Thread to Talk Shit about Global Warming

[Crick]

Whatever they are told to say.

By whom?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

By whom?

 

[Lastamender]

Climate change hoax destroyed by Green Peace founder Dr Patrick Moore

Leftist Green Peace founder Dr Patrick Moore Destroys The Climate change hoax – WOW! - Whatfinger News' Choice Clips

Today's Climate Change Scam super-thread. Much more below this EXCELLENT top clip https://twitter.com/4Mischief/status/1652683638859808773?s=20 https://twitter.com/thedailyrabbit/status/1651437215350923264?s=20 https://twitter.com/wideawake_media/status/1652325309113303040?s=20...

choiceclips.whatfinger.com

 

[jc456]

By whom?

Money holders

 

[Crick]

Climate change hoax destroyed by Green Peace founder Dr Patrick Moore

Leftist Green Peace founder Dr Patrick Moore Destroys The Climate change hoax – WOW! - Whatfinger News' Choice Clips

Today's Climate Change Scam super-thread. Much more below this EXCELLENT top clip https://twitter.com/4Mischief/status/1652683638859808773?s=20 https://twitter.com/thedailyrabbit/status/1651437215350923264?s=20 https://twitter.com/wideawake_media/status/1652325309113303040?s=20...

choiceclips.whatfinger.com

Leftist? Patrick Moore is about as leftist as Paul Gosar. He has zero expertise in climate science and has been nothing but a PR source for the mining, timber and nuclear energy. The points he attempts to make here are laughable and his opinion on this topic is absolutely worthless.

 

[Lastamender]

Leftist? Patrick Moore is about as leftist as Paul Gosar. He has zero expertise in climate science and has been nothing but a PR source for the mining, timber and nuclear energy. The points he attempts to make here are laughable and his opinion on this topic is absolutely worthless.

He seems to have triggered you. This is a hoax to redistribute wealth and install an one world government. So why save the world so people can live like slaves?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

​

Patrick Moore (consultant) - Wikipedia​

Global climate change denial​

In 2006, [Moore] disagreed with the scientific consensus on climate change in a letter to the Royal Society, arguing there was "no scientific proof" that mankind was causing global climate change[60] and believes that it "has a much better correlation with changes in solar activity than CO2 levels".[61] He has Falsely claimed that there is No scientific evidence that Carbon Dioxide contributes to climate change.[62]....
[.....]
Moore has earned his living since the early 1990s primarily by consulting for, and publicly speaking for, a wide variety of corporations and lobby groups such as the Nuclear Energy Institute.[58]
Moore's work as a lobbyist has prompted criticism from environmental activists, who have accused him of acting as an advocate for many of the industries that Greenpeace was founded to counter.[39][9]
His critics point out Moore's business relations with "polluters and clear-cutters" through his consultancy.[39] Monte Hummel, president of the World Wildlife Fund Canada, has claimed that Moore's book Pacific Spirit is a collection of "pseudoscience and dubious assumptions".

The writer and environmental activist George Monbiot has written critically of Moore's work with the Indonesian Logging firm Asia Pulp & Paper (APP)."..."
`

Scientific consensus.......so if a bunch of scientists get together and come to an agreement that the world is flat, does that make it so?

 

[jc456]

Leftist? Patrick Moore is about as leftist as Paul Gosar. He has zero expertise in climate science and has been nothing but a PR source for the mining, timber and nuclear energy. The points he attempts to make here are laughable and his opinion on this topic is absolutely worthless.

Patrick Moore is the creator of greenpeace. He ain’t fking conservative

 

[jc456]

What a STOOPID F***** Post!

Try...Wiki:

"Opposing (the AGW Consensus)​

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[32] No longer does Any National or International Scientific body Reject the findings of Human-induced effects on Climate Change.[31][33]

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature​

Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that almost all climate scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.[1]

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[137] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Seventy-five per cent of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. Catastrophic effects in 50–100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.[138][139][140][141]

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 countries.[142] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[143]

The survey was made up of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from "not at all" to "very much".

