20,000 Scientists Have Now Signed 'Warning to Humanity'
- Thread starter Charlemagne
- Start date
Thank-You! Mr . Grammar Nazi fixing my typo error ! Next time I should proof read it instead of hurrying to post my respond to Frankie so quick! Anyway... Who give a fuck! This is a escort review board and not a editorial board for a newspaper!
Grammar Nazi is so concerned of my grammar and he should start fixing all other terb's posting in this board too.
Hey now, friend. Some of us take the opposite of pride in being called a Nazi.
I’m just trying to help you sound a bit more intelligent.
All you did was link to a 5 or 6 year old youtube video on a 5 or 6 year old chart as if it was groundbreaking news or research.
But its still just a chart about the temp in the troposphere and you haven't been able to show why its relevant to the climate change debate or why you're posting it,
All you can do is post a link, copy some text you don't understand and then stand back and shout that you did it, you proved it!
Ridiculous.
It adds no information to the dabe, no argument, no counter argument to the consensus, basically it adds nothing.
Is that the best you've got?
Everything you says is totally ridiculous...based on what Moviefan says about you!
Let look at your posting history on climate change .... This proved that you don't understand anything you post! And here what Moviefan proves on your posting history that you are full of shit!!
Now why don't you admit your wrong for once!!
You Lefties can come up with all the graphs, statistics and bullshit theories you want, but at the end of the day I will use common sense and say that the last 20+ years that I've lived in Toronto our summers and winters have not gotten any warmer. I actually wished our winters had gotten warmer, but they havent. They have stayed about the same.
Case in point, the weather forecast for this coming friday April 6th is flurries with a high of 1C and a low of -7C at night (thats MINUS 7 DEGREES!!).
If thats global warming I'd hate to see global cooling :bolt:
Case in point, the weather forecast for this coming friday April 6th is flurries with a high of 1C and a low of -7C at night (thats MINUS 7 DEGREES!!).
If thats global warming I'd hate to see global cooling :bolt:
From this page alone:
Wow, someone is really losing it. This is the lounge, not the political forum. A level of civility is expected here.
Several previous pages of childish insults as well as on other threads lately.
Wow, someone is really losing it. This is the lounge, not the political forum. A level of civility is expected here.
Yankees home opener has been postponed because of global warming :spit:
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/b...ner-rays-postponed-due-snow-article-1.3909983
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/b...ner-rays-postponed-due-snow-article-1.3909983
Finally!Yankees home opener has been postponed because of global warming :spit:
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/b...ner-rays-postponed-due-snow-article-1.3909983
Physical evidence that proves once and for all that climate and weather are exactly the same thing.
The people of a New York will of course reward you for this discovery... I hear the oceans are receding as we speak, thanks to you.
I’m surprised you weren’t invited to the latest round of climate talks in Paris.
I’m quite sure nobody even bothered arguing that “Phil hasn’t noticed a change.”
Move over science, Phil, the world’s greatest dinner party guest, is really sensitive and he says it’s not any warmer than it ever was.
My extreme suspicions about the validity of the Alarmist camp is thus:
There are MANY Scientific and other controversies out there, in all sorts of fields, many of which have valid points of view on both sides.
Yet G E N E R A L L Y speaking, lo and behold, what a coincidence - the group of people most interested in a left-wing agenda, who are anti-capitalist, and in favor of the government extending their control in to more and more spheres of our lives - how surprising it is that they JUST HAPPEN to agree on this one scientific controversy, so spectacularly, the implications of which are that they get EVERYTHING they have always wanted handed to them on a platter!
Of course, they can't be biased, could they?
The second big problem I have is that there is a large Climate Alarm industry out there, and when that happens, objectivity gets thrown out of the window in favour of career preservation and promotion. NGOs and academia and government ministries are full of people with a conflict of interest on this issue.
There are MANY Scientific and other controversies out there, in all sorts of fields, many of which have valid points of view on both sides.
Yet G E N E R A L L Y speaking, lo and behold, what a coincidence - the group of people most interested in a left-wing agenda, who are anti-capitalist, and in favor of the government extending their control in to more and more spheres of our lives - how surprising it is that they JUST HAPPEN to agree on this one scientific controversy, so spectacularly, the implications of which are that they get EVERYTHING they have always wanted handed to them on a platter!
Of course, they can't be biased, could they?
The second big problem I have is that there is a large Climate Alarm industry out there, and when that happens, objectivity gets thrown out of the window in favour of career preservation and promotion. NGOs and academia and government ministries are full of people with a conflict of interest on this issue.
I've got two rebuttal points.
1) This 'conspiracy' would have to have spanned 100 years and included thousands of scientists from over 100 countries and you'd have to have all of them in on it. That's just ridiculous.
2) The scientists at Exxon and other oil companies did their own independent research and came to the same conclusions despite their bosses being so upset with them that they had to bury this research for decades. The internal docs are all out in the public now and Exxon and other companies are now being sued for hiding the research and funding disinformation campaigns in order to keep selling oil.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
I never said anything about a conspiracy, I merely said that the people who generally favour large government just so happen to favour the AGW theory.
The point is that the science is obviously not settled if many very reputable scientists disagree.
There aren't many reputable scientists who disagree.
