25 Years Of Predicting The Global Warming ‘Tipping Point’

[Frankfooter]

So you're standing by your assertion that a climate researcher whose views are the exact same as mine is part of the "consensus" on "anthropogenic climate change."

Absolutely not, I doubt there is a single legit climate researcher who has the same views as you.
They are all ever so much smarter.

None of them would ever be so stupid as to bring up two papers that totally contradicted them as their defence.
No real scientist would be that stupid.

The evidence you provided found:

We found high levels of expert consensus on human-caused climate change.

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/...rts-poll-of-meteorologists-on-climate-change/

and

The results presented in the PBL-study are consistent with similar studies, which all find high levels of consensus among scientists, especially among scientists who publish more often in the peer-reviewed climate literature.

http://www.pbl.nl/en/faq-for-the-article-scientists-views-about-attribution-of-global-warming

 

[Moviefan-2]

Absolutely not, I doubt there is a single legit climate researcher who has the same views as you.

Nonsense. You only hold that opinion because you don't like to read.

What's really hilarious is that your "consensus" is comprised of scientists who support the hypothesis of man-made global warming and scientists who think the hypothesis is total bunk.

I don't think you know the meaning of the word "consensus."

 

[Moviefan-2]

None of them would ever be so stupid as to bring up two papers that totally contradicted them as their defence.

Nor would I.

You keep insisting that 17.1 plus 32.2 plus 16.6 doesn't add up to 66 (rounded off). So what do you think it adds up to?

 

[Frankfooter]

Nor would I.

You keep insisting that 17.1 plus 32.2 plus 16.6 doesn't add up to 66 (rounded off). So what do you think it adds up to?

Your math is acceptable, but your interpretation of the survey is incredibly wrong, even dishonest.
Only 0.6% clearly don't think there is any anthropogenic climate change occurring.
As discussed.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ing-Point%92&p=5266954&viewfull=1#post5266954

Your ass has been handed to you, you should apologize for lying about the results of two surveys in a row.
Both surveys had results that support the consensus view, to claim otherwise is lying.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Only 0.6% clearly don't think there is any anthropogenic climate change occurring.

I absolutely love the fact that you think researchers who believe man-made greenhouse gases only affect 1% to 2% of total warming are believers in "anthropogenic climate change."

Your so-called "consensus" is comprised of people who are in total disagreement on the issue. I've gotta conclude that you don't know what the word "consensus" means.

But look on the bright side. The G7 leaders announced today that they are committed to ending the burning of fossil fuels ... by the end of this century. That's gotta make you feel better. :thumb:

 

[Frankfooter]

I absolutely love the fact that you think researchers who believe man-made greenhouse gases only affect 1% to 2% of total warming are believers in "anthropogenic climate change."

Give me the number of researchers who believed that 'man-made greenhouse gases only affect 1% to 2% of total warming' from that last survey.
Give me the exact number who reported those numbers in that survey and who I included in my calculations.

Otherwise you're still just full of shit and making stuff up.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Give me the number of researchers who believed that 'man-made greenhouse gases only affect 1% to 2% of total warming' from that last survey.
Give me the exact number who reported those numbers in that survey and who I included in my calculations.

Otherwise you're still just full of shit and making stuff up.

I would recognize this type of straw-man idiocy anywhere. You should officially change your name back to Groggy.

In any event, I have no idea exactly how many scientists think the affect of man-made greenhouse gases is minimal. Regardless, you said every scientist who hasn't absolutely ruled out any impact on temperatures is part of the "consensus." That would mean a scientist who thinks the impact is only in the 1% to 2% range is part of the "consensus," according to you.

It certainly means pretty much all of the leading skeptics -- the ones who say the hypothesis of man-made global warming isn't backed by evidence and that the IPCC's predictions have been spectacularly wrong -- are part of your "consensus."

None of the leading skeptics have completely ruled out the possibility that man-made emissions might have some small effect on temperature (though there are certainly questions about whether it is significant enough to be of any concern).

I still don't think you know what the word "consensus" means.

 

[Frankfooter]

In any event, I have no idea exactly how many scientists think the affect of man-made greenhouse gases is minimal.

