The unemployables,...
FAST
Who's lively hood depends on promoting AWG,...is not a fantasy.
FAST
25 Years Of Predicting The Global Warming ‘Tipping Point’
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
'Alarmist' who conducted the survey?
Are you saying you don't believe the survey?
Why did you quote it then?
You are already refusing to answer why you believe the bullshitter from Heartland over the author of the survey.
If you don't trust the survey, why did you quote it?
Its just like any of your other claims.
You quoted it, but once you look at your claims, its directly contradicted by the author of the study, who stated that Heartland was full of shit.
But you still back it.
Why do you believe the Heartland bullshitters, but not the people who did the survey?
There are no easy solutions, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try anyways.
We are already suffering the beginnings of the troubles we'll feel. Drought in California, freeze here in late spring, drought there, floods somewhere else...
Those are the things that will hit us first, extreme weather that messes with our food supply.
If it keeps going as it is, then the costs to the world's food supplies will make any other solution look cheap.
I do believe the survey and its finding that only 52 per cent of respondents support the hypothesis of man-made global warming.
What I don't believe is the alarmist's B.S. claim that the overwhelming majority of respondents didn't have the expertise to answer the questions. If he felt that way, he shouldn't have done the survey. He only came up with that B.S. after he saw the results.
Regarding the question of who I chose to believe, the answer is: Neither one.
I never cited either one of them as a source for my opinions. Instead, I did something that would never occur to you -- I read the survey for myself.
The results help confirm that the "97% consensus" is a fairy tale. Since I have seen nothing that leads me to question the methodology, I believe the results of the survey are sound and that only 52% of respondents supported the hypothesis of man-made global warming.
I answered your question. Now, it's your turn.
Tell us: Why did your alarmist conduct the survey if he thinks more than 85% of the AMS members don't know anything about the subject?
I didn't miss or ignore anything. I simply replied to YOUR reply to MY post, not someone else's (impractical to read the history of your responses in this long thread my friend). But I will agree that if AGW exists, it couldn't have begun at the start of the IR. The point at which the cumulative effect of carbon emissions has impacted the world's climate is debatable.
Most scientists in academic or research institutions (as opposed to being employees of big oil) have to be objective to maintain their credibility (or the organizations' that they are associated with).
I can't see the whole lot of them converting to the 'dark side' and tacitly colluding to commit one of the biggest hoaxes in human history. Have all these nerds become evil scientists now?
That is not the finding of the survey, as reported by the author, that is only the the answer to the question of whether natural or man made influences were greater over the last 150 years. Your statement is outright false.
As the authors of the survey stated:
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/...rts-poll-of-meteorologists-on-climate-change/
The authors of the study you quoted call you a liar for claiming what you are trying to claim.
Sure. And the hypothesis of man-made global warming is that man-made CO2 emissions are the dominant cause of warming.
Only 52 per cent of respondents supported the hypothesis.
Since the IPCC only claims man-made emissions were the dominant factor after 1950, the question probably should have been worded better. But the questions and methodology were clearer than in any of the papers you cited that claim to support the fairy-tale "consensus."
And, frankly, even if you were to assume that all of the respondents who said it is a 50-50 split would have supported the hypothesis if the question had been clearer, that would still only add up to 62 per cent. Not a consensus.
Furthermore, the Netherlands Environmental Agency conducted a similar survey in April 2012 of scientists with expertise in this area that was specific to the post-1950 period. It found 66 per cent support for the hypothesis -- once again, not a consensus.
http://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/climate-science-survey-questions-and-responses
And it should be noted that both studies were done before the major organizations that report on temperature trends had confirmed that there has been a pause in the Earth's temperature increases.
The "97% consensus" is a fairy tale. To the best of my knowledge (and I have read the studies cited on the NASA page), there has never been a survey that found any kind of consensus on the hypothesis of man-made global warming.
You are correct on the posting issue.
But if the if The point at which the cumulative effect of carbon emissions has impacted the world's climate is debatable. isn't the impact on the climate also debatable ?
FAST
Not likely,...but the comparison between employees of big oil, and those belonging to organizations' looking out for ones own interests,...still applies.
I guess I'll have to hack a bunch of email accounts,...
FAST
Thank you for admitting the problem with using this survey.
Now if you'd only be honest and admit that the author says this survey supports the case that the consensus backs the science.
Please quote the question and the answer that you are basing this claim from.
I just read the survey and your claim is not there.
Where did you get that number from?
I admit no such thing. The questions and methodology in the AMS survey were better than in any of the papers you cited from the NASA page, as the surveys I cited actually asked about the hypothesis of man-made global warming.
Thank you for admitting the "97% consensus" is a fairy tale.
Try reading the actual report. I'm tired of doing all of your homework for you.
http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/fil...ence-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf
I did.
I read the report and it doesn't say what you claim, as usual.
Now I'm asking you to provide the specific question and answer for your claim.
You've been found wrong on every claim you've made so far.
Its a pattern.
Here is the what the survey found.
As the authors of the survey stated:
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/...rts-poll-of-meteorologists-on-climate-change/
The authors of the study you quoted call you a liar for claiming what you are trying to claim.
Really?
I said the warming that occurred in the period from 1920 to 1940 was due to natural causes. You said man-made emissions were the dominant cause for the warming in that period. You even went so far as to call me "stupid" and ignorant of science and history for thinking the warming in that period was mostly due to natural causes.
Ultimately, to defend your criticisms of the AMS survey, you had to flip flop and publicly admit that you know nothing about the temperature trends in the 20th century.
Nor do you know anything about the IPCC's predictions.
Here's a link (again) to the IPCC's AR3 report from 2001: http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/
Show me where the IPCC predicted a flattening of the Earth's temperature over the next 15 years.
The questions on that page do not state what you claim, they ask about the ratio of natural causes to anthropogenic changes between 1920 and 1940.
Your claims are once again bullshit.
You provided a survey which supports the claim that their is consensus among scientists on climate change.
You also provided a claim from a shoddy mathematician.
Those are the only times you presented support material for you claims, and both of those were found false.
