Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Is that claim that "97% of scientists agree on global warming" just a load of bs and the truth is scientists are split on it about 50/50?

+6
Floridatexan
boards of FL
ZVUGKTUBM
2seaoat
Sal
Hospital Bob
10 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Go down  Message [Page 2 of 3]

Guest


Guest

Not to mention you can not get your hands on the actual data they studied.

Youre basically taking the word of a group of people at queens university LOL

not to mention also, every time a scientist comes out against global warming they get black balled.

BIG money rides on this agenda.

only stupid assed people don't understand the earths cools and warms all by its self

Guest


Guest

boards of FL wrote:
Ti wrote:so it is NOT accurate to say that 97% of all scientist agree man created climate change.

http://www.learningrx.com/reading-help-for-adults-faq.htm


go learn about ice ages. You seem to have a problem understanding simple concepts.

You have been shown how the data has been manipulated. there was even a big stink when the GOV cronies got caught fudging data, and you still eat this shit up.

facts are, nothing will change your mind because you are a sheep who just follows along the path of your leaders.

Guest


Guest

Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

boards of FL

boards of FL

Ti wrote:Not to mention you can not get your hands on the actual data they studied.


The supplementary data from the study:

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/media



Ti wrote:Youre basically taking the word of a group of people at queens university LOL

From the Cook paper:

We emailed 8547 authors an invitation to rate their own papers and received 1200 responses (a 14% response rate). After excluding papers that were not peer-reviewed, not climate-related or had no abstract, 2142 papers received self-ratings from 1189 authors. The self-rated levels of endorsement are shown in table 4. Among self-rated papers that stated a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. Among self-rated papers not expressing a position on AGW in the abstract, 53.8% were self-rated as endorsing the consensus. Among respondents who authored a paper expressing a view on AGW, 96.4% endorsed the consensus.



Ti wrote:only stupid assed people don't understand the earths cools and warms all by its self


Is that claim that "97% of scientists agree on global warming" just a load of bs and the truth is scientists are split on it about 50/50? - Page 2 Grunt_SarahPalin


_________________
I approve this message.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Dum dum dum dum dum!


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

Shaviv responded, “Nope… it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitivity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century [warming] should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).”

“I couldn’t write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don’t have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper,” Shaviv added.

To manufacture their misleading asserted consensus, Cook and his colleagues also misclassified various papers as taking “no position” on human-caused global warming. When Cook and his colleagues determined a paper took no position on the issue, they simply pretended, for the purpose of their 97-percent claim, that the paper did not exist.

Morner, a sea level scientist, told Popular Technology that Cook classifying one of his papers as “no position” was “Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW [anthropogenic global warming], and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC.”




Soon, an astrophysicist, similarly objected to Cook classifying his paper as “no position.”

“I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct,” said Soon.

Guest


Guest

CLIMATE CHANGE 'CONSENSUS' A DANGEROUS LIE

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=854:climate-change-consensus-an-urban-legend

Guest


Guest

No... you can go on arguing about polls based upon interpretations of scientific papers by... well... whoever.

I know y'all are in love with that 97% number... I don't think the methodology or accuracy really matter to you.

Even direct quotes from the authors of the scientific papers contradicting their interpretations don't matter.

It's strange really. I'm interested in the science and it's accuracy... your interest is apparently just spoon fed ideology.

boards of FL

boards of FL

PkrBum wrote:No... you can go on arguing about polls based upon interpretations of scientific papers by... well... whoever.

Even direct quotes from the authors of the scientific papers contradicting their interpretations don't matter.


OK.  So throw out the 97% figure and instead only look at the figure that emerges from authors who categorized their own work.  Oh, wait, you don't acknowledge that that ever happened, do you?   Would you like to stand corrected on that, or are you content remaining willfully ignorant?


http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

We emailed 8547 authors an invitation to rate their own papers and received 1200 responses (a 14% response rate). After excluding papers that were not peer-reviewed, not climate-related or had no abstract, 2142 papers received self-ratings from 1189 authors. The self-rated levels of endorsement are shown in table 4. Among self-rated papers that stated a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. Among self-rated papers not expressing a position on AGW in the abstract, 53.8% were self-rated as endorsing the consensus. Among respondents who authored a paper expressing a view on AGW, 96.4% endorsed the consensus.


