Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.

It's not clear which causes more deaths. My gut tells me that it is indeed probably cold but the heat waves kill more over a short period of time.

Climate change is likely to increase both heat and cold related deaths because of the hyped-up weather. Flooding will be a big killer as sea levels rise and storms get worse. Drought and changing weather will cause problems for agriculture and lead to more and bigger fires.
 
there is nothing more that needs to be said to unthinking drones like Stu and FC. than

99.7 percent of the scientific community is skeptical too.



"... just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus": that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.


This is very recent and peer reviewed.
--

David R. Legates, Willie Soon, William M. Briggs, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

http://link.springer.com/article/10...1191-013-9647-9

Abstract

... Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly c
 
Quote from jem:

there is nothing more that needs to be said to unthinking drones like Stu and FC. than

99.7 percent of the scientific community is skeptical too.



"... just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus": that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.


This is very recent and peer reviewed.
--

David R. Legates, Willie Soon, William M. Briggs, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

http://link.springer.com/article/10...1191-013-9647-9

Abstract

... Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly c
More...

Wrong.

Oh, just noticed ...Monckton? He's a denialist fool, like you.

jerm, please take your meds or get better ones.

This is just plain ludicrous.
 
You mean Lord Monckton the former science advisor to Englands prime minister?

Its peer reviewed in a prominent journal.
And they even rejected a rebuttal by Cook because the 97% number was so fraudulent.

That is simply scientific peer rejection of your core lie.
There is no consensus period.
Does not matter who the author is... the paper was peer reviewed by a prominent journal... not some fly by night baloney.


David R. Legates, Willie Soon, William M. Briggs, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

http://link.springer.com/article/10...1191-013-9647-9

Abstract

... Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly c



Quote from futurecurrents:

Wrong.

Oh, just noticed ...Monckton? He's a denialist fool, like you.

jerm, please take your meds or get better ones.

This is just plain ludicrous.
More...
 
Quote from futurecurrents:

Wrong.

Oh, just noticed ...Monckton? He's a denialist fool, like you.

jerm, please take your meds or get better ones.

This is just plain ludicrous.
More...

So anyone, no matter how impressive their credentials, who does not believe in AGW is dismissed as a 'denialist fool' in your little twisted corner of reality. You do realize that it is 2013 and less than 50% of scientists support AGW.
 
Quote from gwb-trading:

So anyone, no matter how impressive their credentials, who does not believe in AGW is dismissed as a 'denialist fool' in your little twisted corner of reality. You do realize that it is 2013 and less than 50% of scientists support AGW.
More...

Also wrong.

Monckton is a fool and a fraud and a tool. He's not a respected climate scientist. In fact he's not even a scientist. He's a fraud and a shyster. That you don't know that, or know that and don't care ref
lects poorly on you idiots. But you morons don't care because "Lord" Monckton is a denialist. The fact that his name is on this paper is enough grounds alone to dismiss it.

". Monckton claimed that he has developed a cure for Graves’ Disease, AIDS, Multiple Schlerosis, the flu, and the common cold. This is no joke–he actually filed an application to patent a “therapeutic treatment” in 2009. Is it homeopathy? Massive doses of vitamin C? The world waits with bated breath.

2. The list of diseases cured by Monckton’s miracle tonic expands from time to time. At one point he claimed, “Patients have been cured of various infectious diseases, including Graves’ Disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, and herpes simplex VI.” At another time he said, ”Patients have been cured of various infectious diseases, including Graves’ disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, food poisoning, and HIV.” Maybe some of you physicians out there can help me interpret this, but it looks to me like Monckton is claiming that his Wonder Cure will 1) wipe out any virus without harming the patient, and 2) cure auto-immune disorders that may (or may not) have initially been triggered by a viral infection. It is unclear to me whether bacterial infections are supposed to be affected since, for instance, food poisoning could be caused by either. [UPDATE: Monckton apparently is saying the miracle cure should be effective against both viral and bacterial infections, as well as prions.]

Shady Business Dealings

1. Monckton lied about his personal circumstances to sell more of his Eternity puzzle, and admitted it. Later, he tried to talk his way out of the lie.

Inflating His Résumé

1. Monckton represented himself to members of the U.S. Congress as a member of the U.K. House of Lords (the upper house of Parliament.) When people started pointing out that he doesn’t appear on the official list of members, however, .......

it keeps going

http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/



And NASA says it's 97%. I'll believe NASA thank you very much.

All you deniar tools have are frauds and whores, fake scientists, petroleum engineers and TV meteorologists and sources funded by the Koch bros and the Heritage Foundation. The rational folks here like stu, richter and myself have NASA, NOAA and every science organization in the world.
 
mad_men_of_climate_change_alarmism.jpg
 
Quote from Lucrum:

Hows that "debate" coming along gwb? :)
More...

Sigh... I must admit that there are many days I simply believe I should give up being polite and treat FC the same way he abuses everyone on this forum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top