcome is going to be, there are no actual solutions presented.

No solutions that cost a lot of money and resources to implement.

You can't change anything without a massive shift in how we generate energy. And that takes money. Yes, I agree with the 90% scientific consensus that we have have created this drastic change in climate by our use of fossil fuels, and we need to stop.

OK so we need to stop using fossil fuels but the wackos on the left refuse to even consider nuclear power for reliable abundant emission free power

We don't need to stop using fossil fuels.....they want us to stop using them because in order to use solar and wind, would require a drastic surrendering of our economies and freedoms to central planners in the government.....that is why they want us to get rid of fossil fuels....also, it would mean they can impose strict birth control regimes in the 3rd world.....to keep them from using the fossil fuels they need to advance their countries developments.......

Fossil fuels are a finite resource so we will have to stop using them eventually

Considering that they are continually generated by the earth itself that is not entirely true.

We will, eventually, essentially stop using fossil fuels at some point but it is not going to be because they have run out but because we will discover a better source (or more likely sources) of energy.

We have already discovered better sources of energy. They are solar, wind, geothermal, and water. On the horizon is hydrogen fusion. Let's take better care of our planetary gifts rather than destroy them.

 

[DonaldFG]

This has always been the problem with AGW. No matter what you belive the outcome is going to be, there are no actual solutions presented.

No solutions that cost a lot of money and resources to implement.

You can't change anything without a massive shift in how we generate energy. And that takes money. Yes, I agree with the 90% scientific consensus that we have have created this drastic change in climate by our use of fossil fuels, and we need to stop.

There is not a 90% consensus.....

Well, we are flooded with propaganda like your linked video. Google will give you tons of this on both sides of the issue. This is how propaganda divides people. What we have to do is look at the source and its credibility. Scientific publications should be considered trusted sources.

Here is an article that quotes the science directly and its source.

And Scientific American offers How to Determine the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming.

It's no wonder citizens are confused.

And more on the lie of the 97% consensus on man made global warming.....

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media 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-pecent consensus relied on the authors 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 so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.

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 that he and his colleagues found that 97 percent of the papers that expressed a position on human-caused global warming “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”

As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics.

The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action.

James T. Kirk (Enterprise Captain) is one of my heroes. You don't deserve using his image. A Star Trek future is not possible without scientific truth based on facts.

 

[2aguy]

This has always been the problem with AGW. No matter what you belive the outcome is going to be, there are no actual solutions presented.

No solutions that cost a lot of money and resources to implement.

You can't change anything without a massive shift in how we generate energy. And that takes money. Yes, I agree with the 90% scientific consensus that we have have created this drastic change in climate by our use of fossil fuels, and we need to stop.

There is not a 90% consensus.....

Well, we are flooded with propaganda like your linked video. Google will give you tons of this on both sides of the issue. This is how propaganda divides people. What we have to do is look at the source and its credibility. Scientific publications should be considered trusted sources.

Here is an article that quotes the science directly and its source.

And Scientific American offers How to Determine the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming.

It's no wonder citizens are confused.

And more on the lie of the 97% consensus on man made global warming.....

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media 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-pecent consensus relied on the authors 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 so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.

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 that he and his colleagues found that 97 percent of the papers that expressed a position on human-caused global warming “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”

As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics.

The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action.

James T. Kirk (Enterprise Captain) is one of my heroes. You don't deserve using his image. A Star Trek future is not possible without scientific truth based on facts.

As my links show, you are not getting science based in facts...you are getting science outcomes based on political desires of the left....

 

[DonaldFG]

You can't change anything without a massive shift in how we generate energy. And that takes money. Yes, I agree with the 90% scientific consensus that we have have created this drastic change in climate by our use of fossil fuels, and we need to stop.

There is not a 90% consensus.....

Well, we are flooded with propaganda like your linked video. Google will give you tons of this on both sides of the issue. This is how propaganda divides people. What we have to do is look at the source and its credibility. Scientific publications should be considered trusted sources.

Here is an article that quotes the science directly and its source.

And Scientific American offers How to Determine the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming.

It's no wonder citizens are confused.

And more on the lie of the 97% consensus on man made global warming.....

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media 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-pecent consensus relied on the authors 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 so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.

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 that he and his colleagues found that 97 percent of the papers that expressed a position on human-caused global warming “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”

As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics.

The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action.

James T. Kirk (Enterprise Captain) is one of my heroes. You don't deserve using his image. A Star Trek future is not possible without scientific truth based on facts.

As my links show, you are not getting science based in facts...you are getting science outcomes based on political desires of the left....

Well, 90, 95, or 97% - whatever the percentage - those scientists disagree with you. Go to trusted sources, please.

 

[2aguy]

There is not a 90% consensus.....

Well, we are flooded with propaganda like your linked video. Google will give you tons of this on both sides of the issue. This is how propaganda divides people. What we have to do is look at the source and its credibility. Scientific publications should be considered trusted sources.