This is probably the third time I have posted this.

Is that claim that "97% of scientists agree on global warming" just a load of bs and the truth is scientists are split on it about 50/50? - Page 2 Erl460291f3_online


Hmmm.  Well how about that?  When the authors rate their own work, it appears the consensus is currently trending around 98%?  

Oh...wait...in PkrBum's alternate universe, the research never involved the author categorizing their on work.  PkrBum still lives in bizarro libertopian land.  Or does he?  Are you ready to stand corrected PkrBum? The longer you put this off, the dumber you look.


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

That queens study picked and chose the papers that mostly leaned toward their agenda, which in this case was reaching a 97% consensus which is a flat out lie. They picked what papers to include and which ones to not.

UPDATE: While this paper (a rebuttal) has been accepted, another paper by Cook and Nuccitelli has been flat out rejected by the journal Earth System Dynamics. See update below. – Anthony

0.3% climate consensus, not 97.1%”

PRESS RELEASE – September 3rd, 2013

A major peer-reviewed paper by four senior researchers has exposed grave errors in an earlier paper in a new and unknown journal that had claimed a 97.1% scientific consensus that Man had caused at least half the 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950.

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/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11191-013-9647-9


then..............

WASHINGTON – A United Nations climate change conference in Poland is about to get a surprise from 650 leading scientists who scoff at doomsday reports of man-made global warming – labeling them variously a lie, a hoax and part of a new religion.

Later today, their voices will be heard in a U.S. Senate minority report quoting the scientists, many of whom are current and former members of the U.N.’s own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

About 250 of the scientists quoted in the report have joined the dissenting scientists in the last year alone.

In fact, the total number of scientists represented in the report is 12 times the number of U.N. scientists who authored the official IPCC 2007 report.

Here are some choice excerpts from the report:


* “I am a skeptic … . Global warming has become a new religion.” — Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.


* “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly … . As a scientist I remain skeptical.” — Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years.”


* Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history … . When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” — U.N. IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning Ph.D. environmental physical chemist.


* “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds … . I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” — Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the U.N.-supported International Year of the Planet.


* “The models and forecasts of the U.N. IPCC “are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” — Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.


* “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” — U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.


* “Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapor and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” — Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, New Zealand.


* “After reading [U.N. IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” — Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an associate editor of Monthly Weather Review.


* “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” — Geologist Dr. David Gee, the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer-reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.


* “Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp … . Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” — Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch U.N. IPCC committee.


* “Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” — Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, Pa.


* “Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense … . The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” — Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.


* “CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another … . Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so … . Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” — Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.


* “The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” — Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.


The report also includes new peer-reviewed scientific studies and analyses refuting man-made warming fears and a climate developments that contradict the theory.


It is 4 degrees Celsius (39 Fahrenheit

www.globalresearch.ca/scientists-abandon-global-warming-lie/11383" data-title="Scientists abandon global warming ‘lie’">

boards of FL

boards of FL

PkrBum wrote:You do know that's Cook's website... right?

To which site are you referring?


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

Is that claim that "97% of scientists agree on global warming" just a load of bs and the truth is scientists are split on it about 50/50? - Page 2 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT-6FCyDAJEApyHOvw3pAMvOg6VQAjXgPzOTymSEFsm53CRcWD5

Yeah like I always believe scientists who peer review their own work.

That's really accepted scientific method.

*****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2KRpRMSu4g

 Smile

"Unfortunately the global warming hysteria, as I see it, is driven by politics more than by science."
Freeman Dyson

Markle

Markle

ANYONE who believes you could get 97% of any sizeable group to agree on anything has their head up their behind.

Is that claim that "97% of scientists agree on global warming" just a load of bs and the truth is scientists are split on it about 50/50? - Page 2 Global-waming-no422014_zpsceb3dc65

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

You can argue for and against climate change all you want. It won’t sway non-believers over to the believer side, or vice-versa.

What I want to know is, what will the climate change proponents do about it, once they attain enough political-clout to advance their agenda? This is where the rubber will meet the road.

-What kind of legislation will be passed?

-What kind of taxes and costs will citizens and corporations have to bear?

-How might our freedoms be suppressed, if at all?

-What kind of enforcement tools will be employed?

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Guest


Guest

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:You can argue for and against climate change all you want. It won’t sway non-believers over to the believer side, or vice-versa.

