That's why we defer to the experts, given the choice.
Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann - yes
Ivar Giaever, Anthony Watts, Marc Morano - no thank you
Battle of the global warming alarmists - Basketcase vs. Frankfooter
- Thread starter Moviefan-2
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann - yes
Ivar Giaever, Anthony Watts, Marc Morano - no thank you
The scientists who published the study in Nature directly measuring AGW are experts in climatology.and Al Gore and company many of which have no science background are experts in climate? most of the climate change propagandists have no background in climmatology
No one claims Gore is a scientist.and Al Gore and company many of which have no science background are experts in climate? most of the climate change propagandists have no background in climmatology
Meanwhile as MF showed, only 11% of scientists believe human CO2 is not the main cause of global warming. I'm no Gore but I can sure recognize when the scientific community doesn't support your claims.
Since that claim has come from nowhere other than your imagination, let's not agree on that.Let's agree on what the study did confirm: AGW creates exactly the amount of additional heat predicted by the models.
What about the respondents who said they didn't know or that the amount is unknown, which also align with my views. The total adds up to 25%.So is the 11%.
66% support Human produced CO2 as causing at least half of global warming.
11% support human CO2 as causing less than half of global warming.
Why do you continue to back a view supported by only 11% of scientists?
As for why I believe what I believe, it's because I have looked at the data.
That's not actually what he said.He even admits he knows next to nothing about it. :crazy:
You're saying 100 - 66 = 11?Meanwhile as MF showed, only 11% of scientists believe human CO2 is not the main cause of global warming. I'm no Gore but I can sure recognize when the scientific community doesn't support your claims.
Try using a calculator.
That is what the study in Nature proved with hard science: they measured the amount of energy being produced by greenhouse gases and confirmed it was the amount predicted by the AGW theory.Since that claim has come from nowhere other than your imagination, let's not agree on that.
You really are in full denial and full retreat. That study is a complete rout of your position and instead of dealing with the facts intelligently you are flipping out and mindlessly denying it.
Hilariously, you and groggy deserve each other.
Nope, that's quite different and where your argument is exposed as false.What about the respondents who said they didn't know or that the amount is unknown, which also align with my views. The total adds up to 25%.
As for why I believe what I believe, it's because I have looked at the data.
If someone states they accept that anthropogenic climate changing is happening, but that they are unsure of the exact ratio that is caused by humans, then that is not the same as being a denier like you, much as you want to add them to your team.
That's where your argument falls down.
And thats why the authors of the study say their study also supports the consensus claims.
Hey troll, your math sucks.You're saying 100 - 66 = 11?
Stop trying to call the authors of the study you are quoting liars.
Those authors stated their study backed the consensus claims.
The paragraph you quoted doesn't say anything about the "amount predicted." That part came from you, not the study.That is what the study in Nature proved with hard science: they measured the amount of energy being produced by greenhouse gases and confirmed it was the amount predicted by the AGW theory.
The respondents didn't say that they accept that anthropogenic climate change is happening. They said the percentage of change is unknown, and nothing more. You have to stick with the actual results.If someone states they accept that anthropogenic climate changing is happening, but that they are unsure of the exact ratio that is caused by humans, then that is not the same as being a denier like you, much as you want to add them to your team.
The respondents who clearly said they believed man-made emissions are the primary cause of warming was 66%.
By the way, your argument about others believing "anthropogenic climate change is happening" really falls flat unless you can tell us what that means. Perhaps you're now ready to answer the following question.
Does the definition of believers in anthropogenic climate climate change apply to:
1) Researchers who support the IPCC position that man-made emissions have been the dominant cause of warming since 1950?
2) Any researcher who believes man-made emissions might have an effect, no matter how minuscule?
If they think its not happening then they would know the percentage, they would say its zero.The respondents didn't say that they accept that anthropogenic climate change is happening. They said the percentage of change is unknown, and nothing more. You have to stick with the actual results.
If they think there is even 1% of the climate changing through human influence then they accept that anthropogenic climate change is happening.
Its a troll/denier claim you are pushing, trying to claim that anything less then 50% attributed to human actions means they don't believe in anthropogenic influences.
And its the reason why you continue to lie about this study, as we know that the authors specifically stated that the study backs the consensus claim.
The score is still 8 to nothing for team science.
Team denial continues to strike out.
But not the actual temperature,...???Actually it proved AGW, not the temperature. It confirmed that human produced greenhouse gases create exactly the amount of warming expected.
FAST
Schmidt, Mann - expert con artists maybe. They are both a disgrace to science.That's why we defer to the experts, given the choice.
Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann - yes
Ivar Giaever, Anthony Watts, Marc Morano - no thank you
Keep up with your rather childish little game footer,...every-time you pull to pull this shit,...it just reconfirms your reputation.Your prose is terrible and your train of thoughts derailed.
Its really hard to understand what you are claiming because you are a terrible writer and poor thinker.
It sounds like you are saying that you think all scientists hired by all governments, regardless of whether the government is pro or anti environmental issues, all think that they are hired to tow an imaginary line or opinion. But its such an incredibly crazy claim, as it would have to be true in over 100 countries and through 30 years of governments.
That's what I understand your poor writing to be trying to communicate.
Is that really what you believe?
FAST
Schmidt:Schmidt, Mann - expert con artists maybe. They are both a disgrace to science.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/gschmidt/
Mann:
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/about/cv.php
Both are well respected in their fields and despite the whiny character attacks continue to do excellent work.
As in they do research, as opposed to Marco Morano, who is just a whiny hack.
Or Anthony Watts, who also has never come up with an alternate theory, evidence to back his claims or a paper that would wouldn't get him laughed at.
Backing down from your conspiracy claims again, SLOW?Keep up with your rather childish little game footer,...every-time you pull to pull this shit,...it just reconfirms your reputation.
FAST
This happens every time you ramble on, you get asked to clarify what you are claiming then you skulk away.
Running away is your well known trait.Backing down from your conspiracy claims again, SLOW?
This happens every time you ramble on, you get asked to clarify what you are claiming then you skulk away.
YOU are the one who constantly claims there is an intergovernmental conspiracy,...that's just ridiculous,...even from you.
Nothing I have stated needs clarification,...you are still playing your rather obvious and childish game of avoidance,...but all you are really doing is confirming you cannot debate an an adult level,...and also confirming you are rather simple minded.
FAST
Finally, an answer -- one that confirms that the "consensus" is total bullshit.If they think its not happening then they would know the percentage, they would say its zero.
If they think there is even 1% of the climate changing through human influence then they accept that anthropogenic climate change is happening.
According to Frankfooter, the "consensus" on "anthropogenic climate change" includes researchers who believe that changes in the temperature are overwhelmingly caused by natural factors and that human emissions are a non-issue. Indeed, his consensus includes researchers who believe the impact of man-made emissions is minuscule.
Franky said it himself. According to the B.S. way these things are being calculated, anyone who puts the human influence above zero is counted as part of the "consensus."
That means the "consensus" includes all of those researchers -- Judith Curry, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, etc. -- that Franky and his buddies usually dismiss as "deniers."
Indeed, it means many members of the "consensus" are researchers who think the IPCC has got it completely wrong.
The claims of a "consensus" are meaningless. It is a fairy tale.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
