Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.

and I first referenced doran by at most page 165 of this thread....
see the quote I took from that page below.

and even on page 250... your point still made no sense. no one was denying he was the author of a study.
I am not sure you even understand the point of this argument. so I will explain it for you.

Fraudcurrents thinks science can be one by misrepresenting facts and pretending there is a consensus...
We say its the science that matters and there is no science saying man made co2 causes warming... and on top of that the so called consensus is a misrepresentation.


jem said:
The doran survey is a joke....
it was another 75 out 77 agw nutter survey.
And it does not claim that man made co2 is causing the warming

you are getting very low fc... very low.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/

So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.


Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?

Read the whole article: That Scientific Global Warming Consensus…Not! – Forbes
More...
 
are agw nutters finding new gases to worry about since their co2 models failed.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/...gases-pose-threat-to-ozone-layer/#more-104784

By WUWT Regular “Just The Facts”

On the heels of Andrew Dessler’s Ozone Hole tweet, we have from the BBC:

“Researchers from the University of East Anglia have discovered evidence of four new gases that can destroy ozone and are getting into the atmosphere from as yet unidentified sources.”

“Scientists have identified four new man-made gases that are contributing to the depletion of the ozone layer.

Two of the gases are accumulating at a rate that is causing concern among researchers.”

“Other scientists acknowledged that while the current concentrations of these gases are small and they don’t present an immediate concern, work would have to be done to identify their origin.

“This paper highlights that ozone depletion is not yet yesterday’s story,” said Prof Piers Forster, from the University of Leeds.

“The concentrations found in this study are tiny. Nevertheless, this paper reminds us we need to be vigilant and continually monitor the atmosphere for even small amounts of these gases creeping up, either through accidental or unplanned emissions.

“Of the four species identified, CFC-113a seems the most worrying as there is a very small but growing emission source somewhere, maybe from agricultural insecticides. We should find it and take it out of production.”

Read More

The paper “Newly detected ozone-depleting substances in the atmosphere” Laube et al., paywalled, can be found here:

“Ozone-depleting substances emitted through human activities cause large-scale damage to the stratospheric ozone layer, and influence global climate. Consequently, the production of many of these substances has been phased out; prominent examples are the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), and their intermediate replacements, the hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). So far, seven types of CFC and six types of HCFC have been shown to contribute to stratospheric ozone destruction1, 2. Here, we report the detection and quantification of a further three CFCs and one HCFC.”
 
gwb-trading said:
Can one of the global warming alarmist geniuses explain something to me.

Why did the Vikings when they briefly settled in Newfoundland call North America 'Vinland' because Newfoundland had grape vines growing all over it.

Of course this means that between the 8th and 12th centuries, North America was much warmer than it is today.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116946/vikings-are-misunderstood
More...


No genius, they were a breed of (blue)berries. And yes, they also grown all over equatorial Maine! omg I love it so.
 
drownpruf said:
No genius, they were a breed of blueberries. And yes, they also grown all over equatorial Maine! omg I love it so.
More...

They were not blueberries. These were muscadine grapes (native American grapes).

Muscadine grapes currently grow in coastal areas of the American South (e.g. North Carolina) and are used to make wine.

Vikings made wine with these Muscadine grapes during their time in 'Vinland' or as it is called today - Newfoundland.

Do I need to post pictures so you understand the difference between blueberries (which do not grow on a vine, but a shrub) and Muscadine grapes (which do grow on a vine)?

Do Blueberries Grow on Vines?

Answer: Blueberries grow on shrubs, not vines.
 
gwb-trading said:
They were not blueberries. These were muscadine grapes (native American grapes).

Muscadine grapes currently grow in coastal areas of the American South (e.g. North Carolina) and are used to make wine.

Vikings made wine with these Muscadine grapes during their time in 'Vinland' or as it is called today - Newfoundland.

Do I need to post pictures so you understand the difference between blueberries (which do not grow on a vine, but a shrub) and Muscadine grapes (which do grow on a vine)?

Do Blueberries Grow on Vines?

Answer: Blueberries grow on shrubs, not vines.
More...

No, they were NOT grapes. LOL. You're serious? You're joking. You can't possibly be this dumb. By all historical accounts they were berries growing from shrubs. lol this is your proof? You took Vinland as a literal anglicized translation. The Norse-root Vin -> vinber; wine-berry. It's a large commercial industry in Newf, down to Maine and Nova Scotia..

I know you clowns are microcephalic, but must you make it this easy for me?
 
you must be one of those guys who confuses a fraudulent consensus for science.
let us know when you have proof man made co2 causes warming in our current environment.

or

How about some proof man made co2 leads change in temperature instead of trailing it.
You see the chart below shows co2 trails change in ocean temp by a year and land temps by about 9 months.



1-s2.0-S0921818112001658-gr5.jpg



drownpruf said:
No, they were NOT grapes. LOL. You're serious? You're joking. You can't possibly be this dumb. By all historical accounts they were berries growing from shrubs. lol this is your proof? You took Vinland as a literal anglicized translation. The Norse-root Vin -> vinber; wine-berry. It's a large commercial industry in Newf, down to Maine and Nova Scotia..

I know you clowns are microcephalic, but must you make it this easy for me?
More...
 
jem said:
you must be one of those guys who confuses a fraudulent consensus for science.
let us know when you have proof man made co2 causes warming in our current environment.

or

How about some proof man made co2 leads change in temperature instead of trailing it.
You see the chart below shows co2 trails change in ocean temp by a year and land temps by about 9 months.



1-s2.0-S0921818112001658-gr5.jpg
More...

Look at these vineyards! You need a muzzle for your dog. He's not right in the head.
 
drownpruf must be what happens to a a mind which tried to drown itself in 180 proof.
here is how such a mind responds... to a simple request for scientific proof.


drownpruf said:
Look at these vineyards! You need a muzzle for your dog. He's not right in the head.
More...
 
drownpruf said:
No, they were NOT grapes. LOL. You're serious? You're joking. You can't possibly be this dumb. By all historical accounts they were berries growing from shrubs. lol this is your proof? You took Vinland as a literal anglicized translation. The Norse-root Vin -> vinber; wine-berry. It's a large commercial industry in Newf, down to Maine and Nova Scotia..

I know you clowns are microcephalic, but must you make it this easy for me?
More...

Are you also denying that European Vitis vinifera grapes grew in England during this time (800AD to 1200AD) and the Roman times? Amusing.

Have you ever seen wild Muscadine grapes - they are smaller berry-like grapes growing on vines. They are not blue berries (or any other type of berry) growing on a shrub.

Are you actually so foolish to believe that berries are the same thing as grapes? Or are you just think the Vikings were too ignorant to tell the difference between the two? You are coming across like a nanocephalic dwarf.

viro90414.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top