UN making shit up again

[RetiredGySgt]

Perhaps they could cite some actual evidence to support their bullshit claim. As for droughts didn't some JUST say Global warming had NOTHING to do with any droughts?

http://news.yahoo.com/un-2013-extreme-events-due-warming-earth-122616476.html

Tell a big enough lie and maybe you will get people to believe you must be the theory the UN Operates under.

 

[flacaltenn]

IT's orchestrated that way to make the AGW as resilient to science as possible.. IPCC says one thing, the UN World Met. Soc says another.. They BOTH are working on the same damn team.. That way -- in a year or 6 months we all here can argue about the CONSENSUS and who said weather was climate change.

Done on purpose Sarge.. Part of the show....

 

[TheOldSchool]

Climate change is dumb. Humans have absolutely zero impact on anything. If it feels good do it

 

[Abraham3]

The article to which the lead post is linked does NOT state that global warming is causing droughts. It states that the extreme weather events which have been observed recently, worldwide, are consistent with what we would expect from global warming. If that distinction is too subtle for you, go back to school and pay attention this time around.

 

[flacaltenn]

The article to which the lead post is linked does NOT state that global warming is causing droughts. It states that the extreme weather events which have been observed recently, worldwide, are consistent with what we would expect from global warming. If that distinction is too subtle for you, go back to school and pay attention this time around.

Weasel words Bullwinkle.. ALSO PART OF THE PLAN.. Go Ask Yahoo News where they got this BANNER Headline..

UN: 2013 extreme events due to warming Earth

Op Cit from OP:

Jarraud drew special attention to studies and climate modeling examining Australia's recent heat waves, saying the high temperatures there would have been virtually impossible without the emissions of heat-trapping carbon dioxide from the burning of coal, oil and gas.

Here's the prob.. We only know what Jarraud TOLD the press that they reported.. We don't know what else was said to provoke that banner headline conclusion.. These UN tools KNOW they can count on the press to embellish or get the proper slant..

 

[Abraham3]

That would be because the press - as hard as this may be to believe - are smarter en masse than the typical denier; it's the reason you see major media venues declaring they will give no more air time or column inches to AGW deniers. You fellows have achieved complete fringe-dom.

 

[flacaltenn]

That would be because the press - as hard as this may be to believe - are smarter en masse than the typical denier; it's the reason you see major media venues declaring they will give no more air time or column inches to AGW deniers. You fellows have achieved complete fringe-dom.

You keep telling yourself that it's a GOOD thing the press is biased and COMPLICIT in this fraud... That's what a good "denier" would do....

 

[Abraham3]

I keep telling myself that it's far more likely that 97% of climate scientists in agreement are correct than it is that the 1% saying something else are the only ones who know what's going on.

Apparently the press agrees. The reason deniers are getting eliminated from venues all over the place is just what I said. You have become the fringe of the fringe.

 

[jc456]

The article to which the lead post is linked does NOT state that global warming is causing droughts. It states that the extreme weather events which have been observed recently, worldwide, are consistent with what we would expect from global warming. If that distinction is too subtle for you, go back to school and pay attention this time around.

I thought extreme weather was not global warming? Weather is not global warming , climate change was global warming. Note, Has extreme weather existed for thousands of years? If not, then someone needs to scrub the history books.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I keep telling myself that it's far more likely that 97% of climate scientists in agreement are correct than it is that the 1% saying something else are the only ones who know what's going on.

Apparently the press agrees. The reason deniers are getting eliminated from venues all over the place is just what I said. You have become the fringe of the fringe.

Except 97% of scientists do not agree. You get that from Skeptical Science, didn't ya?

 

[jc456]

I keep telling myself that it's far more likely that 97% of climate scientists in agreement are correct than it is that the 1% saying something else are the only ones who know what's going on.

Apparently the press agrees. The reason deniers are getting eliminated from venues all over the place is just what I said. You have become the fringe of the fringe.

Except 97% of scientists do not agree. You get that from Skeptical Science, didn't ya?

