Fox News Distorts Climate Science, In other news, the Pope is Catholic.

[futurecurrents]

Quote from gwb-trading:

Even the survey you posted in the other thread shows that only 82% of climate scientists support the concept that man causes global warming. And this survey was of a group of 3000+ scientists who work for universities and foundations that are funded by 'global 'warming' money.

Stop pushing the absurd 3% number. You have no proof of it and the number is obviously fabricated and pulled out of thin air.

On Fox News, Republican strategist Brad Blakeman denied the scientific consensus on manmade climate change, saying "For every one scientist that says there is, I'll give you 10 scientists that said it's not manmade":

But in fact, credible surveys have repeatedly found that the vast majority of climate scientists agree humans are changing the climate. For instance, a 2009 survey published by the American Geophysical Union found that 97 percent of those who specialize in climate science said human activity is contributing to rising global temperatures:

The American Geophysical Union and several other scientific bodies including the National Academy of Sciences have acknowledged manmade climate change based on a strong and growing body of evidence.

Despite all of this, Fox News has continually and falsely claimed the consensus on climate change does not exist -- yet another example of the network's willful denial of facts.

++++++++++++++++++++++++


Doran 2009

97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes




Anderegg 2010

This overwhelming consensus among climate experts is confirmed by an independent study that surveys all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus. They find between 97% to 98% of climate experts support the consensus (Anderegg 2010). Moreover, they examine the number of publications by each scientist as a measure of expertise in climate science. They find the average number of publications by unconvinced scientists (eg - skeptics) is around half the number by scientists convinced by the evidence. Not only is there a vast difference in the number of convinced versus unconvinced scientists, there is also a considerable gap in expertise between the two groups.



But it's all a conspiracy to make Al Gore rich ......or some other crazy shit like that. The obvious is just too obvious.

 

[jem]

that is 97% of the scientists published in pro AGW journals.
I am surprised it was not 100%.

That number has no bearing on the amount of climate scientists who doubt your now broken agw models.

With those models broken...
you have zero... and I mean zero evidence or proof that man made CO2 is currently causing warming.

Don't you understand that fact.
Your entire argument was buttressed by those models.
Those models failed.

You now have zero evidence.

Quote from futurecurrents:

On Fox News, Republican strategist Brad Blakeman denied the scientific consensus on manmade climate change, saying "For every one scientist that says there is, I'll give you 10 scientists that said it's not manmade":

But in fact, credible surveys have repeatedly found that the vast majority of climate scientists agree humans are changing the climate. For instance, a 2009 survey published by the American Geophysical Union found that 97 percent of those who specialize in climate science said human activity is contributing to rising global temperatures:

The American Geophysical Union and several other scientific bodies including the National Academy of Sciences have acknowledged manmade climate change based on a strong and growing body of evidence.

Despite all of this, Fox News has continually and falsely claimed the consensus on climate change does not exist -- yet another example of the network's willful denial of facts.

++++++++++++++++++++++++


Doran 2009

97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes




Anderegg 2010

This overwhelming consensus among climate experts is confirmed by an independent study that surveys all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus. They find between 97% to 98% of climate experts support the consensus (Anderegg 2010). Moreover, they examine the number of publications by each scientist as a measure of expertise in climate science. They find the average number of publications by unconvinced scientists (eg - skeptics) is around half the number by scientists convinced by the evidence. Not only is there a vast difference in the number of convinced versus unconvinced scientists, there is also a considerable gap in expertise between the two groups.



But it's all a conspiracy to make Al Gore rich ......or some other crazy shit like that. The obvious is just too obvious.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from jem:

that is 97% of the scientists published in pro AGW journals.
I am surprised it was not 100%.

That number has no bearing on the amount of climate scientists who doubt your now broken agw models.

With those models broken...
you have zero... and I mean zero evidence or proof that man made CO2 is currently causing warming.

Don't you understand that fact.
Your entire argument was buttressed by those models.
Those models failed.

You now have zero evidence.

I understand........ you are insane..

 

[377OHMS]

Quote from jem:

that is 97% of the scientists published in pro AGW journals.
I am surprised it was not 100%.

That number has no bearing on the amount of climate scientists who doubt your now broken agw models.

With those models broken...
you have zero... and I mean zero evidence or proof that man made CO2 is currently causing warming.

Don't you understand that fact.
Your entire argument was buttressed by those models.
Those models failed.

You now have zero evidence.

He doesn't need evidence since AGW is a practicing religion. FC accepts AGW on faith alone. Data is optional.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from 377OHMS:

He doesn't need evidence since AGW is a practicing religion. FC accepts AGW on faith alone. Data is optional.

+ 2

 

[jem]

Quote from futurecurrents:

I understand........ you are insane..

This is the 5th or 6th time...

what is your evidence man made CO2 is causing warming on this planet.

don't show me a stupid graph with a big swing in CO2, if you use that graph explain how that graph is leading temperatures up...

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from jem:

This is the 5th or 6th time...

what is your evidence man made CO2 is causing warming on this planet.

don't show me a stupid graph with a big swing in CO2, if you use that graph explain how that graph is leading temperatures up...

Wow are YOU stupid! Holy shit!

This is the evidence, coupled with the indisputable fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and there is no solar increase that matches. Now you MAY have to do some rational thought which is difficult for you but here goes.

here's another look at the decoupling of solar with temp that can only be explained by CO2

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from 377OHMS:

He doesn't need evidence since AGW is a practicing religion. FC accepts AGW on faith alone. Data is optional.

And the other nutcase pipes up.

The only ones ignoring data are the AGW denier morons.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from futurecurrents:

Wow are YOU stupid! Holy shit!

This is the evidence, coupled with the indisputable fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and there is no solar increase that matches. Now you MAY have to do some rational thought which is difficult for you but here goes.

Tell me again how many ET members you've converted to your AGW religion?

 

[377OHMS]

Quote from futurecurrents:

here's another look at the decoupling of solar with temp that can only be explained by CO2

Nonsense. The coupling factor between solar flux density and earth temperature has many factors. The most important is the albedo (reflection coefficient), the atmospheric heat capacity and composition and seasonal variation of the earth-sun distance with albedo completely dominating the result. The effect on albedo caused by vulcanism is the most powerful effect in the historic record and it is almost always associated with cooling.

You latch onto dubious ideas like a child grabbing candy at the grocery store and then you generally exhibit a serious lack of understanding or appreciation for the vast complexity of the subject. You constantly state theories and postulations as fact and then start claiming that the people who disagree with you are stupid, insane etc. You don't care about the climate or who it impacts, you care only about taxing people. I've never seen you state a single modification to your lifestyle that you adopted to reduce pollution or limit your carbon emissions. Your vocation has a direct deleterious effect on climate according to your own postings yet you are perfectly comfortable yammering about climate. Its hypocritical.

You manage to make a living and keep a roof over your head but you retain the sociopolitical outlook of an 18 year old. Guys like you make guys like me stopping giving a damn about climate. If New York, New Orleans or San Francisco end up under water I will consider it to be an improvement.