Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That lie was debunked years ago.At least 97% of all publishing climate scientists agree with the IPCC conclusion that human activities, to wit: GHG emissions and deforestation - are the primary cause of the warming observed over the last 150 years.
Reduce CO2 emissions. Did you think there was something else? And where the fuck did you not learn to write?
Can't you show us the lab work that controls for all variables except for CO2? No
For each 10ppm reduction in CO2 what's the expected decrease in temperature? Right, you have no answer
At least 97% of all publishing climate scientists agree with the IPCC conclusion that human activities, to wit: GHG emissions and deforestation - are the primary cause of the warming observed over the last 150 years.
That lie was debunked years ago.
I will go where science leads... Not where political whores tell me to go.. How is that Muslim out reach organization doing these days?I'll go with the scientists who put a man on the moon, and who are helping to unlock the secrets of our universe
NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming
I'll go with the scientists who put a man on the moon, and who are helping to unlock the secrets of our universe
NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming
How many sources do you need? Would 97 be enough?At least 97% of all publishing climate scientists agree with the IPCC conclusion that human activities, to wit: GHG emissions and deforestation - are the primary cause of the warming observed over the last 150 years.
That lie was debunked years ago.
Let's see it.
That lie was debunked years ago.At least 97% of all publishing climate scientists agree with the IPCC conclusion that human activities, to wit: GHG emissions and deforestation - are the primary cause of the warming observed over the last 150 years.
Legates Et Al showed John Cook to be a liar and a poor scientist. Dana Nuttercellie is among his group of clones who couldn't beat their way out of a wet paper bag.They have now tried three times to prop up their lies and deceptions on it, only to have it shredded within minuets of publication. No reputable journal will even carry Cooks work now.
That lie was debunked years ago.At least 97% of all publishing climate scientists agree with the IPCC conclusion that human activities, to wit: GHG emissions and deforestation - are the primary cause of the warming observed over the last 150 years.
Legates Et Al showed John Cook to be a liar and a poor scientist. Dana Nuttercellie is among his group of clones who couldn't beat their way out of a wet paper bag.They have now tried three times to prop up their lies and deceptions on it, only to have it shredded within minuets of publication. No reputable journal will even carry Cooks work now.
Cook et al were published in Environmental Research Letters. Legates? His work (along with his esteemed co-authors Willie Soon the Sellout, Monckton the Royal wee and Famous-for-Fucking Up statistician William M Briggs) went out in Science and Education, a journal that has nothing to do with climate science whatsoever. The topic of the piece had to be disguised as one concerning education techniques to get published there.
Cook's next paper was again published in Environmental Research Letters. Legates has no second paper.
So, what lies were you telling again?
Let's have a look at the abstract
Abstract
The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.
***************************************************************
Legates contention, that any paper that does not explicitly state that it agrees with the IPCC conclusions DISAGREES with those conclusions is an error you'd have to go back to primary school to find being made by normal students.
Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.
Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.
In recent decades, changes in climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems on all continents and across the oceans. Impacts are due to observed climate change, irrespective of its cause, indicating the sensitivity of natural and human systems to changing climate.
Changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been observed since about 1950. Some of these changes have been linked to human influences, including a decrease in cold temperature extremes, an increase in warm temperature extremes, an increase in extreme high sea levels and an increase in the number of heavy precipitation events in a number of regions.
Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems. Limiting climate change would require substantial and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions which, together with adaptation, can limit climate change risks.
Cumulative emissions of CO2 largely determine global mean surface warming by the late 21st century and beyond. Projections of greenhouse gas emissions vary over a wide range, depending on both socio-economic development and climate policy.
Surface temperature is projected to rise over the 21st century under all assessed emission scenarios. It is very likely that heat waves will occur more often and last longer, and that extreme precipitation events will become more intense and frequent in many regions. The ocean will continue to warm and acidify, and global mean sea level to rise.
Climate change will amplify existing risks and create new risks for natural and human systems. Risks are unevenly distributed and are generally greater for disadvantaged people and communities in countries at all levels of development.
Many aspects of climate change and associated impacts will continue for centuries, even if anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are stopped. The risks of abrupt or irreversible changes increase as the magnitude of the warming increases.
Adaptation and mitigation are complementary strategies for reducing and managing the risks of climate change. Substantial emissions reductions over the next few decades can reduce climate risks in the 21st century and beyond, increase prospects for effective adaptation, reduce the costs and challenges of mitigation in the longer term and contribute to climate-resilient pathways for sustainable development.
Effective decision-making to limit climate change and its effects can be informed by a wide range of analytical approaches for evaluating expected risks and benefits, recognizing the importance of governance, ethical dimensions, equity, value judgments, economic assessments and diverse perceptions and responses to risk and uncertainty.
Without additional mitigation efforts beyond those in place today, and even with adaptation, warming by the end of the 21st century will lead to high to very high risk of severe, widespread and irreversible impacts globally (high confidence). Mitigation involves some level of co-benefits and of risks due to adverse side effects, but these risks do not involve the same possibility of severe, widespread and irreversible impacts as risks from climate change, increasing the benefits from near-term mitigation efforts.
More at:
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf
This is precious coming from a science-denier who backs a premise built upon drawing correlationsFor the umpteenth time. CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION!
This is precious coming from a science-denier who backs a premise built upon drawing correlationsFor the umpteenth time. CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION!
Ive read the crap you all try to foist up the flag pole.. none of it passes muster..
Quite on the contrary, we have a pretty good understanding of many of the past climate fluctuations. And, yes, we have ruled out natural causes for the present rapid increase in temperatures. This site presents a very good layman discussion of this;
Global Warming: Man or Myth - Natural Causes of Climate Change
I'll go with the scientists who put a man on the moon, and who are helping to unlock the secrets of our universe
NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming
Still trying to play that game?That lie was debunked years ago.At least 97% of all publishing climate scientists agree with the IPCC conclusion that human activities, to wit: GHG emissions and deforestation - are the primary cause of the warming observed over the last 150 years.
Legates Et Al showed John Cook to be a liar and a poor scientist. Dana Nuttercellie is among his group of clones who couldn't beat their way out of a wet paper bag.They have now tried three times to prop up their lies and deceptions on it, only to have it shredded within minuets of publication. No reputable journal will even carry Cooks work now.
Cook et al were published in Environmental Research Letters. Legates? His work (along with his esteemed co-authors Willie Soon the Sellout, Monckton the Royal wee and Famous-for-Fucking Up statistician William M Briggs) went out in Science and Education, a journal that has nothing to do with climate science whatsoever. The topic of the piece had to be disguised as one concerning education techniques to get published there.
Cook's next paper was again published in Environmental Research Letters. Legates has no second paper.
So, what lies were you telling again?
Let's have a look at the abstract
Abstract
The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.
***************************************************************
Legates contention, that any paper that does not explicitly state that it agrees with the IPCC conclusions DISAGREES with those conclusions is an error you'd have to go back to primary school to find being made by normal students.
