Top scientist resigns admitting gobal warming is a big scam!

[basketcase]

Nice try.

The AGW hypothesis is that man-made greenhouse gases have been the dominant cause of warming since 1950. In the Netherlands survey, 66% of respondents voted in favour of options supporting that hypothesis, and the remainder didn't support the hypothesis.

Page 8: http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/fil...ence-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf

Unless you're now telling us that climate researchers who believe it isn't possible to determine whether man-made emissions are the dominant factor are part of your "consensus."

Be careful, Basketcase. Your buddy Frankfooter dug himself into a hole he could never escape by getting into this exact same argument.

Interesting that you chose not to actually post the survey data. I will though.

What fraction of global warming since the mid-20th century can be attributed to human induced increases in atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations?
100% 17.1% of respondents
76-100% 32.2% of respondents
51-75% 16.6% of respondents
26-50% 5.2% of respondents
0-25% 6.5% of respondents
0 effect 0.2% of respondents
no warming 0.4% of respondents
unknown/don't know 18.7%

Just another case where you post sources that refute your arguments. Your claims of anthro-CO2 not having impact is supported by essentially no one.


p.s. It seems pretty obvious how bullshit your methodology is as the " since 1950" part is not mentioned in the survey question.

 

[basketcase]

And a whole lot of scientists on the public grants payroll are supporting the whole global warming theory. Yet is seems the the ones not on the "payroll" continue to debunk it.

Not sure if you want to place GW researchers in with cigarette shills.

Cigarette shills and the 'scientists' who claim AGW is a hoax are the same thing. For example, the main scientist promoting the solar activity theory has referred to his writings and testimonies as "deliverables"


And public funding for research is not based on what their conclusions say (with perhaps the exception for scientists who disagree with Harper). If the evidence showed AGW was not the best supported theory then the scientific community would drop it in moments.

 

[Moviefan-2]

It seems pretty obvious how bullshit your methodology is as the " since 1950" part is not mentioned in the survey question.

What do you think the words "since the mid-20th century" mean?

 

[Moviefan-2]

What fraction of global warming since the mid-20th century can be attributed to human induced increases in atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations?
100% 17.1% of respondents
76-100% 32.2% of respondents
51-75% 16.6% of respondents

So the number of respondents who supported the AGW hypothesis that greenhouse gases have been the dominant cause of warming "since the mid-20th century" were 17.1% plus 32.2% plus 16.6%.

Tell us what you think those numbers add up to.

The remainder didn't support the AGW hypothesis. When you have added up the three percentages above, subtract the final number from 100 and tell us what is left.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Believe what you want, but our last Winters have been pretty fuken cold, with much snow, don't you think ??

Yes but someone posted a global weather pattern map which shows that everywhere else it's hotter. We are in a funny region.

 

[Frankfooter]

So the number of respondents who supported the AGW hypothesis that greenhouse gases have been the dominant cause of warming "since the mid-20th century" were 17.1% plus 32.2% plus 16.6%.

Tell us what you think those numbers add up to.

The remainder didn't support the AGW hypothesis. When you have added up the three percentages above, subtract the final number from 100 and tell us what is left.

Once again you are posting from a survey which the author stated supported the consensus claim, and you are trying to claim that the author was wrong.
Its really quite entertaining to hear you quote a source yet still claim the source was wrong.
You don't see anything wrong with that, do you?

Its really quite symptomatic of all of your claims.

 

[Frankfooter]

Yes but someone posted a global weather pattern map which shows that everywhere else it's hotter. We are in a funny region.

And the theory is that melting freshwater from Greenland glaciers is messing up the 'great conveyor' or AMOC, creating the 'cold blob' that is giving us cold winters while the rest of the world gets record heat.
More climate change...

 

[Moviefan-2]

Once again you are posting from a survey which the author stated supported the consensus claim, and you are trying to claim that the author was wrong.

Absolutely.

Are you telling us that you think 66% support is the same as a "97% consensus"?

 

[Frankfooter]

Absolutely.

You really don't see any issue with quoting a survey while at the same time claiming it was wrong?
Sheesh.

 

[Moviefan-2]

You really don't see any issue with quoting a survey while at the same time claiming it was wrong?
Sheesh.

I didn't say the results were wrong. I said the environmental zealot who tried to claim that 66% is the same as a "97% consensus" was wrong.

Don't you think he was wrong?

 

[Frankfooter]

I didn't say the results were wrong.

This is what the authors stated:

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, however are claiming the opposite.
Quoting a survey as a source while also claiming that its wrong is just so stupid.

 

[bishop]

This very thing that we are doing right now is an indication at the very least that climate science is different than other sciences, I contend that it is not a science at all. In what other science do we split hairs over who believes what, do we use a survey as proof or as evidence?

