Yes, 97%

[skookerasbil]

Typical of people on the far left.......they immediately go to vicious personal attacks on anybody who does not embrace the established narrative.

How gay?

So fucking gay..........particularly when done by males on this forum. Limpwristed assholes........no balls. The guys who were always picked last for the team.......because they were social oddball weirdo's and they know it too. Wage personal attacks on anybody who does not agree with them.........anybody......no information wanted.

fake weenie pantywaists.......as much character as a small soap dish.


gay

 

[Youch]

Stephanie, I believe I have posted for you on prior occasions the numerous other studies available, most with larger samples involved.

And do you really think Anthony Watts is the fellow whose opinion you should listen to on science matters? Were you aware that he never graduated from college. It's not even certain that he ever attended ANY college. He is NOT an expert on any branch of science. He was a TV weatherman who got into weather graphics at the right time and made himself a nice pot of money.

But let's get back to where ELSE that 97% of active climate scientists (not, as Watts says we claim "98% of all scientists") has come from.

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature

Summary of opinions from climate and earth scientists regarding climate change.

Just over 97% of published climate researchers say humans are causing most global warming.[108][109][110]
Main article: Surveys of scientists' views on climate change
Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that the majority of scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[111] 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.[112][113][114][115]

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries.[116] 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.[117]

The survey was composed 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. Seventy-five 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:

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.[118]

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:

(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.[119]
A survey of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 2013 finds that only 2 of 10,885 reject anthropogenic global warming
A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers, finding 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming and reporting:

Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.[13]

Additionally, the authors of the studies were invited to categorise their own research papers, of which 1,381 discussed the cause of recent global warming, and:

Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.

James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[14] 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.[15]

References

1. 
   
   
   • Anderegg, William R L; James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider (2010)."Expert credibility in climate change". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 107 (27): 12107–9.Bibcode:2010PNAS..10712107A. doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107. PMC 2901439.PMID 20566872. Retrieved 22 August 2011.
   • Jump up^ Doran consensus article 2009
   • Jump up^ John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs. Andrew Skuce (15 May 2013). "Expert credibility in climate change". Environ. Res. Lett. 8 (2): 024024. Bibcode:2013ERL.....8b4024C.doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024.
   • Jump up^ Naomi Oreskes (December 3, 2004 (Erratum January 21, 2005)). "Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" (PDF). Science 306 (5702): 1686.doi:10.1126/science.1103618. PMID 15576594. (see also for an exchange of letters to Science)
   • Jump up^ Lavelle, Marianne (2008-04-23). "Survey Tracks Scientists' Growing Climate Concern". U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved 2010-01-20.
   • Jump up^ Lichter, S. Robert (2008-04-24). "Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don't Trust the Media's Coverage of Climate Change". Statistical Assessment Service, George Mason University. Retrieved 2010-01-20.
   • Jump up^ ""Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change" at Journalist's Resource.org".
   • Jump up^ Stephen J. Farnsworth, S. Robert Lichter (October 27, 2011). "The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change". International Journal of Public Opinion Research. Retrieved December 2, 2011.
   • Jump up^ Bray, Dennis; von Storch, Hans (2009). "A Survey of the Perspectives of Climate Scientists Concerning Climate Science and Climate Change".
   • Jump up^ Bray, D.; von Storch H. (2009). "Prediction' or 'Projection; The nomenclature of climate science". Science Communication 30 (4): 534–543. doi:10.1177/1075547009333698.
   • Jump up^ Doran, Peter T.; Maggie Kendall Zimmerman (January 20, 2009). "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". EOS 90 (3): 22–23.Bibcode:2009EOSTr..90...22D. doi:10.1029/2009EO030002.
   • Jump up^ Anderegg, William R L; James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider (2010)."Expert credibility in climate change". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 107 (27): 12107–9.Bibcode:2010PNAS..10712107A. doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107. PMC 2901439.PMID 20566872.
   • Jump up^ Cook, J.; Nuccitelli, D.; Green, S.A.; Richardson, M.; Winkler, B.; Painting, R.; Way, R.; Jacobs, P.; Skuc, A. (2013). "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature". Environ. Res. Lett. 8 (2): 024024. Bibcode:2013ERL.....8b4024C.doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024.
   • Jump up^ Plait, P. (11 December 2012). "Why Climate Change Denial Is Just Hot Air". Slate. Retrieved 14 February 2014.
   • Jump up^ Plait, P. (14 January 2014). "The Very, Very Thin Wedge of Denial". Slate. Retrieved 14 February 2014.

