Trump and climate change
- Thread starter Humpy
- Start date
When 97% of the world's top scientists agree on the effects of climate change some dummies driven by greed opine otherwise. While they are nobodies it doesn't matter much but when the POTOS agrees with such a deluded minority it should be taken seriously. They endanger the very future of mankind. If a runaway effect happens it will be unstoppable and turn the earth into a cauldron of molten rock like venus. The estimated CO2 locked into the permafrost of the Arctic like Siberia it is estimated may do just this if released through warming. Can we take the chance so Trump and cronies can shovel more money into their accounts ? NO obviously not !
You are being completely silly and irrational. First let's start with there is no "97% consensus". The papers from Cook, Oreskes, Doran, and others have widely been debunked as complete nonsense. Let's take 2008 Doran/Zimmerman paper as an example. 3146 scientists respond to a two question survey. Doran/Zimmerman magically decide that 77 out of the respondents should be classified as "climate scientists" (even though 3 had never published a paper involving climate). 75 out of the 77 agree that man may be changing the climate - out of this comes the magic 97%. What about the rest of the 3146 respondents? Well they were much less enthusiastic about AGW - nowhere near a 97% consensus.
With unaltered, raw temperature data showing no increase in global temperature, emails showing the deliberate fudging of data to match pre-determined conclusions ("Climategate"), absurd predictions from Mann/Gore & other media characters (Where is my ice free Arctic?) --- there is little evidence showing that "climate change" due to man-made CO2 exists.
Bankrupting our economies, applying government dollars on misspent priorities that don't exist, and politicizing science simply is the wrong route to be marching down. There are more important human priorities to be spending money on.
Most traders on this site understand "quantitative analysis", and so do many scientist's and pollster's, where as the general public has no idea the word exists.
Scientist's and pollster's are misusing "quantitative analysis", due to the sample size being too small. They pull out their calculators and start feasting on a multiplier when they know darn well that it's bogus.
The earth has been around for billions of years, and its temps have been fluctuating (evolution) constantly. Did you know that Alberta, Canada was once a year round hot spot?…A sample size of 100 or 200 years is laughable.
What is commendable, is encouraging so called polluters to use a portion of their already allocated R & D to find cleaner technologies to operate with.
To try and wreck great economies on minuscule data is not only pathetic, but should be considered criminal. The so called mainstream "dishonest press" shares the brunt of this hoax. They cater to the gullible, for some cheap fleeting over-night ratings… Happy New Year…
Scientist's and pollster's are misusing "quantitative analysis", due to the sample size being too small. They pull out their calculators and start feasting on a multiplier when they know darn well that it's bogus.
The earth has been around for billions of years, and its temps have been fluctuating (evolution) constantly. Did you know that Alberta, Canada was once a year round hot spot?…A sample size of 100 or 200 years is laughable.
What is commendable, is encouraging so called polluters to use a portion of their already allocated R & D to find cleaner technologies to operate with.
To try and wreck great economies on minuscule data is not only pathetic, but should be considered criminal. The so called mainstream "dishonest press" shares the brunt of this hoax. They cater to the gullible, for some cheap fleeting over-night ratings… Happy New Year…
Looks pretty convincing to me (consensus on consensus):
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
No climate expert denies man made climate change. None. The "thousands of scientists" above are not climate scientists and don't say it's a hoax. It's been debunked long ago.
I repeat, no climate expert denies man made global warming or calls it a hoax. Any one that did would be easy to find as he or she would be the only one that does so.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Christine Todd Whitman, head of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under George W Bush, accused Mr Trump of ignoring compelling science.
Did you bother to read your own link?
66% of papers expressed NO OPINION on anthropogenic ('man made') global warming.
33% of papers expressed a position on global warming (97% of 33% believed it was man-made).
So, in fairness:
1. You're a liar.
2. 66% of scientists are unsure if global warming is man-made or natural.
3. 33% of scientists believe global warming is made made.
IOW, the majority of scientists polled do not believe global warming is man made. They are unsure if humans have any effect. Only a small minority of scientists polled (1/3rd) believe global warming is man made.
Thank you for linking to this very important study