 

[Frankfooter]

This very thing that we are doing right now is an indication at the very least that climate science is different than other sciences, I contend that it is not a science at all. In what other science do we split hairs over who believes what, do we use a survey as proof or as evidence?

Hi moviefan, sorry, bishop.

I don't split hairs, the legit surveys have all supported the claim that the vast majority of climatologists (and scientists in general) support the findings of the IPCC on anthropogenic climate change.
Its only moviefan that likes to lie about the results of surveys here.

But you are right, lets ignore moviefans ridiculous hair splitting arguments and just rest on what the vast majority of scientists believe.
And as the AAAS (the largest body of scientists in the US) says:

Based on the evidence, about 97% of climate experts have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening. What We Know helps us understand the science behind the realities, risks and response to the climate challenge.

http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/

All else is time wasting, hair splitting.
You are correct.

 

[bishop]

Ok, I will give you 99.9999% of scientists believe in AGW, it is not a matter of how many believe this or that, it is always about what can be proved to some standard that we all accept.

OJ simpson killed nicole and ron, if I was on the jury I would let him go because the police f*cked up badly and letting him go is the right thing to do because otherwise a whole slew of killers will get away because the police continue to do sloppy work. You can make an exception for OJ, you can say f*ck proper procedure lets just shot him because he did it, I am fine with that and I hope he dies a long agonizing death, but that is vigilante justice and not part of the real justice system. If you dress vigilante justice as law or normal justice then that is a much bigger problem than OJ getting away with murder.

If you say straight up that AGW is such a huge threat that following normal scientific standards is too slow, then say that outright, that is a valuable and factual point as climate is a chaotic system and it will take quantum computers to begin to even do a proper simulation of climate. I will accept that, and if it becomes policy and law then I will also accept it. My gut feeling is that AGW has about 70% odds of being real, and I can tell you that there are laws that I abide by that I do not even have 70% confidence that the law is reasonable or productive.

 

[Frankfooter]

Ok, I will give you 99.9999% of scientists believe in AGW, it is not a matter of how many believe this or that, it is always about what can be proved to some standard that we all accept.

...
If you say straight up that AGW is such a huge threat that following normal scientific standards is too slow, then say that outright, that is a valuable and factual point as climate is a chaotic system and it will take quantum computers to begin to even do a proper simulation of climate.

Glad to hear that you understand that scientists accept the theory and evidence of anthropogenic climate change.

As for your chaos comment.
Think of it like this.
If you boil a pot, its almost impossible to predict where any one molecule of water will go as the pot comes to a rolling boil. We don't have the ability to predict where that one molecule can, but its quite easy to predict that the the water will get hotter and it will all boil out of the pot if the stove stays on.

The models are all trying to predict changes to global systems on that same very broad scale, not on what the weather will be like in Toledo on sept 1, 2049.
That is what they are meant for, and that isn't based on chaos.

 

[bishop]

Do you even know what a chaotic system refers to? I refers to sensitivity to initial conditions that change the output dramatically, even if the system is deterministic.

Climate is a chaotic system, the IPCC treats climate as a chaotic system. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/504.htm

Whatever you are trying to support, your constant machine gun mouth and nonsensical BS does more harm to what you are trying to support than good. You are a AGW denier's best friend in that respect.

 

[Samantha Jones]

its not rocket science to see that we are destroying the earth. duh

 

[Moviefan-2]

Quoting a survey as a source while also claiming that its wrong is just so stupid.

I didn't say the survey was wrong. I said the environmental zealot's idiotic conclusions were wrong.

I say the author is wrong when he claims that 66% support is "consistent" with "high levels of consensus among scientists."

I'm assuming he doesn't actually know what the word "consensus" means. It is certainly true that support levels of 66% or 52% (the AMS survey) prove the "97% consensus" is total B.S.

 

[David007]

As Ross McKitrick wrote earlier this year in the National Post, who cares what the ill-informed think?: http://business.financialpost.com/f...ensus-among-the-misinformed-is-not-worth-much

Ah yes, Ross McKitrick, who was a signatory of the Cornwall Alliance's Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming:

Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.

That's all I need to see. God, Intelligent Design, Robust, Resilient, Self-Regulating and Self Correcting. What utter bullshit.

Edit - He is no longer a signatory, probably because he realizes that this association weakens his position dramatically. But there is no question he supports the Evangelical view, and has co-authored with them.

 

[Frankfooter]

Do you even know what a chaotic system refers to? I refers to sensitivity to initial conditions that change the output dramatically, even if the system is deterministic.

Climate is a chaotic system, the IPCC treats climate as a chaotic system. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/504.htm

Whatever you are trying to support, your constant machine gun mouth and nonsensical BS does more harm to what you are trying to support than good. You are a AGW denier's best friend in that respect.

Sure, and a boiling pot of water has chaos in it, you can't predict fluid dynamics well enough to predict the path of any one molecule.
But you can most definitely predict that the water will boil and then boil off.