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?

And yet no respected scientific organization of national or international standing denies the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report. Not one. The last organization to carry a dissenting opinion was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists - a shill - and even they changed their mind back in 2007. And a review of peer reviewed work on the subject shows us that there is a 97% consensus that exists within that work - and this remains true even when the authors categorize their own work (rather than anonymous raters).

So on one side, we have that. On the other...TEO (a 9/11 truther who lives in a remote weapons cache), TI (a self-proclaimed scientist who can't quite wrap her head around evolution), and PkrBum (a guy who cannot even effectively communicate his own political philosophy).

I report. You decide.

Hatfields and McCoys   lol

edit: actually it's starting to get more like sunnis and shias. or straights and queers. lol

Bob wrote:Hatfields and McCoys   lol

edit:  actually it's starting to get more like sunnis and shias.  or straights and queers.  lol

Terrible analogy, Bob. I'd be happy to change my mind if new information were to come to light or if the consensus that currently exists within scientific research were to shift. I'm not married to concept of AGW in any way.

We cannot say the same for the TEO's , Pkr's, TI's, etc...

Ti wrote: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

Nice!!   

Bob wrote:

Please include the past four years. Otherwise your chart really means nothing does it?

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?

As you know, President Barack Hussein Obama has turned over all the decisions to the EPA. We are becoming less and less a representative republic and more and more a dictatorship.

boards of FL wrote:And yet no respected scientific organization of national or international standing denies the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report.  Not one.  The last organization to carry a dissenting opinion was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists - a shill - and even they changed their mind back in 2007.  And a review of peer reviewed work on the subject shows us that there is a 97% consensus that exists within that work - and this remains true even when the authors categorize their own work (rather than anonymous raters).

So on one side, we have that.  On the other...TEO (a 9/11 truther who lives in a remote weapons cache), TI (a self-proclaimed scientist who can't quite wrap her head around evolution), and PkrBum (a guy who cannot even effectively communicate his own political philosophy).

I report.  You decide.

You really need to accept facts rather than your outdated information.

As you know, Professor Phil Jones was the center of the Global Warming Scam at East Anglia University. Their program was considered the epitome of Global Warming Information. The disclosure of thousands of e-mails proving their efforts to conceal information discredit and even prevent opposing views from being published has wrecked the scam, hopefully forever. Data used by the United Nations IPCC and NASA findings came from EAU.

14th February, 2010

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing (it has now been disclosed that all the “raw data” was DUMPED!

There has been no global warming since 1995

Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes

Phil Jones admitted his record keeping is 'not as good as it should be.

WHAT????

[…]

Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

Phil Jones has said that he considered suicide for his part in this worldwide scam.

Let us also recall: The e-mails leaked in the fall of 2009 allow us to trace the machinations of a small but influential band of British and US climate scientists who played the lead role in the IPCC reports. It appears that this group, which controlled access to basic temperature data, was able to produce a "warming" by manipulating the analysis of the data, but refused to share information on the basic data or details of their analysis with independent scientists who requested them -- in violation of Freedom of Information laws. In fact, they went so far as to keep any dissenting views from being published -- by monopolizing the peer-review process, aided by ideologically cooperative editors of prestigious journals, like Science and Nature.

We learn from the e-mails that the ClimateGate gang was able to "hide the decline" [of global temperature] by applying what they termed as "tricks," and that they intimidated editors and forced out those judged to be "uncooperative." No doubt, thorough investigations, now in progress or planned, will disclose the full range of their nefarious activities. But it is clear that this small cabal was able to convince much of the world that climate disasters were impending -- unless drastic steps were taken. Not only were most of the media, public, and politicians misled, but so were many scientists, national academies of science, and professional organizations -- and even the Norwegian committee that awarded the 2007 Peace Prize to the IPCC and Al Gore, the chief apostle of climate alarmism.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0fa67A02t

boards of FL wrote:And yet no respected scientific organization of national or international standing denies the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report.  Not one.  The last organization to carry a dissenting opinion was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists - a shill - and even they changed their mind back in 2007.  And a review of peer reviewed work on the subject shows us that there is a 97% consensus that exists within that work - and this remains true even when the authors categorize their own work (rather than anonymous raters).

So on one side, we have that.  On the other...TEO (a 9/11 truther who lives in a remote weapons cache), TI (a self-proclaimed scientist who can't quite wrap her head around evolution), and PkrBum (a guy who cannot even effectively communicate his own political philosophy).

I report.  You decide.

I take it that you mean GOV agency in the above highlighted area?

anyway, heres a good start, read this. It has this paragraph in it:

Professor Bengtsson said that most protests about his decision to join the GWPF came from the U.S., where the administration of Barack Obama has become almost deranged on climate, which the president has picked as a “legacy issue

http://business.financialpost.com/2014/05/15/eminent-swedish-scientist-latest-victim-of-climate-mccarthyism/

Who is GWPF?
http://www.thegwpf.org/nigel-lawson-the-trouble-with-climate-change/

and who is Lennart Bengtsson?

he was one of the scientist they refused to allow, because he has a different view than them. So like other scientist who have come out against man made climate change, his life has pretty much been ruined. There are a few others that have come out but once they do, their lives are pretty much ruined because that's how big of a deal this is. This is BIG GOV and BIG MONEY TRASFER.

I gave you a list of other scientist who have come out on it as well, those who spoke to congress.

