I have never made any statement about Futurecurrents and gay incest. Yet he has continued to abuse me and others by saying we have carnal relations with our mothers and other endless insults.
The 95% consensus is now just 43%
- Thread starter WeToddDid2
- Start date
I have never made any statement about Futurecurrents and gay incest. Yet he has continued to abuse me and others by saying we have carnal relations with our mothers and other endless insults.
Noted. As I've mentioned before, Max brings out the best in us here.
This is mainly for futurecurrents benefit. I apologize for boring the rest of you by repeating this: [underlining is mine]
Last year, a survey published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (Neil Stenhouse, Edward Maibach, Sara Cobb, Ray Ban, Andrea Bleistein, Paul Croft, Eugene Bierly, Keith Seitter, Gary Rasmussen, and Anthony Leiserowitz, 2014: Meteorologists' Views About Global Warming: A Survey of American Meteorological Society Professional Members. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.roil, 1029–1040.) began by reviewing some earlier and similar surveys published five years ago. Here is Stenhouse, et al.'s summary of the 2009 reviews:
"Research conducted to date with meteorologists and other atmospheric scientists has shown that they are not unanimous in their views of climate change. In a survey of Earth scientists, Doran and Zimmerman (2009) found that, while a majority of meteorologists surveyed are convinced humans have contributed to global warming (GW; 64%), this was a substantially smaller majority than that found among all Earth scientists (82%). Another survey, by Farnsworth and Lichter (2009), found that 83% of meteorologists surveyed were convinced human-induced climate change is occurring, again a smaller majority than among experts in related areas, such as ocean sciences (91%) and geophysics (88%).
Below I have appended Table 1 from the Stenhouse paper which summarizes the responses to questions in the 2014 survey. I personally don't see anything in the Stenhouse survey that would justify a remark such as 100%, or nearly 100%, of scientists, or climate scientists, agree that AGW is real.
I recommend consulting the original manuscript, available free, for more information.
Last edited: Mar 12, 2015
Last year, a survey published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (Neil Stenhouse, Edward Maibach, Sara Cobb, Ray Ban, Andrea Bleistein, Paul Croft, Eugene Bierly, Keith Seitter, Gary Rasmussen, and Anthony Leiserowitz, 2014: Meteorologists' Views About Global Warming: A Survey of American Meteorological Society Professional Members. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.roil, 1029–1040.) began by reviewing some earlier and similar surveys published five years ago. Here is Stenhouse, et al.'s summary of the 2009 reviews:
"Research conducted to date with meteorologists and other atmospheric scientists has shown that they are not unanimous in their views of climate change. In a survey of Earth scientists, Doran and Zimmerman (2009) found that, while a majority of meteorologists surveyed are convinced humans have contributed to global warming (GW; 64%), this was a substantially smaller majority than that found among all Earth scientists (82%). Another survey, by Farnsworth and Lichter (2009), found that 83% of meteorologists surveyed were convinced human-induced climate change is occurring, again a smaller majority than among experts in related areas, such as ocean sciences (91%) and geophysics (88%).
Below I have appended Table 1 from the Stenhouse paper which summarizes the responses to questions in the 2014 survey. I personally don't see anything in the Stenhouse survey that would justify a remark such as 100%, or nearly 100%, of scientists, or climate scientists, agree that AGW is real.
I recommend consulting the original manuscript, available free, for more information.
Last edited: Mar 12, 2015
but then you have to figure out which human activities might be causing agw.
which ones are causing significant agw
we do even know what percent of warming co2 is really causing yet alone man made co2.
and finally you have to figure out that if these scientists beliefs are correct... and if the world population is expanding and needs to be fed... isn't warming and therefore greening needed?
so then you have to wonder what mitigation is needed and cost effective.
all these questions are off the top of my head, imagine the questions a scientific inquiry could produce.
which ones are causing significant agw
we do even know what percent of warming co2 is really causing yet alone man made co2.
and finally you have to figure out that if these scientists beliefs are correct... and if the world population is expanding and needs to be fed... isn't warming and therefore greening needed?
so then you have to wonder what mitigation is needed and cost effective.
all these questions are off the top of my head, imagine the questions a scientific inquiry could produce.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
What Tyndall had demonstrated for the first time was that gases in the atmosphere absorb heat to very different degrees; he had discovered the molecular basis of the greenhouse effect.
Its existence had been surmised by earlier generations of scientists, notably Joseph Fourier, who wrote in 1824: "The temperature [of the Earth] can be augmented by the interposition of the atmosphere, because heat in the state of light finds less resistance in penetrating the air, than in re-passing into the air when converted into non-luminous heat."
What Fourier could not do, but Tyndall could, was design and construct apparatus capable of demonstrating and measuring the effect.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-15093234
What Tyndall had demonstrated for the first time was that gases in the atmosphere absorb heat to very different degrees; he had discovered the molecular basis of the greenhouse effect.
Its existence had been surmised by earlier generations of scientists, notably Joseph Fourier, who wrote in 1824: "The temperature [of the Earth] can be augmented by the interposition of the atmosphere, because heat in the state of light finds less resistance in penetrating the air, than in re-passing into the air when converted into non-luminous heat."
What Fourier could not do, but Tyndall could, was design and construct apparatus capable of demonstrating and measuring the effect.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-15093234
Last edited:
so we can show co2 can cause some warming in an experiment.
NASA showed co2 also causes cooling.
its science's job to show what adding man made co2 does in a complex environment with positive and negative feedbacks.
NASA showed co2 also causes cooling.
its science's job to show what adding man made co2 does in a complex environment with positive and negative feedbacks.
Yes, CO2 has a cooling effect in the UPPER atmosphere (thermosphere) by reflecting heat out. However, in the LOWER atmosphere (where emissions from Earth end up) it has the opposite effect, reflecting heat back to earth. This is the crucial and oft misunderstood difference.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/...es-and-the-thermosphere-is-making-the-rounds/
Actually he was the one who started with the comments about other peoples mothers, but dont let the truth get in the way of the fact that i have thoroughly gotten under your skin.
Its nice to know that no matter how infrequently i come to this forum, i will still have a cosy little place living right inside of your pointy little head.
Last edited:
Says the guy who was so badly effected by someone having him on ignore that he had to create a sock puppet just so he could insult him. But i suppose you blame me for your childish behaviour too.