0.6%

That's the number who answered 0% or no influence from man made GHG's, who you can say definitively back your claims. You are guessing about any others.

The 0-25% category its still just 6.5% of the survey, even if you took all of those out it would still leave about 90% supporting the consensus, which is still very high for a group of scientists from a variety of fields, and totally supportive of the consensus claim.

You still keep trying to claim that the authors of those surveys lied about their results when they clearly stated:

We found high levels of expert consensus on human-caused climate change.

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/...rts-poll-of-meteorologists-on-climate-change/

and

The results presented in the PBL-study are consistent with similar studies, which all find high levels of consensus among scientists, especially among scientists who publish more often in the peer-reviewed climate literature.

http://www.pbl.nl/en/faq-for-the-article-scientists-views-about-attribution-of-global-warming

You lied about both of those studies.

 

[Moviefan-2]

0.6%

That's the number who answered 0% or no influence from man made GHG's, who you can say definitively back your claims. You are guessing about any others.

You're still misquoting my position on the issue.

Furthermore, your math is worse than your failed reading abilities.

You're taking every person who said there isn't enough information to know how much impact greenhouse gases have, and all the respondents who said they don't know the answer, and assuming they all believe the impact has to be greater than 50%. There is no basis for such a conclusion.

There were 66% of respondents who voted for percentages that would make man-made greenhouse gases the dominant cause of warming. Sorry, Groggy, but 66% isn't a consensus.

 

[Frankfooter]

You're still misquoting my position on the issue.

Your position is wrong, face it.
Only 0.6% absolutely said they didn't think there was any anthropogenic climate change.

And the authors of the papers stated:

We found high levels of expert consensus on human-caused climate change.

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/...rts-poll-of-meteorologists-on-climate-change/

and

The results presented in the PBL-study are consistent with similar studies, which all find high levels of consensus among scientists, especially among scientists who publish more often in the peer-reviewed climate literature.

http://www.pbl.nl/en/faq-for-the-article-scientists-views-about-attribution-of-global-warming

You lied about both of those studies.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Only 0.6% absolutely said they didn't think there was any anthropogenic climate change.

So, you've gone back to including anyone who thinks the effect of man-made greenhouse gases is small to miniscule as part of the "consensus" on "anthropogenic climate change."

Your so-called "consensus" is made up of people who are in complete disagreement about the hypothesis of man-made global warming.

As I've said before, I still don't think you know what the word "consensus" means.

 

[K Douglas]

It links to the paper and data behind every single claim.
That's the opposite of propaganda, its a fully documented site.

The website was created by John Cook author of the bogus 97% consensus study and is moderated by other alarmists that filter out dissent. It's total propaganda.

 

[Frankfooter]

So, you've gone back to including anyone who thinks the effect of man-made greenhouse gases is small to miniscule as part of the "consensus" on "anthropogenic climate change."

Your so-called "consensus" is made up of people who are in complete disagreement about the hypothesis of man-made global warming.

As I've said before, I still don't think you know what the word "consensus" means.

No I haven't, I've noted that even leaving out those who think that there is less then 25% of climate change attributed to man made GHG's the survey still shows about 90% support for the consensus claim. And that only 0.6% can be claimed to support your claim.

You are also still calling the authors of a survey you sited liars, since they reported that both surveys you cited support the consensus claim.

Your ass has been handed to you, yet you keep on serving it up.

You called the reports 'wrong' or 'liars' and yet still quoted them. That's just idiotic.
Really, really idiotic.

How much longer are you going to keep up this stupid claim?

 

[Frankfooter]

The website was created by John Cook author of the bogus 97% consensus study and is moderated by other alarmists that filter out dissent. It's total propaganda.

No, every claim it makes is directly linked to the articles they quote. Its a fully documented site with the science and data available for checkin on every single fucking claim.
That's the total opposite of propaganda.

 

[GPIDEAL]

It's not an excellent website. It's propaganda. And full of holes.

Read the quote below. As for me, it certainly sounds like reading a science paper and not some politically-motivated sound board.

It links to the paper and data behind every single claim.
That's the opposite of propaganda, its a fully documented site.

 

[GPIDEAL]

I'll give you a tip from your friendly well-known denier: Stay away from a debate about Cook's trash propaganda paper.