Ye of the Mob Rules Faith. You keep cutting and pasting, without properly citing sources mind you, "research" from academia, pro-growth government functionaries all. You keep doing it, over and over again, as a drone.

Never mind what I have posted, many others have posted data that contradicts the data of your revered academia, and you refuse to acknowledge or discuss it at all. The rest of us are bombarded with sky-is-falling man-made-global-warming "data" endlessly....we get it, we can't help but read it. But folks of your brainwashed ilk, intolerant libs all, refuse to accept that an entire other body of science shows something else entirely. And you refuse to discuss it, acknowledge it, etc... I don't really give a syphilitic pile, as I know you naught. But it is always important to call out intolerant and narrow libs when they present themselves. Wanna rise above? Discuss the data that many of us have provided without dismissal by cutting and pasting tired and repeated and largely debunked, well-crafted, grant-beggar postulates.

By the way, it is not an effective debate tool to dismiss a counter-argument by repeating yourself and dismissing the opposing source of data simply because you don't know from what college, if any, he mail have hailed. Doing so avoids the actual debate. And oh by the way, if attending college was the prerequisite for knowledge on global warming, we'd be much farther along in dooming our nation, economy and society than we are. Look instead to empirical data. What evidence do YOU have?

 

[SSDD]

See your posts are juvenile and pointless. They prove nothing. And proof of nothing is just that nothing..

Don't be quite so harsh...his posts do prove something...they prove that he has the whole circular reasoning thing down pat...

 

[SSDD]

. Wanna rise above? Discuss the data that many of us have provided without dismissal by cutting and pasting tired and repeated and largely debunked, well-crafted, grant-beggar postulates.

By the way, it is not an effective debate tool to dismiss a counter-argument by repeating yourself and dismissing the opposing source of data simply because you don't know from what college, if any, he mail have hailed. Doing so avoids the actual debate. And oh by the way, if attending college was the prerequisite for knowledge on global warming, we'd be much farther along in dooming our nation, economy and society than we are. Look instead to empirical data. What evidence do YOU have?

Give him time...he is looking for just the right logical fallacy that will make it all OK for him.

 

[IanC]

What field was that? Mining? That's not statistics and that's not climate science. He's very close to unpublished. Mann is a department head, an IPCC heavyweight, widely published and widely cited. Comparing the two is ridiculous.

I would assume that Mann has no publications in mining related fields. McIntyre has been published in climate science, but less than he should have been because of the cabal of climate science mafioso that tried to control what got printed, as evidenced by the climategate emails.

This is part and parcel of your 97% consensus. Anti consensus views are next to impossible to get published while pro consensus papers sail right through even if they are dreck.

It's also difficult to get articles published on flat Earth, demonism, hollow moons and magic photons. But those don't testify to journal biases, do they.


This does not change the FACT that McIntyre is virtually unpublished in statistics (his field of expertise). He has nothing but OJT in mining and since that has no relation whatsoever to climate science I don't care what he may or may not have published there. Mann is a professionally and academically successful scientist who is both heavily published and widely cited. McIntyre is an almost unpublished statistician who spent his professional career working outside of his field.

Here we go again. McIntyre worked in the mining industry, he is not an academic. Part of his job was ferreting out dodgy data and statistics put out by less-than-scrupulous mining stock promoters. When he saw the HockeyStick Graph, which was sent out to every Canadian household by the govt, his bullshit detector gave off a shrill alarm and he investigated. The rest is history.

McIntyre had a strong background in mathematics, when his interest was piqued by climate science he had the tools and the ability to track down the many mistakes he found, and the doggedness to find the sequestered data that was being withheld. He has consistently taken the high road and stuck to the data and science rather than stoop to the slanderous barrage of ad homs that he has had to weather.

As an interesting aside, McIntyre's other hobbies include playing squash at a very high international level. It seems that he is more than competent at anything he sets his sights on. Perhaps he should have taken the MIT scholarship he was offered after studying at Oxford. Instead, he came home and went to work.

Actually crick, I am surprised that you didnt say McIntyre was unemployed, like you did with Nic Lewis. Retired/out-of-work, hey what's the difference, right? hahahahaha

 

[Crick]

Ye of the Mob Rules Faith. You keep cutting and pasting, without properly citing sources mind you, "research" from academia, pro-growth government functionaries all.

