Battle of the global warming alarmists - Basketcase vs. Frankfooter

[Frankfooter]

He sure does.

He doesn't even have to look it up, this has all been explained to him before in great detail. Indeed, at one time, I did a thorough analysis of some of these studies, such as Doran and Zimmerman -- demonstrating unequivocally that the "97%" claim is just propaganda (for example, Doran and Zimmerman never even asked about man-made emissions).

You were caught lying about two studies.
You claimed two studies disproved the consensus claims, despite the authors stating that the studies supported the consensus claim.
You are a lying troll.

For example, the American Meteorological Society survey showed about 15 per cent of respondents said natural causes are a significant factor and another 20 per cent said they don't know what is causing the warming (that's a large number that apparently believes in gods and magic). Assuming the results are reasonably consistent among all international bodies, my calculation is reasonable.

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

As the author of the AMS study clearly stated:
We found high levels of expert consensus on human-caused climate change.

Clearly you are totally wrong about the findings of this study.

In fact, 48 per cent of respondents didn't support the IPCC's position on man-made global warming.
.

No.
That's not what the study found, they said:
"These results, together with those of other similar studies, suggest high levels of expert consensus about human-caused climate change."
.

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?550100-The-End-is-Near&p=5461526&viewfull=1#post5461526

 

[Moviefan-2]

The purpose of the study was to confirm the theoretical prediction of how much warming greenhouse gases create.

There's nothing in the paragraph you quoted that says that. Furthermore, even if that were the goal, there's no possible way they could do that using results from just two locations.

 

[Moviefan-2]

You were caught lying about two studies.
You claimed two studies disproved the consensus claims, despite the authors stating that the studies supported the consensus claim.
You are a lying troll.

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?550100-The-End-is-Near&p=5461526&viewfull=1#post5461526

Nonsense. The numbers I quoted were 100% accurate.

52% is not a consensus. Nor is 66%.

 

[Frankfooter]

Nonsense. The numbers I quoted were 100% accurate.

52% is not a consensus. Nor is 66%.

Troll.

You lied about the two studies, both of which their authors specifically say supports the consensus claim.
Nothing you say is honest or correct.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Troll.

You lied about the two studies, both of which their authors specifically say supports the consensus claim.
Nothing you say is honest or correct.

You keep deferring to statements from zealots and known propagandists, such as John Cook. But I don't see you actually disputing the numbers. The numbers I cited are 100% accurate.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1

http://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/climate-science-survey-questions-and-responses

52% is not a consensus. Nor is 66%.

 

[Frankfooter]

You keep deferring to statements from zealots and known propagandists, such as John Cook. But I don't see you actually disputing the numbers. The numbers I cited are 100% accurate.

Troll.

You quote a study and then claim the study isn't accurate, that the authors are lying and you are correct.
That's idiotic troll behaviour.

 

[**Sophie**]

Sophie, you need to include sources.
Yours appears to come from here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/30/87-is-the-new-97/

You need to find better sources, the errors on that site are incredible.

First, there is no issue with that poll. No deception, no problems. Here's a list of the breakdown of the scientists who answered.

That poll is supported by a half dozen other polls, the findings supported by NASA and a host of other legit sources and as proof, I challenge you to find one legit scientific organization that doesn't back the IPCC's findings.

You will fail, and yet you, like moviefan won't understand what this means.

My article was written by a member of the AAAS! PLUS I left you a link to the pew site which gives you the total breakdown of the survey. Thank you

I have posted the information on the so-called 97% concensus hoax already on previous threads like this one, with a LINK

A concensus? Hardly!!

The “97 percent” statistic first appeared prominently in a 2009 study by University of Illinois master’s student Kendall Zimmerman and her adviser, Peter Doran. Based on a two-question online survey, Zimmerman and Doran concluded that “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific bases of long-term climate processes” — even though only 5 percent of respondents, or about 160 scientists, were climate scientists. In fact, the “97 percent” statistic was drawn from an even smaller subset: the 79 respondents who were both self-reported climate scientists and had “published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” These 77 scientists agreed that global temperatures had generally risen since 1800, and that human activity is a “significant contributing factor.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ge-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle

Obviously you and facts are not very well acquainted

 

[**Sophie**]

That's why we use computer models, like we also do in medicine now.
The models are used to run alternate tracks, like what would happen if we double CO2, what would happen if we halved it. Getting the models to accurately track the changes in the planet with all the inputs allows us better understanding of what would happen. We do it in medicine as well.


Same with computer sciences, are you swearing off computers until they have been around a century or two?

So is your opinion that climate science is as accurate as medical science? It is a yes or no answer. That's all I need to know

 

[canada-man]

what is the point of this debate? to justify pollution and waste and impede innovation that reduces said pollution and waste? however you want to look at it, i would say it's generally a good thing if we can get shit done without destroying habitats and clean drinking sources regardless of its longterm impacts. and thanks to technology, we can actually do that if not for stubborn oil and gas giants refusing to make room for clean energy sources like nuclear and bio energy.

Carbon Dioxide which is 0.039% is not a pollutant.

 

[Frankfooter]

Carbon Dioxide which is 0.039% is not a pollutant.

Why don't you disprove the greenhouse effect with a little experiment.
In mid July, with the temperature in the 30's or so, spend an afternoon in your car, engine off and windows up.
If you survive you can claim that the greenhouse effect isn't a worry.

Fair?

And then after that, to prove your theory that trace elements can't change the climate, do this:
Drink 4 shots of tequila and go for a drive, when you get stopped tell the officer that the trace amount of alcohol in your system can't possibly effect you.

Fair?

 

[FAST]

My article was written by a member of the AAAS! Thank you

I have posted the breakdown of the so-called 97% concensus hoax already on previous threads like this one, with a LINK


Obviously you and facts are not very well acquainted

Footer has YET to provide ANY facts that 97% of individual scientists,... agree that burning fossil fuels is solely what is causing the so called "global warming".

Except of course Fat Al, who is going swimming at the North Pole this summer.

FAST

 

[**Sophie**]

Why don't you disprove the greenhouse effect with a little experiment.
In mid July, with the temperature in the 30's or so, spend an afternoon in your car, engine off and windows up.
If you survive you can claim that the greenhouse effect isn't a worry.

Fair?

And then after that, to prove your theory that trace elements can't change the climate, do this:
Drink 4 shots of tequila and go for a drive, when you get stopped tell the officer that the trace amount of alcohol in your system can't possibly effect you.

Fair?

After you stand outside for an afternoon in the middle of December butt naked and let me know how that works out for you! Lol

 

[Frankfooter]

My article was written by a member of the AAAS! PLUS I left you a link to the pew site which gives you the total breakdown of the survey. Thank you

I have posted the information on the so-called 97% concensus hoax already on previous threads like this one, with a LINK


Obviously you and facts are not very well acquainted

I'm sure you also call all other polls hoaxes as well, don't you?
Do you demand 100% responder rates on all polls?
Do you also not believe in the study/science of statistics?

As for legit.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

And this:

As of 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[14] no scientific body of national or international scientists rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.[13][15]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Obviously you and facts are not at all acquainted.

 

[**Sophie**]

I'm sure you also call all other polls hoaxes as well, don't you?
Do you demand 100% responder rates on all polls?
Do you also not believe in the study/science of statistics?

As for legit.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

And this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Obviously you and facts are not at all acquainted.

Do you always answer a question with a question?

P.S don't steal my lines lol

 

[FAST]

Why don't you disprove the greenhouse effect with a little experiment.
In mid July, with the temperature in the 30's or so, spend an afternoon in your car, engine off and windows up.
If you survive you can claim that the greenhouse effect isn't a worry.

Fair?

And then after that, to prove your theory that trace elements can't change the climate, do this:
Drink 4 shots of tequila and go for a drive, when you get stopped tell the officer that the trace amount of alcohol in your system can't possibly effect you.

Fair?

Wow,...that's some great "science" there,...you should write a book,...then get Fat Al to publish it for ya.

But more to the point,...CM did NOT state anything about the the green house effect,...so I guess you should learn how to read before approaching Fat AL about publishing your book.

FAST

 

[FAST]

As for legit.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

And this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Again,...learn how to read,...your links do NOT conclude that 97% of climate scientists agree that burning fossil fuels is causing the so called "global warming".

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

Do you always answer a question with a question?

P.S don't steal my lines lol

Why can't you answer those questions?

When you call the work of scientists a hoax you need to have something legit backing it up.
If your answer to that is to call into question standard practices for stats and polls, then you need to also have the support to back up those allegations.

So where is your proof that standard stats practices won't provide legit polls?
Why can't you provide a single scientific organization that backs your position?
Why is all of science therefore wrong and just you and moviefan correct?

Where are these facts you are so acquainted with?

 

[Frankfooter]

Again,...learn how to read,...your links do NOT conclude that 97% of climate scientists agree that burning fossil fuels is causing the so called "global warming".

FAST

Yes they do.

For you to make this claim you need to provide direct evidence.
Post the quotes from those two sites that back your position.

Poorly punctuated opinions don't count here.

 

[**Sophie**]

Why can't you answer those questions?

When you call the work of scientists a hoax you need to have something legit backing it up.
If your answer to that is to call into question standard practices for stats and polls, then you need to also have the support to back up those allegations.

So where is your proof that standard stats practices won't provide legit polls?
Why can't you provide a single scientific organization that backs your position?
Why is all of science therefore wrong and just you and moviefan correct?

Where are these facts you are so acquainted with?

We know the breakdown of the survey, it speaks for itself if you can read. I gave you the links. The survey itself is just that, a survey, that's fine, although when you look at the questions on said survey you will see it wasn't scientific it was generic. I can post the questions that were asked if you like, because I'm almost positive you have not read them. It is the untruthful interpretation of said survey that I have a problem with.

 

[FAST]

Yes they do.

For you to make this claim you need to provide direct evidence.
Post the quotes from those two sites that back your position.

Poorly punctuated opinions don't count here.

You originated the claim,...not me.

You get to provide proof,...not me.

Five tax funded agencies is NOT 97% of the worlds expertise on climate, if there were ONLY 100 experts, that would be only 5%,...wouldn't it,...but has been shown,...math is not your strong suit.

We need actual numbers here frankie,...not some unfounded "science" from 2007.

FAST