I pity those who don't understand that those sites are almost always paid-for propaganda sites for the FF industry. That's the sad thing. Some folks are so gullible as to give these as much credence as NOAA and NASA. They also seem not to able to understand the very simple concept of why a 40% increase of the greenhouse CO2 from the burning of FF will raise the temperature of the earth. It's a concept that a ten year old can grasp, but incredibly, Republicans can't. Amazing. And perhaps the best single proof of how dumb pubs are.
What 95% certainty of warming means to scientists
- Thread starter futurecurrents
- Start date
I pity those who don't understand that those sites are almost always paid-for propaganda sites for the FF industry. That's the sad thing. Some folks are so gullible as to give these as much credence as NOAA and NASA. They also seem not to able to understand the very simple concept of why a 40% increase of the greenhouse CO2 from the burning of FF will raise the temperature of the earth. It's a concept that a ten year old can grasp, but incredibly, Republicans can't. Amazing. And perhaps the best single proof of how dumb pubs are.
1. the original 97% survey was a misrepresentation.
The peer review survey showed it and Cook survey to be frauds.
"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 âdangerousâ.
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.
This shock result comes scant weeks before the United Nationsâ climate panel, the IPCC, issues its fifth five-yearly climate assessment, claiming â95% confidenceâ in the imagined â and, as the new paper shows, imaginary â consensus."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/...ven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/
and Cooks rebuttal to the rebuttal was rejected by the journal of
of Earth System Dynamics.
So the only comprehension that any thinking person could have...
is...
that more or less this is the state of published papers in the community...
"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."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/...ven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/
The peer review survey showed it and Cook survey to be frauds.
"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 âdangerousâ.
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.
This shock result comes scant weeks before the United Nationsâ climate panel, the IPCC, issues its fifth five-yearly climate assessment, claiming â95% confidenceâ in the imagined â and, as the new paper shows, imaginary â consensus."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/...ven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/
and Cooks rebuttal to the rebuttal was rejected by the journal of
of Earth System Dynamics.
So the only comprehension that any thinking person could have...
is...
that more or less this is the state of published papers in the community...
"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."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/...ven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/
prove it -- idiot.
co2 is just a small percentage of greenhouse gases and man made co2 is just a small percentage of one percent of greenhouse gases.
and...
greenhouse gases moderate temperature.
you entire thesis has come under attack by recent scientific understandings.
greenhouse gases keep solar energy out... at the same time they may keep some warming in.
science is just starting to try and figure out the net effect.
read the articles we posted for you over the last year... then come back and talk about comprehension.
co2 is just a small percentage of greenhouse gases and man made co2 is just a small percentage of one percent of greenhouse gases.
and...
greenhouse gases moderate temperature.
you entire thesis has come under attack by recent scientific understandings.
greenhouse gases keep solar energy out... at the same time they may keep some warming in.
science is just starting to try and figure out the net effect.
read the articles we posted for you over the last year... then come back and talk about comprehension.
If I got a lobotomy then I would be exactly like you - a brain-dead mantra-chanting global warming alarmist.
nice article highlighting why data smoothing has created upward bias that is not in the raw data at some of the stations he has tested.
And this nice conclusion.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/...ted-call-for-intellectual-tyranny/#more-94616
Skeptics highlighting natural cycles were ahead of the climate science curve and provided a much needed alternative viewpoint. Still to keep the focus on CO2, Al Gore is stepping up his attacks against all skeptical thinking. In a recent speech, rightfully took pride that we no longer accept intolerance and abuse against people of different races or with different sexual preferences. Then totally contradicting his examples of tolerance and open mindedness, he asked his audience to make people âpay a price for denialâ.
Instead of promoting more respectful public debate, he in essence suggests Americans should hate âdeniersâ for thinking differently than Gore and his fellow CO2 advocates. He and his ilk are fomenting a new intellectual tyranny. Yet his âhockey stick beliefsâ are based on adjusted data that are not unsupported by the raw temperature data and unsupported by natural tree ring data. So who is in denial? Whether or not Goreâs orchestrated call to squash all skeptical thought is based solely on ignorance of natural cycles, his rant against skeptics is far more frightening than the climate change evidenced by the unadjusted data and the trees.