This material has been posted here well over a dozen times. The article is from Wikipedia. The references there are all valid. This isn't the right-wing blogosphere ramblings you seem to be used to.

You keep doing it, over and over again, as a drone.

Mind the context young Paduwan. Stephanie accused me of constantly repeating the Doran, 75 out of 77 study and nothing else. I post this in a likely vain attempt to hook the young lady back up with reality.

Never mind what I have posted

Probably a good idea.

many others have posted data that contradicts the data of your revered academia, and you refuse to acknowledge or discuss it at all.

The only data posted contradicting these scientific opinion data would be the Legates "paper" which I have discussed repeatedly. That people have attempted to argue against AGW is the ongoing central theme of this forum and I have most certainly discussed it and them orders of magnitude more than have you. Very likely more than anyone else here.

The rest of us are bombarded with sky-is-falling man-made-global-warming "data" endlessly....we get it, we can't help but read it.

Good.

But folks of your brainwashed ilk, intolerant libs all, refuse to accept that an entire other body of science shows something else entirely.

I refuse to accept it because so far there hasn't been the slightest shred of evidence suggesting such a contention is correct.

And you refuse to discuss it, acknowledge it, etc...

That statement is demonstrably incorrect and again gives a clear impression that you know very little of what has been going on in this forum.

I don't really give a syphilitic pile, as I know you naught. But it is always important to call out intolerant and narrow libs when they present themselves. Wanna rise above? Discuss the data that many of us have provided without dismissal by cutting and pasting tired and repeated and largely debunked, well-crafted, grant-beggar postulates.

Then present some data. Blog articles are not data. Look for the papers they reference and post them.

By the way, it is not an effective debate tool to dismiss a counter-argument by repeating yourself and dismissing the opposing source of data simply because you don't know from what college, if any, he mail have hailed.

You aren't actually familiar with Anthony Watts, are you?

Doing so avoids the actual debate. And oh by the way, if attending college was the prerequisite for knowledge on global warming, we'd be much farther along in dooming our nation, economy and society than we are. Look instead to empirical data. What evidence do YOU have?

Read AR5. And get thee to a nunnery (or your local junior college) where you and Kosh and JC can take some basic science classes.

 

[skookerasbil]

Ye of the Mob Rules Faith. You keep cutting and pasting, without properly citing sources mind you, "research" from academia, pro-growth government functionaries all.

This material has been posted here well over a dozen times. The article is from Wikipedia. The references there are all valid. This isn't the right-wing blogosphere ramblings you seem to be used to.

You keep doing it, over and over again, as a drone.

Mind the context young Paduwan. Stephanie accused me of constantly repeating the Doran, 75 out of 77 study and nothing else. I post this in a likely vain attempt to hook the young lady back up with reality.

Never mind what I have posted

Probably a good idea.

many others have posted data that contradicts the data of your revered academia, and you refuse to acknowledge or discuss it at all.

The only data posted contradicting these scientific opinion data would be the Legates "paper" which I have discussed repeatedly. That people have attempted to argue against AGW is the ongoing central theme of this forum and I have most certainly discussed it and them orders of magnitude more than have you. Very likely more than anyone else here.

The rest of us are bombarded with sky-is-falling man-made-global-warming "data" endlessly....we get it, we can't help but read it.

Good.

But folks of your brainwashed ilk, intolerant libs all, refuse to accept that an entire other body of science shows something else entirely.

I refuse to accept it because so far there hasn't been the slightest shred of evidence suggesting such a contention is correct.

And you refuse to discuss it, acknowledge it, etc...

That statement is demonstrably incorrect and again gives a clear impression that you know very little of what has been going on in this forum.

I don't really give a syphilitic pile, as I know you naught. But it is always important to call out intolerant and narrow libs when they present themselves. Wanna rise above? Discuss the data that many of us have provided without dismissal by cutting and pasting tired and repeated and largely debunked, well-crafted, grant-beggar postulates.

Then present some data. Blog articles are not data. Look for the papers they reference and post them.

By the way, it is not an effective debate tool to dismiss a counter-argument by repeating yourself and dismissing the opposing source of data simply because you don't know from what college, if any, he mail have hailed.

You aren't actually familiar with Anthony Watts, are you?