To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 67.1% said they very much agreed, 26.7% agreed to some large extent, 6.2% said to they agreed to some small extent (2–4), none said they did not agree at all. To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. 75 of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:[144]


A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:[145]


A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these "97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".[146] This study was criticised in 2016 by Richard Tol,[147] but strongly defended by a companion paper in the same volume.[148]


Peer-reviewed studies of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming

A 2012 analysis of published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[149] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only One of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[150] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[151]

James Lawrence Powell reported in 2017 that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[152] In November 2019, his survey of over 11,600 peer-reviewed articles published in the first seven months of 2019 showed that the consensus had reached 100%.[2]

A survey conducted in 2021 found that of a random selection of 3,000 papers examined from 88,125 peer-reviewed studies related to climate that were published since 2012, only 4 were sceptical about man-made climate change.[153]

Depending on expertise, a 2021 survey of 2780 Earth scientist showed that between 91% to 100% agreed human activity is causing climate change. Among climate scientists, 98.7% agreed, a number that grows to 100% when only the climate scientists with high level of expertise are counted (20+ papers published).[4]

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia​

`

Consensus is not scientific

 

[abu afak]

Climate change hoax destroyed by Green Peace founder Dr Patrick Moore

https://choiceclips.whatfinger.com/...-moore-destroys-the-climate-change-hoax-_wow/

​

Patrick Moore (consultant) - Wikipedia​

Global climate change denial​

In 2006, [Moore] disagreed with the scientific consensus on climate change in a letter to the Royal Society, arguing there was "no scientific proof" that mankind was causing global climate change[60] and believes that it "has a much better correlation with changes in solar activity than CO2 levels".[61] He has Falsely claimed that there is No scientific evidence that Carbon Dioxide contributes to climate change.[62]....
[.....]
Moore has earned his living since the early 1990s primarily by consulting for, and publicly speaking for, a wide variety of corporations and lobby groups such as the Nuclear Energy Institute.[58]
Moore's work as a lobbyist has prompted criticism from environmental activists, who have accused him of acting as an advocate for many of the industries that Greenpeace was founded to counter.[39][9]
His critics point out Moore's business relations with "polluters and clear-cutters" through his consultancy.[39] Monte Hummel, president of the World Wildlife Fund Canada, has claimed that Moore's book Pacific Spirit is a collection of "pseudoscience and dubious assumptions".

The writer and environmental activist George Monbiot has written critically of Moore's work with the Indonesian Logging firm Asia Pulp & Paper (APP)."..."
`

 

[abu afak]

Scientific consensus.......so if a bunch of scientists get together and come to an agreement that the world is flat, does that make it so?

What a STOOPID F***** Post!

Try...Wiki:

"Opposing (the AGW Consensus)​

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[32] No longer does Any National or International Scientific body Reject the findings of Human-induced effects on Climate Change.[31][33]

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature​

Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that almost all climate scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.[1]

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[137] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Seventy-five per cent of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. Catastrophic effects in 50–100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.[138][139][140][141]

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 countries.[142] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[143]

The survey was made up of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from "not at all" to "very much".

To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 67.1% said they very much agreed, 26.7% agreed to some large extent, 6.2% said to they agreed to some small extent (2–4), none said they did not agree at all. To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. 75 of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:[144]

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:[145]

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these "97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".[146] This study was criticised in 2016 by Richard Tol,[147] but strongly defended by a companion paper in the same volume.[148]


Peer-reviewed studies of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming

A 2012 analysis of published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[149] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only One of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[150] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[151]

James Lawrence Powell reported in 2017 that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[152] In November 2019, his survey of over 11,600 peer-reviewed articles published in the first seven months of 2019 showed that the consensus had reached 100%.[2]

A survey conducted in 2021 found that of a random selection of 3,000 papers examined from 88,125 peer-reviewed studies related to climate that were published since 2012, only 4 were sceptical about man-made climate change.[153]

Depending on expertise, a 2021 survey of 2780 Earth scientist showed that between 91% to 100% agreed human activity is causing climate change. Among climate scientists, 98.7% agreed, a number that grows to 100% when only the climate scientists with high level of expertise are counted (20+ papers published).[4]

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia​

`

 

[Dante Reawakened]

NASA. The people that send men to the Moon and safely brought them back. What do they say?

