So the best that Skeptical Science (an Al Gore funded site) can do is try to throw stones at Petition Project by creating fabricating data on reviewed abstracts (Of course the Cook nonsense has already been completely debunked - mainly by scientists who state their papers were misclassified). "The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere." Of course Skeptical Science cannot dismiss 31,000 scientists including Nobel Laureates who signed the petition except to oddly throw stones at their qualifications.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
futurecurrents: An inconvenient billionaire?
- Thread starter nitro
- Start date
So the best that Skeptical Science (an Al Gore funded site) can do is try to throw stones at Petition Project by creating fabricating data on reviewed abstracts (Of course the Cook nonsense has already been completely debunked - mainly by scientists who state their papers were misclassified). "The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere." Of course Skeptical Science cannot dismiss 31,000 scientists including Nobel Laureates who signed the petition except to oddly throw stones at their qualifications.
So the best that Skeptical Science (an Al Gore funded site) can do is try to throw stones at Petition Project by creating fabricating data on reviewed abstracts (Of course the Cook nonsense has already been completely debunked - mainly by scientists who state their papers were misclassified). "The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere." Of course Skeptical Science cannot dismiss 31,000 scientists including Nobel Laureates who signed the petition except to oddly throw stones at their qualifications.
Gee, you must be ignoring all the of the other ways of looking at it. What a surprise.
You just don't want to accept facts. Multiple studies, polls, surveys and review of the literature.
97%
Only ONE paper out of 2400 denies AGW.
Every science org in the world. None deny it.
There is NOTHING that would change your mind.
Only an idiot would think the petition project is reliable. Easily debunked propaganda.
http://www.desmogblog.com/30000-global-warming-petition-easily-debunked-propaganda
http://www.desmogblog.com/30000-global-warming-petition-easily-debunked-propaganda
and from my sampling of that data base none of the papers found that man made co2 causes most of the global warming...
so if you want to play idiot games.....
that is 1 against zero... you lose.
so if you want to play idiot games.....
that is 1 against zero... you lose.
Gee, you must be ignoring all the of the other ways of looking at it. What a surprise.
You just don't want to accept facts. Multiple studies, polls, surveys and review of the literature.
97%
Only ONE paper out of 2400 denies AGW.
Every science org in the world. None deny it.
There is NOTHING that would change your mind.
It's interesting to see the qualifiers creeping into the discussion, "some", "none", "most" of the warming.
Yeah, and it's amazing that he is still so fucking stupid to expect that the papers would have a sentence in them expressly saying so. Even after my pointing out multiple time the fallacy in that kind of "thinking" But the lying douchebag is not interested in the truth.
Yeah, and it's amazing that he is still so fucking stupid to expect that the papers would have a sentence in them expressly saying so. Even after my pointing out multiple time the fallacy in that kind of "thinking" But the lying douchebag is not interested in the truth.
If I had to guess, and I am, I'd say that the papers/opinions graphed would look like a bell curve: few believe Man has no influence, few believe Man is entirely responsible, and most believe Man has some influence and responsibility.
AGW is such a universally accepted bedrock climate science that climatologists have moved way beyond stating the obvious with every paper they submit.
Jem would want every biology paper to reaffirm the validity of evolution. An absurd requirement. But jerm is not interested in the truth. He's interested in deceit that supports his lunatic fringe political views.
Jem would want every biology paper to reaffirm the validity of evolution. An absurd requirement. But jerm is not interested in the truth. He's interested in deceit that supports his lunatic fringe political views.
If I had to guess, and I am, I'd say that the papers/opinions graphed would look like a bell curve: few believe Man has no influence, few believe Man is entirely responsible, and most believe Man has some influence and responsibility.
Yes, and what makes a big difference is the time frame considered. Far more - the vast majority - believe man is responsible for essentially all of the GW over the last 40 years. As the time is stretched further back that consensus gets much thinner, as it should.
if you read the papers and even the studies that are mis-represented by agw nutters, you would understand I employed a qualifier because the the "consensus" being measured is typically... whether man is responsible for most of the warming since 1950s.
the "consensus" question itself is qualified and is a trick...
because really we want to know if man made co2 is causing the warming.
Almost no papers find that.... man made co2 has caused most of the warming since 1950s.
Note... 2...
when an idiot like fc says only x percent of the papers deny agw... and a page later says it wrong to say less than x percent support agw...
he is an illogical troll.
the "consensus" question itself is qualified and is a trick...
because really we want to know if man made co2 is causing the warming.
Almost no papers find that.... man made co2 has caused most of the warming since 1950s.
Note... 2...
when an idiot like fc says only x percent of the papers deny agw... and a page later says it wrong to say less than x percent support agw...
he is an illogical troll.
It's interesting to see the qualifiers creeping into the discussion, "some", "none", "most" of the warming.