Doing so avoids the actual debate. And oh by the way, if attending college was the prerequisite for knowledge on global warming, we'd be much farther along in dooming our nation, economy and society than we are. Look instead to empirical data. What evidence do YOU have?

Read AR5. And get thee to a nunnery (or your local junior college) where you and Kosh and JC can take some basic science classes.

narcissism........another bold trait of those on the far left. Think they are smarter than anyone AND they all think they now how you should conduct you life better than you do!!!

 

[Youch]

[QUOTE="skookerasbil, post: 9734112, member: 20360]
narcissism........another bold trait of those on the far left. Think they are smarter than anyone AND they all think they now how you should conduct you life better than you do!!![/QUOTE]

They are not. I'll have to respond another time. Remind me.....

 

[skookerasbil]

Ye of the Mob Rules Faith. You keep cutting and pasting, without properly citing sources mind you, "research" from academia, pro-growth government functionaries all.

This material has been posted here well over a dozen times. The article is from Wikipedia. The references there are all valid. This isn't the right-wing blogosphere ramblings you seem to be used to.

You keep doing it, over and over again, as a drone.

Mind the context young Paduwan. Stephanie accused me of constantly repeating the Doran, 75 out of 77 study and nothing else. I post this in a likely vain attempt to hook the young lady back up with reality.

Never mind what I have posted

Probably a good idea.

many others have posted data that contradicts the data of your revered academia, and you refuse to acknowledge or discuss it at all.

The only data posted contradicting these scientific opinion data would be the Legates "paper" which I have discussed repeatedly. That people have attempted to argue against AGW is the ongoing central theme of this forum and I have most certainly discussed it and them orders of magnitude more than have you. Very likely more than anyone else here.

The rest of us are bombarded with sky-is-falling man-made-global-warming "data" endlessly....we get it, we can't help but read it.

Good.

But folks of your brainwashed ilk, intolerant libs all, refuse to accept that an entire other body of science shows something else entirely.

I refuse to accept it because so far there hasn't been the slightest shred of evidence suggesting such a contention is correct.

And you refuse to discuss it, acknowledge it, etc...

That statement is demonstrably incorrect and again gives a clear impression that you know very little of what has been going on in this forum.

I don't really give a syphilitic pile, as I know you naught. But it is always important to call out intolerant and narrow libs when they present themselves. Wanna rise above? Discuss the data that many of us have provided without dismissal by cutting and pasting tired and repeated and largely debunked, well-crafted, grant-beggar postulates.

Then present some data. Blog articles are not data. Look for the papers they reference and post them.

By the way, it is not an effective debate tool to dismiss a counter-argument by repeating yourself and dismissing the opposing source of data simply because you don't know from what college, if any, he mail have hailed.

You aren't actually familiar with Anthony Watts, are you?

Doing so avoids the actual debate. And oh by the way, if attending college was the prerequisite for knowledge on global warming, we'd be much farther along in dooming our nation, economy and society than we are. Look instead to empirical data. What evidence do YOU have?

Read AR5. And get thee to a nunnery (or your local junior college) where you and Kosh and JC can take some basic science classes.

Wikipedia.



vAliD

 

[Crick]

narcissism........another bold trait of those on the far left. Think they are smarter than anyone AND they all think they now how you should conduct you life better than you do!!!

Since the man has admitted not having a science education and has professed an antipathy towards science education, my position in this regard is not a supposition.

 

[Crick]

[QUOTE="skookerasbil, post: 9734112, member: 20360]
narcissism........another bold trait of those on the far left. Think they are smarter than anyone AND they all think they now how you should conduct you life better than you do!!!

They are not. I'll have to respond another time. Remind me..... [/QUOTE]

Please consider yourself reminded.

 

[Youch]

narcissism........another bold trait of those on the far left. Think they are smarter than anyone AND they all think they now how you should conduct you life better than you do!!!

Since the man has admitted not having a science education and has professed an antipathy towards science education, my position in this regard is not a supposition.

All that proves is you believe institutionalized agenda over actual data. As a skeptic, I'd think you'd listen to the naysayers with data on their side. As a drone, I'd think you'd drink the institutionalized kool aide without a second look. Such is the rider with blinders.

Based on your own experiences, what trend do you experience?

Why do you hate warming? You don't like increased crop yields? Better climate?

Why do you deny cooling? Is it merely because if offends your ideology?

Someday, perhaps soon, you will realize reality. When that day comes, there is no shame is simply avoiding the fact.

