Search results

Ok, try it in bite sized... Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and citation data show that (i) 97-98% of the climate researchers actively publishing in the field surveyed here...

W. R. L. Anderegg, "Expert Credibility in Climate Change," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America Abstract.... "an extensive...

You have been given one. All you can do is deny validity. Yet anything in denial of AGW is magically valid to you. Not true. You have been shown another one . Denying it again or ignoring it, doesn't cange the fact you were given one. A global warming crises is a separate issue. AGW is fact like...

It's true then.

Not true. Repeating untruths won't make them true. Just over 97% of published climate researchers say humans are causing global warming. 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

As with the Flat Earth Society, the art of AGW denial is all about manufacturing an illusion that there is a debate. Conspirasists and agw deniers making pseudoscientific argument against science and known fact doesn't count as debate. Anthropic global warming denial monkeys quoting such...

My main attack is stupid as can be because you agree with it. Coming from you that figures. But if you were at all honest, wouldn't you admit you don't even understand what my 'main attack' is? AGW is not even the same thing as climate change. Natural global warming is a fact. In the same...

That is a known and understood scientific process. It does not directly influence the science of global warming. I suggest you do more research. However, dealing with that fact then. As a fact, Co2 is a natural thermostat. So pumping more of it, unnaturally, into the atmosphere is not...

Not at all. I suggest you read more carefully what I said. Skepticism is fine, essential to the scientific process. The extent to which damage to the climate has or is going to take place, is where legitimate debate lies. Where valid skepticism is useful. Trying to create controversy toward...

What a ridiculous thing to say. By that token ALL surveys are hypothesis. Results drawn from citation data is hardly inferring hypothesis. Also I think I'll take what is science and fact today in preference to your 25 odd years into the future crystal ball gazing guesses , thanks all the same

To be very clear then, I produced another "broad survey" , though the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is hardly merely a survey. 1,376 researchers with citation data finding 97% of scientists support agw, is far broader than any "survey". Agw is a fact in the same way...

Not true. There are other sources. Here's one... W. R. L. Anderegg, "Expert Credibility in Climate Change," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the...

AGW IS fact. The debate is around to what extent the vast amounts of greenhouse gases emitted by human activity, a proportion of which are not absorbed by natural process but left in the atmosphere, will cause harmful effect. For the same reasons you say people are backing away from agw...

You used a sock puppet. You pretended to be 'res judicata' trying to support yourself as jem and were caught red-handed. Only then did you let - et know - as you put it , in the form of a totally pathetic excuse. You don't even have the basic honesty or good grace to admit it. The only...

gwb-trading ...or should I say resjudicata....or do I mean jem... There is no good reason to presume stats - continually and overwhelmingly endorsed by the scientific community at large - are going to be less reliable than a claim made by an obviously questionable and dissenting view from...

Fair enough but, isn't that rather like posing an ill-thought out (or intentionally loaded) question which will give a skewed response? Why would scientists think SOME recent warming could not be natural?

Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this...

In February 2007, Delaware governor Ruth Ann Minner wrote a letter to Legates stating "Your views on climate change, as I understand them, are not aligned with those of my administration,". The letter directed Legates to stop using his title as state climatologist of Delaware in his public...

only a "0.3% climate consensus" exposed /debunked http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/...or-math-errors/ "Nowhere in Cook’s paper is the year 1950 mentioned, nor does the word "dangerous" appear anywhere. If Legates et al are arguing that only papers explicitly stating that warming...

So Japan is 67% non-religious, no guns, with "an incredible level of respect" for each other. . That might have something to do with murder rates.