If any of your American buddies actually know what they're talking about, you're going to get your ass handed to you.

My American 'buddies' argue against GW like it's some kind of Communist Conspiracy. If there was no carbon tax proposals or economic cut backs to curb emissions, they'd probably believe in it.

 

[Prim0]

It's funny how some people are willing to believe that pharmaceutical companies hold back "Cures" because they make more money by promoting symptom treatment only. They also believe that the Big 3 automakers have the technology to make 100% efficient cars that run on happy thoughts. They believe that governments put mind controlling drugs in the drinking water and who knows what else.

Scientific research is great....but it isn't as unbiased as some would make you believe. In medicine, cancer treatment and cures are the hot topic right now....so researchers have to compete for those dollars because there not as much or none going to other areas of research. Here comes global cooling, then global warming then global climate change....where do you think the researchers are going to go.....and what types of results are they going to pay more attention to? The Man Made Global Warming King, Al Gore, has made $millions off of the threat of global warming while owning his little 6000 sq. ft. home and flying around the country in his private jets.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist.......I am even open minded about the amount of influence that people may have on the climate....but I swear that alarmists sound just as bad as those people with "The End is Near" placards hanging out on street corners. Ease back, if this is happening because of us, it didn't happen overnight, and it isn't going to destroy us in a week. Hell, there could be benefits to global warming for all living things. Try to recall the fact that the earth has been much warmer in the past with much higher sea levels and at those times may have had more biodiversity and bioproduction than we do now.

I suggest you all take a deep breath.....and hold it so you don't let out any more CO2.

 

[Frankfooter]

I'm not a conspiracy theorist.......

You are if you don't believe the findings of the body that represents the sum of our knowledge on climate change, the IPCC.
As we've discussed and found here, the consensus view of legit science is that anthropogenic climate change is a reality and that we are headed towards a global change of at minimum 2ºC, which is enough to drastically change climate of the planet, from our point of view. And you'd have to be a wacko conspiracy kook to think that thousands of scientists in about 100 countries are all working together on a conspiracy to make money off climate change research. Really kooky.

And yes, the planet has warmed that much before and the oceans have risen that much before, but we also had mass extinctions before as well around those times. None of those sound like the kind of fun we'd want to leave the next generation.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mass-extinctions-tied-to-past-climate-changes/

The only way we'll change is if we get governments in on it, to subsidize changes to green energy and ways of life that are less carbon intensive.
The solutions will be painful and ugly, but way less so then ignoring it.

 

[red]

It's funny how some people are willing to believe that pharmaceutical companies hold back "Cures" because they make more money by promoting symptom treatment only. They also believe that the Big 3 automakers have the technology to make 100% efficient cars that run on happy thoughts. They believe that governments put mind controlling drugs in the drinking water and who knows what else.

Scientific research is great....but it isn't as unbiased as some would make you believe. In medicine, cancer treatment and cures are the hot topic right now....so researchers have to compete for those dollars because there not as much or none going to other areas of research. Here comes global cooling, then global warming then global climate change....where do you think the researchers are going to go.....and what types of results are they going to pay more attention to? The Man Made Global Warming King, Al Gore, has made $millions off of the threat of global warming while owning his little 6000 sq. ft. home and flying around the country in his private jets.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist.......I am even open minded about the amount of influence that people may have on the climate....but I swear that alarmists sound just as bad as those people with "The End is Near" placards hanging out on street corners. Ease back, if this is happening because of us, it didn't happen overnight, and it isn't going to destroy us in a week. Hell, there could be benefits to global warming for all living things. Try to recall the fact that the earth has been much warmer in the past with much higher sea levels and at those times may have had more biodiversity and bioproduction than we do now.

I suggest you all take a deep breath.....and hold it so you don't let out any more CO2.

Personally I can't wait for the dinosaurs to take over again. The world was a better place back then-. Just think no taxes during the whole jurassic period!

 

[Frankfooter]

Personally I can't wait for the dinosaurs to take over again. The world was a better place back then-. Just think no taxes during the whole jurassic period!

That would be entertaining.
But I think we're more likely to see a world run by jellyfish, seagulls and racoons.
I'd be ok not being around to witness that world....