Read this site. There have been a lot of lies told. And to be honest I really do not understand how so many people can be fooled by this. The earth has always had warming and cooling periods. Its mass hysteria, the new religion.. brainwashing at its finest form.

http://www.thegwpf.org/

BTW. I do understand evolution. I held a 2 week conversation with a scientist who worked for MOSH in jacksonvville once. He was impressed. And did admit that the gap between single celled organisms and apes is so vast most scientist will not claim that is the origin of life. But that's another topic.

Markle wrote:

Bob wrote:

Please include the past four years.  Otherwise your chart really means nothing does it?

I would really like to do that, markel, but all I have is google, not a magic wand. lol

But I'm real curious for you to tell me why it would make a difference. All it would show is the divide has gotten wider in the last four years. lol

Oh wait a minute, I get it. You're saying a lot more of the liberals/democrats have come around to your way of thinking in the last four years.

Show me something to support that.

Ti wrote: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

Six... I have around 200 college credits. Most of which are in math, physics, electronics, astrophysics, geology, chemistry, biology, archeology, and a couple other -ologies.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpO_oVtXCa4

 

Markle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:And yet no respected scientific organization of national or international standing denies the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report.  Not one.  The last organization to carry a dissenting opinion was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists - a shill - and even they changed their mind back in 2007.  And a review of peer reviewed work on the subject shows us that there is a 97% consensus that exists within that work - and this remains true even when the authors categorize their own work (rather than anonymous raters).

So on one side, we have that.  On the other...TEO (a 9/11 truther who lives in a remote weapons cache), TI (a self-proclaimed scientist who can't quite wrap her head around evolution), and PkrBum (a guy who cannot even effectively communicate his own political philosophy).

I report.  You decide.

You really need to accept facts rather than your outdated information.

I'm sorry, Markle.  Can you explain the significance of bolding the year in which the last remaining scientific organization that held a dissenting opinion on the IPCC fourth assessment report changed their mind to supporting it?   Were you trying to suggest something there?

Ti wrote:I take it that you mean GOV agency in the above highlighted area?

You're taking it wrong then.

Bob wrote:

Markle wrote:

Bob wrote:

Please include the past four years.  Otherwise your chart really means nothing does it?

I would really like to do that,  markel,  but all I have is google,  not a magic wand.  lol

But I'm real curious for you to tell me why it would make a difference.  All it would show is the divide has gotten wider in the last four years.  lol

Because your information is based on corrupt data from before the massive corruption at East Anglia University was discovered.  Convenient for you...but as you well know, A LIE.

Try this:



The majority of voters now see that the Al "Snake Oil Salesman" Gore global warming scam, is...just that, a giant SCAM.

boards of FL wrote:

Markle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:And yet no respected scientific organization of national or international standing denies the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report.  Not one.  The last organization to carry a dissenting opinion was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists - a shill - and even they changed their mind back in 2007.  And a review of peer reviewed work on the subject shows us that there is a 97% consensus that exists within that work - and this remains true even when the authors categorize their own work (rather than anonymous raters).

So on one side, we have that.  On the other...TEO (a 9/11 truther who lives in a remote weapons cache), TI (a self-proclaimed scientist who can't quite wrap her head around evolution), and PkrBum (a guy who cannot even effectively communicate his own political philosophy).

I report.  You decide.

You really need to accept facts rather than your outdated information.

I'm sorry, Markle.  Can you explain the significance of bolding the year in which the last remaining scientific organization that held a dissenting opinion on the IPCC fourth assessment report changed their mind to supporting it?   Were you trying to suggest something there?

ONCE AGAIN, for the very, very SLOW.

As you know, Professor Phil Jones was the center of the Global Warming Scam at East Anglia University. Their program was considered the epitome of Global Warming Information. The disclosure of thousands of e-mails proving their efforts to conceal information discredit and even prevent opposing views from being published has wrecked the scam, hopefully forever. Data used by the United Nations IPCC and NASA findings came from EAU.

14th February, 2010

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing (it has now been disclosed that all the “raw data” was DUMPED!

There has been no global warming since 1995

Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes

Phil Jones admitted his record keeping is 'not as good as it should be.

WHAT????

[…]

Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

Phil Jones has said that he considered suicide for his part in this worldwide scam.

Let us also recall: The e-mails leaked in the fall of 2009 allow us to trace the machinations of a small but influential band of British and US climate scientists who played the lead role in the IPCC reports. It appears that this group, which controlled access to basic temperature data, was able to produce a "warming" by manipulating the analysis of the data, but refused to share information on the basic data or details of their analysis with independent scientists who requested them -- in violation of Freedom of Information laws. In fact, they went so far as to keep any dissenting views from being published -- by monopolizing the peer-review process, aided by ideologically cooperative editors of prestigious journals, like Science and Nature.

We learn from the e-mails that the ClimateGate gang was able to "hide the decline" [of global temperature] by applying what they termed as "tricks," and that they intimidated editors and forced out those judged to be "uncooperative." No doubt, thorough investigations, now in progress or planned, will disclose the full range of their nefarious activities. But it is clear that this small cabal was able to convince much of the world that climate disasters were impending -- unless drastic steps were taken. Not only were most of the media, public, and politicians misled, but so were many scientists, national academies of science, and professional organizations -- and even the Norwegian committee that awarded the 2007 Peace Prize to the IPCC and Al Gore, the chief apostle of climate alarmism.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0fa67A02t

Markle wrote: your information is based on corrupt data from before the massive corruption at East Anglia University was discovered.  Convenient for you...but as you well know, A LIE.

Try this:



The majority of voters now see that the Al "Snake Oil Salesman" Gore global warming scam, is...just that, a giant SCAM.

That graph is not showing how anyone voted let alone a majority even though you indicate that it does.  And then you have the balls to call me the liar.  lol