So I suppose they know who all the scientists are? Where can I find that list? And, how many scientists are there? Oh, and when and where did they all get together to all decide they were all of the scientists?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I keep telling myself that it's far more likely that 97% of climate scientists in agreement are correct than it is that the 1% saying something else are the only ones who know what's going on.

Apparently the press agrees. The reason deniers are getting eliminated from venues all over the place is just what I said. You have become the fringe of the fringe.

Except 97% of scientists do not agree. You get that from Skeptical Science, didn't ya?

So I suppose they know who all the scientists are? Where can I find that list?

No, you can not. Cook's paper has already been rebuttled and is garbage. the correct consensus that his paper got when put to scrutiny is .3%

 

[mamooth]

Ruh-roh. I see SSDS - Skeptical Science Derangment Syndrome. You know you're dealing with a serious cultist when you see that. But then, cults do have a need for enemies to rally the faithful against.

 

[flacaltenn]

Yep.. I got a BAD CASE of SSDS.. But how much evidence do I need to JUSTIFY that derangement?
About one "Atomic Bomb Counter" per page? Crayon edited charts? A principle investigator with a cartoonist background? Got it bad.. Gives me the Willies just to see that logo...

I get the same feeling when I see a Kardashian or Honey Boo Boo...

 

[Abraham3]

I keep telling myself that it's far more likely that 97% of climate scientists in agreement are correct than it is that the 1% saying something else are the only ones who know what's going on.

Apparently the press agrees. The reason deniers are getting eliminated from venues all over the place is just what I said. You have become the fringe of the fringe.

Except 97% of scientists do not agree. You get that from Skeptical Science, didn't ya?

It is likely that MORE than 97% agree with the IPCC. And, no, I did not get that from Skeptical Science. I got it from Surveys of scientists' views on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia where you will find eleven different published - and in many cases peer reviewed - studies showing acceptance of the IPCC position in the high 90s

There is also the point that EVERY single science organization across the planet accepts AGW and the IPCC position as being correct and requiring action.

Where'd you get the idea that scientists don't agree with the IPCC? WUWT?

 

[Abraham3]

I keep telling myself that it's far more likely that 97% of climate scientists in agreement are correct than it is that the 1% saying something else are the only ones who know what's going on.

Apparently the press agrees. The reason deniers are getting eliminated from venues all over the place is just what I said. You have become the fringe of the fringe.

Except 97% of scientists do not agree. You get that from Skeptical Science, didn't ya?

So I suppose they know who all the scientists are? Where can I find that list? And, how many scientists are there? Oh, and when and where did they all get together to all decide they were all of the scientists?

I see that if you ever took a class in statistics and probability, you failed it badly. You can get the detail on the variety of surveys that have been conducted both at Surveys of scientists' views on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and at Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Abraham3]

Cook's paper has already been rebuttled and is garbage. the correct consensus that his paper got when put to scrutiny is .3%

Please describe for us what qualified the surveyed individuals making up Legate's 0.3% to be counted in that group. If you don't actually know, I'd be glad to describe it for you. But I suspect you won't believe me.

 

[flacaltenn]

Cook's paper has already been rebuttled and is garbage. the correct consensus that his paper got when put to scrutiny is .3%

Please describe for me what qualified the surveyed individuals making up Legate's 0.3% to be counted in that group.

Please show me where your "consensus" weighed in on the topic of the OP.. What IS the 97% consensus on extreme weather being due to CO2? And what questions were they asked regarding WEATHER??

 

[Abraham3]

Cook's paper has already been rebuttled and is garbage. the correct consensus that his paper got when put to scrutiny is .3%

Please describe for me what qualified the surveyed individuals making up Legate's 0.3% to be counted in that group. Additionally, please describe the difference between the class of which Cook et al finds AGW acceptance to be at 97% and those of whom Legate finds it to be 0.3%.

 

[Old Rocks]

Except 97% of scientists do not agree. You get that from Skeptical Science, didn't ya?

So I suppose they know who all the scientists are? Where can I find that list?

No, you can not. Cook's paper has already been rebuttled and is garbage. the correct consensus that his paper got when put to scrutiny is .3%

Link? Put up or shut up.