 

[jon_berzerk]

through out history the peoples

have always done better in the warmer years

then the coldie ones

 

[jc456]

This whole 97% stuff is beyond bogus........citing 97% of a handful of scientists is so intellectually dishonest, its not even real.

I'll tell you whats impressive.......the tens of thousands of scientists, masters and PHD level who say without reservation that AGW is total crap. And why do they say that? Because the climate scientists completely ignore statistical error and spit on traditional scientific method. Which makes it fake science.

it's shameful is what it is. and it's sickening they don't care

Shameful? I refer you to numerous, peer reviewed studies of this topic that all find, very consistently, that a very high majority of active climate scientists concur with the IPCC position that human activity is fhe primary cause of warming observed in the last 150 years and particularly in the last 50; and you think that's shameful?

And to what do you refer? I presume it is to the Global Warming Petition Project. Do you understand how flawed a survey that is? Out of their over 30,000 signatures, 34 claim to be climate scientists. Their definition of a scientist is absurd. And the portion of scientists, by THEIR definition, that their petition contains, is pathetic compared to the work and expertise that went into the production and review of the IPCC assessment reports.
"The IPCC AR4 WG1 report was written and reviewed by approximately 2000 scientists. If we assume that the 20,000 AGU members who claim to be atmospheric scientists, ocean scientists, or hydrologists represent the pool of potential experts in climate science in the U.S., then approximately 10% of all climate scientists were directly involved in creating the over 1000 page report.

That compares to less than 1% of all OISM “scientists” who mailed a pre-printed postcard"

Before you start throwing terms around like "shameful", you ought to check your facts a little more closely.

So where is the experiment that shows 120 PPM on top of 280 increases temperature or causes Hurricanes and tornados? Again you have nothing. nonsense is all you have. NoNsENse

 

[CrusaderFrank]

narcissism........another bold trait of those on the far left. Think they are smarter than anyone AND they all think they now how you should conduct you life better than you do!!!

Since the man has admitted not having a science education and has professed an antipathy towards science education, my position in this regard is not a supposition.

Put another way, 97% of the AGWCult members who are published in AGWCult magazines agree that AGW is for real

 

[jc456]

Does the scientific community assume that every article published about global warming is based on "original research" just because the author has a masters or a doctorate degree?

No. That would be based on the content of the paper. It is relatively common for submitted research papers to be rejected for publication because they do not represent original research.

​

However, or but, why not add that, because if the paper doesn't fit the peer review politics, then those individuals are not allowed in. Correct?

 

[jc456]

I'm afraid you are repeating a common misconception.

How Accurate Is Wikipedia

No, we know you have nothing. So genious where's that experiment?

 

[jc456]

Ye of the Mob Rules Faith. You keep cutting and pasting, without properly citing sources mind you, "research" from academia, pro-growth government functionaries all.

This material has been posted here well over a dozen times. The article is from Wikipedia. The references there are all valid. This isn't the right-wing blogosphere ramblings you seem to be used to.

many others have posted data that contradicts the data of your revered academia, and you refuse to acknowledge or discuss it at all.

The only data posted contradicting these scientific opinion data would be the Legates "paper" which I have discussed repeatedly. That people have attempted to argue against AGW is the ongoing central theme of this forum and I have most certainly discussed it and them orders of magnitude more than have you. Very likely more than anyone else here.


I refuse to accept it because so far there hasn't been the slightest shred of evidence suggesting such a contention is correct.
That statement is demonstrably incorrect and again gives a clear impression that you know very little of what has been going on in this forum.

Then present some data. Blog articles are not data. Look for the papers they reference and post them.


Read AR5. And get thee to a nunnery (or your local junior college) where you and Kosh and JC can take some basic science classes.

And yet you post nothing of what has been asked. so you have no idea on how to debate or banter. See that requires two points of view. You have no thought at all at considering anything except your nothingness. hey that's ok, but realize we ain't biting your trash. Tell you what, instead of providing articles, can you supply a lab experiment that shows what 120 PPM of CO2 does to the climate? You got that genious dude? Nope, I know you don't, you got NoNsENse.

 

[chikenwing]

Wondering if it the same 97% that where just so sure we were headed into an ice age just a few years ago?
Back when were polluting at a much greater rate.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There's far more evidence in favor of the Moon being a hollow, manufactured sphere than there is for a 120PPM increase in CO2 raising temperature and lowering pH