Climate Change - NASA Science

NASA is a global leader in studying Earth’s changing climate.

climate.nasa.gov

repeat

 

[Dante Reawakened]

It's a healthy, respectful encounter.



Dennis brings up (starts at 4:37), the Phil Jones/Michael Mann thing.

Climategate 10 years on: what lessons have we learned?

A series of leaked emails was leapt on by climate-change deniers to discredit the data, but their efforts may have only slowed the search for solutions

www.theguardian.com

Clearing up misconceptions regarding 'hide the decline'

<p>'Mike's Nature trick' refers to the technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales.

skepticalscience.com

But it's about science, not the environment alone. And Miller brings up 'settled science' and gets schooled smoothly, and with respect (beginning of video pre-4:30).

and repeat

People can go on, and on, and on about the most minute details of arguments sound and specious, but at the end of the day...

go with the real science

 

[jc456]

and repeat

People can go on, and on, and on about the most minute details of arguments sound and specious, but at the end of the day...

go with the real science

Who determines real science?

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Who determines real science?

real scientists

like those at NASA .. you know, the people who put people on the Moon and brought them back .. safely?

 

[Lastamender]

​

Patrick Moore (consultant) - Wikipedia​

Global climate change denial​

In 2006, [Moore] disagreed with the scientific consensus on climate change in a letter to the Royal Society, arguing there was "no scientific proof" that mankind was causing global climate change[60] and believes that it "has a much better correlation with changes in solar activity than CO2 levels".[61] He has Falsely claimed that there is No scientific evidence that Carbon Dioxide contributes to climate change.[62]....
[.....]
Moore has earned his living since the early 1990s primarily by consulting for, and publicly speaking for, a wide variety of corporations and lobby groups such as the Nuclear Energy Institute.[58]
Moore's work as a lobbyist has prompted criticism from environmental activists, who have accused him of acting as an advocate for many of the industries that Greenpeace was founded to counter.[39][9]
His critics point out Moore's business relations with "polluters and clear-cutters" through his consultancy.[39] Monte Hummel, president of the World Wildlife Fund Canada, has claimed that Moore's book Pacific Spirit is a collection of "pseudoscience and dubious assumptions".

The writer and environmental activist George Monbiot has written critically of Moore's work with the Indonesian Logging firm Asia Pulp & Paper (APP)."..."
`

Oh my! Wikipedia!

 

[jc456]

real scientists

like those at NASA .. you know, the people who put people on the Moon and brought them back .. safely?

What does nasa do with climate if they fly men to the moon?

That’s spaceShip shit right?

Can you post a nasa climate scientist?

 

[Dante Reawakened]

What does nasa do with climate if they fly men to the moon?

That’s spaceShip shit right?

NASA uses science. They even used scientific consensus to bet they could safely land on the Moon, get back to the ship from the Moon, and even make it back to earth safely. It had never been done before. The science was sound, and there was a consensus among the scientific community that NASA could succeed, but there was teh possibilities of failures.

 

[abu afak]

Oh my! Wikipedia!

Yes, with 7 Footnotes/sources in 6 sentences, not including the one I chopped off at the end.
You used one source - a demented former Green Peacer gone commercial/sold out.
`

 

[Crick]

He seems to have triggered you. This is a hoax to redistribute wealth and install an one world government. So why save the world so people can live like slaves?

Sounds as if I triggered you. You're a paranoid fool.