Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.

Quote from jem:

hey fc you ignorant lying drone... I have been presenting peer reviewed papers and studies from NASA... and quotes from scientists. Even if you are correct and some of those scientists are in the oil gas industry that is not a lie.... your 97% was the biggest lie and it is completely debunked in a peer reviewed paper.

the lies here are coming from you and your side.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/...or-math-errors/


The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”.

The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.

Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.
More...


Ummmm, no. It really is 97% and you know it. Just like you know that even Exxon agrees.

Regarding your bullshit denialist "study", are you really so stupid as to believe that because a paper doesn't expressly say that GW is dangerous, that therefore the author and the paper is not in agreement about AGW with the other 97% of the scientists?

No, you are not that stupid. You are just a fucking scumbag lying piece of shit. That's even worse than being stupid.

Do you have a garage?
 
Quote from jem:

now you tell us which side is lying fc.
leftists believe in the lie... its the only way they could get people to believe in the crap they say.

you can keep you doctor... etc.
More...

That's easy. YOU and the denialist industry are lying. No question. You are not that stupid. Unless you want to admit that you are stupid.
 
we all know the 97% number is a complete fraud.

Why? ... well because you and stu on all other science hating agw nutter liar on this board have presented somewhere between zero and one paper attempting to show man made co2 causes warming. You have almost zero papers while we present papers just about every week showing the sun, the tides, aerosols and water vapor play a larger roll.

Very few scientists are left publishing papers saying anything like its all co2..

now they say co2 is like a thermostat and they speculate co2 is controlling water vapor.

so we know your arguments are fraudulent anti science crap.


Were you not the idiot who last year was still telling us the sun was not a factor and and tides were almost not a factor and that it was all co2.


you fc are the science denying moron.


Quote from futurecurrents:

Ummmm, no. It really is 97% and you know it. Just like you know that even Exxon agrees.

Regarding your bullshit denialist "study", are you really so stupid as to believe that because a paper doesn't expressly say that GW is dangerous, that therefore the author and the paper is not in agreement about AGW with the other 97% of the scientists?

No, you are not that stupid. You are just a fucking scumbag lying piece of shit. That's even worse than being stupid.

Do you have a garage?
More...
 
Quote from jem:

we all know the 97% number is a complete fraud.

Why? ... well because you and stu on all other science hating agw nutter liar on this board have presented somewhere between zero and one paper attempting to show man made co2 causes warming. You have almost zero papers while we present papers just about every week showing the sun, the tides, aerosols and water vapor play a larger roll.

Very few scientists are left publishing papers saying anything like its all co2..

now they say co2 is like a thermostat and they speculate co2 is controlling water vapor.

so we know your arguments are fraudulent anti science crap.


Were you not the idiot who last year was still telling us the sun was not a factor and and tides were almost not a factor and that it was all co2.


you fc are the science denying moron.
More...

Wow you really are insane aren't you?

Ummmm, no. It really is 97% and you know it. Just like you know that even Exxon agrees. Do you really think every science org in the world would be agreeing - and none disputing - if the consensus was .3 % or whatever absurd number?

Regarding your bullshit denialist "study", are you really so stupid as to believe that because a paper doesn't expressly say that GW is dangerous, that therefore the author and the paper is not in agreement about AGW with the other 97% of the scientists?

No, you are not that stupid. You are just a fucking scumbag lying piece of shit. That's even worse than being stupid.

Do you have a garage?
 
American Meteorological Society

"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7
 
Quote from Lucrum:

Why, you wanting to install a heat and air unit in it for him?
More...

No. It would make it easier for him to kill himself and improve the world for future generations. He just need turn his car on and go to sleep.




American Geophysical Union: Human Impacts on Climate

"The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century."
 
still waiting for science from you...

if you want the real tally of opinion --- .3% of the papers agree with you.



http://elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=278244

The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”.

The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.

Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.
 
Quote from jem:

still waiting for science from you...

if you want the real tally of opinion --- .3% of the papers agree with you.



http://elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=278244

The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”.

The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.

Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.
More...


So because the vast majority of papers did not explicitly say that GW was bad, they and their authors don't believe in AGW? That has to one of the stupidest things I have ever heard.

That's the kind of fucked-up "logic" that I expect you to run with, and the type of tripe that is piled like loose smelly shit on the websites you frequent.

Because you are a lying, deluded, right-wing douchebag that doesn't have a clue about the real science. Will you ever understand the science?

Like these guys do...

American Physical Society

"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now."
 
Since jerm seems very ignorant and confused about the science of AGW I thought we should start with some basics.

Jerm, GWB and lucrum, you need to watch this video. The author of it knows more than you do about AGW.


<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/ai4idlxhjo0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top