What I want to know is, what will the climate change proponents do about it, once they attain enough political-clout to advance their agenda? This is where the rubber will meet the road.

-What kind of legislation will be passed?

-What kind of taxes and costs will citizens and corporations have to bear?

-How might our freedoms be suppressed, if at all?

-What kind of enforcement tools will be employed?

They haven't figured out all what they want yet, they just want absolute power to do whatever they feel needs to be done as it goes. It could start with taxes and end up with eugenics.

Guest


Guest

We've discussed this before... but I still think that some things wil be targeted that we don't hear as much about anymore. Deforestation, urban heat effects, tall steel buildings, pavement... etc. It won't just be co2... eco intervention will be vast.

The most expedient "solution" is fewer humans.

boards of FL

boards of FL

It's never to late, guys.

http://www.learningrx.com/reading-help-for-adults-faq.htm


_________________
I approve this message.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Is that claim that "97% of scientists agree on global warming" just a load of bs and the truth is scientists are split on it about 50/50? - Page 2 Chart_growing_partisan_divide_climate_change

Guest


Guest

Bob wrote:Is that claim that "97% of scientists agree on global warming" just a load of bs and the truth is scientists are split on it about 50/50? - Page 2 Chart_growing_partisan_divide_climate_change

Is that claim that "97% of scientists agree on global warming" just a load of bs and the truth is scientists are split on it about 50/50? - Page 2 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcThiRX4ZXN-v8b42UbKbKyTYqFn1Gfv-paCgCMIE4MBkVnb2xoVmA

Thanks Bob. It's good to know we have bipartisan agreement on climate change.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYr1ivTT8co

 Very Happy 

boards of FL

boards of FL

Bob wrote:Is that claim that "97% of scientists agree on global warming" just a load of bs and the truth is scientists are split on it about 50/50? - Page 2 Chart_growing_partisan_divide_climate_change


Imagine that!  The blue line trends with science.  The red line trends with AM talk radio!

Is that claim that "97% of scientists agree on global warming" just a load of bs and the truth is scientists are split on it about 50/50? - Page 2 Erl460291f3_online


_________________
I approve this message.

VectorMan

VectorMan

When the scientists from the UN got caught lying they lost whatever shred of credibility they may have ever had. But that doesn't stop their greed for govt money to advance their skewed agenda and continue the cash flowing.

YEA GOVERNMENT!

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

VectorMan wrote: cheers  cheers  cheers When the scientists from the UN got caught lying they lost whatever shred of credibility they may have ever had. But that doesn't stop their greed for govt money to advance their skewed agenda and continue the cash flowing. cheers  cheers 

YEA GOVERNMENT!
 cheers  cheers

Guest


Guest

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n3/full/ngeo2098.html

Despite continued growth in atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases, global mean surface and tropospheric temperatures have shown slower warming since 1998 than previously 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 . Possible explanations for the slow-down include internal climate variability 3, 4, 6, 7 , external cooling influences 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11 and observational errors 12, 13 . Several recent modelling studies have examined the contribution of early twenty-first-century volcanic eruptions 1, 2, 4, 8 to the muted surface warming. Here we present a detailed analysis of the impact of recent volcanic forcing on tropospheric temperature, based on observations as well as climate model simulations. We identify statistically significant correlations between observations of stratospheric aerosol optical depth and satellite-based estimates of both tropospheric temperature and short-wave fluxes at the top of the atmosphere. We show that climate model simulations without the effects of early twenty-first-century volcanic eruptions overestimate the tropospheric warming observed since 1998. In two simulations with more realistic volcanic influences following the 1991 Pinatubo eruption, differences between simulated and observed tropospheric temperature trends over the period 1998 to 2012 are up to 15% smaller, with large uncertainties in the magnitude of the effect. To reduce these uncertainties, better observations of eruption-specific properties of volcanic aerosols are needed, as well as improved representation of these eruption-specific properties in climate model simulations.

Guest


Guest

I have done a peer review study and found that there are 5 people on this forum with science degrees and all 5 of them agree man made climate change is a lie. ( pkr, teo, Z , markle and me)Therefore we have 100% concensus that man made climate change is a lie based on all the information presented to us that we allowed in this study.

Thank you for your time and have a nice day

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 3]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum