S
Battle of the global warming alarmists - Basketcase vs. Frankfooter
- Thread starter Moviefan-2
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
For starters, consensus in science is irrelevant. All it takes is one scientist to refute a theory. However in climate change there are hundreds if not thousands of peer reviewed papers that debunk the theory of anthropogenic global warming, therefore making any "consensus" the alarmists point to as bogus.
The facts of the matter are that 2/3 of climate scientists have no opinion on climate change. It is a small group of powerful and politically connected scientists - Schmidt, Mann, Santer, Briffa, Jones, Trenberth, Cook etc. who have hijacked the debate.
The facts of the matter are that 2/3 of climate scientists have no opinion on climate change. It is a small group of powerful and politically connected scientists - Schmidt, Mann, Santer, Briffa, Jones, Trenberth, Cook etc. who have hijacked the debate.
Read the study.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.
And if you think saying "only two locations" is a valid then your failure to understand science is stupendous. The point is that measurements of the actual warming were taken and the measured warming was EXACTLY what the theory predicted. Would you say hadrons only exist in Switzerland???
That direct measurement confirms the theory with hard science, it nailed shut the coffin of those who dispute AGW.
You blithered away about models with your invalid argument that residuals invalidated the statistically conclusive evidence. Now you are confronted with actual measurement of the warming--your argument that was innumerate to begin with is now dead.
All that is left is a debate over whether other factors are counteracting the AGW effect.
Actually,...NO,...just confirms that the Climate Chaos Clowns can predict what temp will be,...based on something as simple as a trend,...done everyday, don't prove shit about AGW.Read the study.
And if you think saying "only two locations" is a valid then your failure to understand science is stupendous. The point is that measurements of the actual warming were taken and the measured warming was EXACTLY what the theory predicted. Would you say hadrons only exist in Switzerland???
That direct measurement confirms the theory with hard science, it nailed shut the coffin of those who dispute AGW.
You blithered away about models with your invalid argument that residuals invalidated the statistically conclusive evidence. Now you are confronted with actual measurement of the warming--your argument that was innumerate to begin with is now dead.
All that is left is a debate over whether other factors are counteracting the AGW effect.
FAST
How many studies and/or polls would it take to convince you?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.
What would it take to convince you that the consensus is real?
Or is it just something you refuse to believe because it challenges your world view?
I provided proof, you need to show me why you think those sources, like NASA, are lying and you are right.You originated the claim,...not me.
You get to provide proof,...not me.
FAST
Show me proof that those sources are wrong or apologize and admit you are wrong.
Where is that one scientist?For starters, consensus in science is irrelevant. All it takes is one scientist to refute a theory.
Or are you one of those anti-vaxxer types who takes homeopathic remedies to cure meningitis?
I've said it before and I'll say it again. You don't know what you're talking about.And if you think saying "only two locations" is a valid then your failure to understand science is stupendous.
You've been getting your posts from here lately, haven't you?I've said it before and I'll say it again. You don't know what you're talking about.
http://denialdepot.blogspot.ca/
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
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
If someone wants to have some fun, ask Frankfooter the following question.For starters, consensus in science is irrelevant. All it takes is one scientist to refute a theory. However in climate change there are hundreds if not thousands of peer reviewed papers that debunk the theory of anthropogenic global warming, therefore making any "consensus" the alarmists point to as bogus.
The facts of the matter are that 2/3 of climate scientists have no opinion on climate change. It is a small group of powerful and politically connected scientists - Schmidt, Mann, Santer, Briffa, Jones, Trenberth, Cook etc. who have hijacked the debate.
Does the definition of believers in 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?
PornAddict and I have tried this before. Franky will just keep running away from the question.
Because he knows that if you define believers as people who think man-made emissions are the dominant factor, you'll never get anything close to a "consensus" in the reported responses of climate researchers.
Hey troll, why would anyone listen to you?If someone wants to have some fun, ask Frankfooter the following question.
You're a known liar on this subject.
Given a choice, do you trust:
a) NASA
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
b) moviefan, known liar
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-Frankfooter&p=5535548&viewfull=1#post5535548
One of those two are lying, and we know which one.
As predicted, Franky evaded the question.
Someone else can try but you'll get the same thing.
Frankfooter loves to claim there is a "consensus." But a "consensus" on what, exactly, he can't say. :biggrin1:
Someone else can try but you'll get the same thing.
Frankfooter loves to claim there is a "consensus." But a "consensus" on what, exactly, he can't say. :biggrin1:
You Still have NOT shown proof that 97% of every climate expert/specialist/scientist/professor, self proclaimed, or otherwise,... are in complete agreement that burning fossil fuels is responsible for the current so called "global warming".I provided proof, you need to show me why you think those sources, like NASA, are lying and you are right.
Show me proof that those sources are wrong or apologize and admit you are wrong.
I do understand that logic and simple math are hard for some to grasp,...but lets try one more time.
You CAN NOT count 1000 "climate experts" that belong to a tax funded organisation, that depends on perpetuating Climate Chaos to exist,...as 1000 opinions,...those 1000 MUST be considered as ONE.
To explain this to ya,...If you think anyone of the 1000 Unemployable in any one organization was to was even consider to disagree,...I have some rather wet land and a bridge I can sell real cheap.
FAST
Franky's stupidity aside, you can actually experiment yourself.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
2 pop bottles, thermometers. Put thermometers inside. Close one up. Fill a balloon with your breath and add as bot of it to the second before closing it. Put both in the window sill and compare the temps an hour later.
I won't answer your question until you admit that you lied about those studies.As predicted, Franky evaded the question.
Why would I answer a troll?
Then, after you admit you lied I'll quote you what those studies stated.
Deal?
Holy stupid argument, batman!You CAN NOT count 1000 "climate experts" that belong to a tax funded organisation, that depends on perpetuating Climate Chaos to exist,...as 1000 opinions,...those 1000 MUST be considered as ONE.
To explain this to ya,...If you think anyone of the 1000 Unemployable in any one organization was to was even consider to disagree,...I have some rather wet land and a bridge I can sell real cheap.
FAST
You really think that scientists hired by the government all have to have the same opinion?
That's crazy as shit.
And lets see what that means.
Are you now arguing that all scientists hired while Harper was in power were hired to put out the same opinions as those researchers hired by Obama in the US, or by the Korean, Japanese, Saudi, Norway, Russian, Brazilian governments? That all government research in every country for the last 30 years has been hired to voice one and only one opinion?
You are really crazy.
That's just really, really crazy.
So when the PBL survey says only 0.4% of respondents support your views that has been no warming....Nonsense. The numbers I quoted were 100% accurate.
52% is not a consensus. Nor is 66%.
Amazing that you complain that "ONLY" 66% believe human CO2 is the MAIN factor but you ignore that essentially no one supports your stated belief.
p.s. The 66% claim is incorrect. If you exclude those that didn't give an answer:
85% support human CO2 as the main factor
15% think it's a lesser factor,
And still, less than 1% support your view.
Let's take this in order:So when the PBL survey says only 0.4% of respondents support your views that has been no warming....
Amazing that you complain that "ONLY" 66% believe human CO2 is the MAIN factor but you ignore that essentially no one supports your stated belief.
p.s. The 66% claim is incorrect. If you exclude those that didn't give an answer:
85% support human CO2 as the main factor
15% think it's a lesser factor,
And still, less than 1% support your view.
1) The 0.4% statement: One again, Basketcase makes up an imaginary statement for me and then shoots it down. Bravo.
In fact, the 0.4% refers to the number of respondents who don't believe there has been any warming since the mid-20th century. That's not my view. I have acknowledged that warming has occurred since 1950, such as the temperature increase from about the late 1970s to the turn of the century. The temperature trend in the 21st century is another matter.
2) ONLY 66%: Putting "only" in caps doesn't change the fact that 66% is not a "97% consensus."
3) Excluding those who said "unknown" or "I don't know": Why would we exclude them?
The climate is complex -- much too complex, by the looks of things, for the modellers who have been trying to predict the effect of man-made emissions. Saying it's "unknown" what impact greenhouse gas emissions have is probably the most correct answer among the options.
Separating out those responses is simply cherry picking, particularly if you are trying to claim there is a "consensus" among all the climate scientists.
The reality remains: 66% is not a consensus.
But I'll at least give Basketcase credit for acknowledging that I am quoting the statistic correctly. Unlike Frankfooter, who says I'm "lying" but won't look at the numbers for himself.
(Unless others are interested, I won't bother to get into the further stats that showed that large numbers of respondents -- the so-called "experts" -- didn't actually know how current temperature trends have compared with past trends and the predictions. You can read about it in the McKitrick columns I posted yesterday.)
You are not reading the stats correctly, you are lying about them.But I'll at least Basketcase credit for acknowledging that I am quoting the statistic correctly. Unlike Frankfooter, who says I'm "lying" but won't look at the numbers for himself.
This is what the PBL says about their paper:
http://www.pbl.nl/en/news/newsitems/2015/climate-science-survey-questions-and-responsesIt showed that there is widespread agreement regarding a dominant influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gases on recent global warming. This agreement is stronger among respondents with more peer-reviewed publications.
Which means you quoted a study then either lied about the results the authors found or are quoting a study you think is wrong.
Either way there is no need to enter into another one of your troll debates on why you think its 66%, just as its not worth my time anymore to argue about why you think 0.87ºC wasn't higher then 0.83ºC.
Its not worth entering into a debate on numbers when its obvious you are lying right from the start, as the authors of the PBL study stated:
"These results, together with those of other similar studies, suggest high levels of expert consensus about human-caused climate change."
.
So another ridiculous claim. Are you really trying to say that two studies should be ignored because one had 97% support and the other 85% support amongst respondents....
2) ONLY 66%: Putting "only" in caps doesn't change the fact that 66% is not a "97% consensus."
I did like your previous 'refutation' of the 97% study though. Complaining because they only asked for the opinions of people in the field is an ingenious distraction technique.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