Here is an article that quotes the science directly and its source.

And Scientific American offers How to Determine the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming.

It's no wonder citizens are confused.

And more on the lie of the 97% consensus on man made global warming.....

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media 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-pecent consensus relied on the authors 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 so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.

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 that he and his colleagues found that 97 percent of the papers that expressed a position on human-caused global warming “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”

As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics.

The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action.

James T. Kirk (Enterprise Captain) is one of my heroes. You don't deserve using his image. A Star Trek future is not possible without scientific truth based on facts.

As my links show, you are not getting science based in facts...you are getting science outcomes based on political desires of the left....

Well, 90, 95, or 97% - whatever the percentage - those scientists disagree with you. Go to trusted sources, please.

Did you even read the link.........the actual authors of the studies cited by Cook are saying he lied about what their studies actually said......and then you have people who looked at how he picked the studies...and he lied again by leaving out anything that didn't agree with him.....

 

[DonaldFG]

Well, we are flooded with propaganda like your linked video. Google will give you tons of this on both sides of the issue. This is how propaganda divides people. What we have to do is look at the source and its credibility. Scientific publications should be considered trusted sources.

Here is an article that quotes the science directly and its source.

And Scientific American offers How to Determine the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming.

It's no wonder citizens are confused.

And more on the lie of the 97% consensus on man made global warming.....

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media 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-pecent consensus relied on the authors 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 so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.

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 that he and his colleagues found that 97 percent of the papers that expressed a position on human-caused global warming “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”

As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics.

The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action.

James T. Kirk (Enterprise Captain) is one of my heroes. You don't deserve using his image. A Star Trek future is not possible without scientific truth based on facts.

As my links show, you are not getting science based in facts...you are getting science outcomes based on political desires of the left....

Well, 90, 95, or 97% - whatever the percentage - those scientists disagree with you. Go to trusted sources, please.

Did you even read the link.........the actual authors of the studies cited by Cook are saying he lied about what their studies actually said......and then you have people who looked at how he picked the studies...and he lied again by leaving out anything that didn't agree with him.....

Did you read the Scientific American article? I doubt it. The vast consensus is unquestionable.

 

[2aguy]

And more on the lie of the 97% consensus on man made global warming.....

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media 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-pecent consensus relied on the authors 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 so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.

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 that he and his colleagues found that 97 percent of the papers that expressed a position on human-caused global warming “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”

As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics.

The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action.

James T. Kirk (Enterprise Captain) is one of my heroes. You don't deserve using his image. A Star Trek future is not possible without scientific truth based on facts.

As my links show, you are not getting science based in facts...you are getting science outcomes based on political desires of the left....

Well, 90, 95, or 97% - whatever the percentage - those scientists disagree with you. Go to trusted sources, please.

Did you even read the link.........the actual authors of the studies cited by Cook are saying he lied about what their studies actually said......and then you have people who looked at how he picked the studies...and he lied again by leaving out anything that didn't agree with him.....

Did you read the Scientific American article? I doubt it. The vast consensus is unquestionable.

IT isn't a consensus......

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media 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-pecent consensus relied on the authors 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 so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.

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 that he and his colleagues found that 97 percent of the papers that expressed a position on human-caused global warming “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

 

[DonaldFG]

Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media 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-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics.
...

The doctoring is irrelevant if scientific consensus is still over 90%. The "world’s most prominent global warming skeptics" are few in number and have published very few papers on the subject - Scientific American.

 

[2aguy]

Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media 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-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics.
...

The doctoring is irrelevant if scientific consensus is still over 90%. The "world’s most prominent global warming skeptics" are few in number and have published very few papers on the subject - Scientific American.

You need to look deeper......do you understand Climategate, and the outright destruction of research?

 

[2aguy]

Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media 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-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics.
...

The doctoring is irrelevant if scientific consensus is still over 90%. The "world’s most prominent global warming skeptics" are few in number and have published very few papers on the subject - Scientific American.

Yeah...doctoring of research is irrelevant if it supports what you believe....

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both, global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed.

Investigative journalists at Popular Technology looked into precisely which papers were classified within Cook’s asserted 97 percent. The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues strikingly 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. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere's seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion's share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming."

When Popular Technology asked physicist Nicola Scafetta whether Cook and his colleagues accurately classified one of his peer-reviewed papers as supporting the ‘consensus’ position, Scafetta similarly criticized the Skeptical Science classification.

 

[DonaldFG]

Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media 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-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics.
...

The doctoring is irrelevant if scientific consensus is still over 90%. The "world’s most prominent global warming skeptics" are few in number and have published very few papers on the subject - Scientific American.

You need to look deeper......do you understand Climategate, and the outright destruction of research?

I understand the generation of fake science and fake news.

 

[there4eyeM]

Conserving an unpoisoned environment is a 'liberal' plot. Those 'libs' must really hate Escalades to go to so much trouble.