And this nice conclusion.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/...ted-call-for-intellectual-tyranny/#more-94616
Skeptics highlighting natural cycles were ahead of the climate science curve and provided a much needed alternative viewpoint. Still to keep the focus on CO2, Al Gore is stepping up his attacks against all skeptical thinking. In a recent speech, rightfully took pride that we no longer accept intolerance and abuse against people of different races or with different sexual preferences. Then totally contradicting his examples of tolerance and open mindedness, he asked his audience to make people âpay a price for denialâ.
Instead of promoting more respectful public debate, he in essence suggests Americans should hate âdeniersâ for thinking differently than Gore and his fellow CO2 advocates. He and his ilk are fomenting a new intellectual tyranny. Yet his âhockey stick beliefsâ are based on adjusted data that are not unsupported by the raw temperature data and unsupported by natural tree ring data. So who is in denial? Whether or not Goreâs orchestrated call to squash all skeptical thought is based solely on ignorance of natural cycles, his rant against skeptics is far more frightening than the climate change evidenced by the unadjusted data and the trees.
Here is what one of those 97 percenters said a few years ago.
Ooops. Looks like science got it wrong
Claims Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035 were false, says UN scientist
⢠IPCC report said ice would vanish 'perhaps sooner'
⢠Panel head apologises for unsubstantiated assertion
Ooops. Looks like science got it wrong
Claims Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035 were false, says UN scientist
⢠IPCC report said ice would vanish 'perhaps sooner'
⢠Panel head apologises for unsubstantiated assertion
Another good article tearing to pieces the global warming swindle.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...lobal-warming-believers-are-feeling-the-heat/
How could any person with any integrity whatsoever continue to push this hoax?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...lobal-warming-believers-are-feeling-the-heat/
How could any person with any integrity whatsoever continue to push this hoax?
Quote from stoic:
Typical for Chicken Little types. Anyone and any media source, web site, or print that agrees with one's view is too be accepted as gospel, without question, beyond any doubt. No further query required. To be accepted without even the slightest hint of reservation. The Truth and nothing but the Truth. As good as the word of GOD.
While any and all sources that may pose questions to that view, or perhaps even suggest alternative cause and effects. Sources that may even dispute that view and present evidence to support an alternative view. These sources are just the dupes for evil capitalists, or ".........bullshit whore denier websites......" , the facts quoted cannot be relied on, their view is simply a smoke screen for an darker agenda. Not worth ones time!
I truly pity those who go through life with such a myopic view. Their destined to remain dim-witted, fated to fall for a lot of shit, and thus be perpetually "Gullible".
futurecurrents reply
I rest my case.
Typical for Chicken Little types. Anyone and any media source, web site, or print that agrees with one's view is too be accepted as gospel, without question, beyond any doubt. No further query required. To be accepted without even the slightest hint of reservation. The Truth and nothing but the Truth. As good as the word of GOD.
While any and all sources that may pose questions to that view, or perhaps even suggest alternative cause and effects. Sources that may even dispute that view and present evidence to support an alternative view. These sources are just the dupes for evil capitalists, or ".........bullshit whore denier websites......" , the facts quoted cannot be relied on, their view is simply a smoke screen for an darker agenda. Not worth ones time!
I truly pity those who go through life with such a myopic view. Their destined to remain dim-witted, fated to fall for a lot of shit, and thus be perpetually "Gullible".
futurecurrents reply
I rest my case.
Charlie Rose Talks to Gore for 30 Minutes Without Mentioning 15 Year Halt to Rising Temperatures
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...hout-mentioning-15-year-halt-te#ixzz2fxOis1Eu
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...hout-mentioning-15-year-halt-te#ixzz2fxOis1Eu