There's a study out that found that 99.94% of scientists supported the anthropogenic theory of climate change.
https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/climate-change-consensus-07042018/
Your peer review study is flaw and have been debunked! Here why James Powell is wrong !! Here is why is peer reviewed articles have major flaws!,
https://critical-angle.net/2016/04/04/james-powell-is-wrong-about-the-99-99-agw-consensus/
James Powell is wrong about the 99.99% AGW consensus
In a recent article in Skeptical Inquirer, geologist and writer James Lawrence Powell, claims that there is a 99.99% scientific consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). You might think that after all of the harsh criticism that the 2013 Cook et al. paper (C13) has received from climate contrarians that we would be pleased to embrace the results of a critique that claims we were far too conservative in assessing the consensus. While it certainly does make a nice change from the usual rants and overblown methodological nit-picks from the contrarians, Powell is wrong to claim such a very high degree of agreement.
He makes many of the same errors that contrarian critics make: ignoring the papers self-rated by the original authors; and making unwarranted assumptions about what the “no-position” abstracts and papers mean.
Powell’s methodology was to search the Web of Science to review abstracts from 2013 and 2014. He added the search term “climate change” to the terms “global climate change” and “global warming” that were used by C13. He examined 24,210 papers co-authored by 69,406 scientists and found only five papers written by four authors that explicitly reject AGW. Assuming the rest of the abstracts endorsed AGW, this gives consensus figures of 99.98% (by abstract) and 99.99% (by author).
His definition of explicit rejection would align roughly with the seventh level of endorsement used in C13: “Explicitly states that humans are causing less than half of global warming” . In the abstracts from 1991-2011, C13 found 9 out of 11,914 that fit level 7, which using Powell’s consensus calculation assumptions, would yield 99.92%. So, there is probably not much difference between the two approaches when it comes to identifying an outright rejection paper. It’s what you assume the other abstracts say—or do not say—that is the problem.
C13 also counted as “reject AGW” abstracts that: “Implies humans have had a minimal impact on global warming without saying so explicitly, e.g., proposing a natural mechanism is the main cause of global warming”. These are more numerous than the explicit rejections and include papers by scientists who consider that natural causes are more important than human causes in recent warming, but who do not outright reject some small human contribution.
pacmen2
Competing Climate Consensus Pacmen. Cook on the left, Powell on the right.
Perhaps the simplest argument that shows that Powell is wrong is that surveys conducted in the past ten years consistently show a stubborn, small minority of scientists who dismiss the mainstream expert view on AGW. These studies include polls of scientists, analyses of the published literature and examination of the public statements of scientists (see the references below). In a new paper that is currently in press we found that consensus increases with the degree of climate science expertise of the populations studied. When the studies are limited to publishing climatologists, the consensus ranges from 84- 98%. The specific criteria chosen for what constitutes endorsement or rejection of the consensus also influences outcomes.
There are a few scientists—and even a very few who actively publish in the peer-reviewed literature on climatology—who reject or play down the human role in recent climate change. In the second part of the C13 paper, we asked the authors of the articles whose abstracts we had analyzed to rate their own papers. We received self-ratings on 2141 papers, among which 39 (1.8%) were self-rated as rejecting AGW. Of the 1189 authors who responded, 28 (2.4%) wrote papers that rejected AGW to some degree or other. The dissenters are but a small percentage of the many thousands of scientists working on climate change. They may or may not be doing good science, but it would be foolish to deny that they exist.
The no-position abstracts and papers
Powell’s main beef is that we ruled out of the calculation of consensus the two-thirds of the abstracts that did not take a position on AGW. Since the analysis of the abstracts was limited to the text, we could not guess what the non-expressed opinions of the authors were. Powell:
[James] Hansen had a total of six articles in Cook et al.’s “no position” category. A number of other prominent climate scientists show up there as well. These include (with the number of articles): R. Bradley (3), K. Briffa (2), E. Cook (5), M. Hughes (2), P. Jones (3), T. Karl (5), M. Mann (2), M. Oppenheimer (3), B. Santer (2), G. Schmidt (3), the late S. Schneider (3), S. Solomon (5), K. Trenberth (7), and T. Wigley (3). Cook et al. ruled them all out of the consensus calculation.
It is maybe worth noting that the fact that we classified abstracts by many prominent mainstream climate scientists as “no-position” rebuts the notion that we regularly cheated by looking up the authors of the abstracts and classifying them accordingly.
Powell continues: (with my emphasis)
Most of these authors, like Hansen, also have articles in one or more of the three endorsing categories. Again, we see that the Cook et al. method is about language and the subject of articles rather than whether their authors accept AGW.
Bingo. It wasn’t an opinion poll and we didn’t try to guess what the authors think about AGW generally, we just relied on their specific abstracts. [Edited for clarity]
Many papers on the impacts of global climate change did not mention a human cause. A good number of papers on impacts looked only at local or regional—not global—climatic change. The majority of the paleo-climate papers did not mention the modern era at all.
By assuming that “no-position” abstracts or papers are tacit endorsements, Powell makes the same error that contrarian critics make when they claim that the “no positions” count as rejections or don’t-knows. By making such assumptions you either end up with results that the consensus is implausibly large or absurdly small.
Powell, arguing from personal incredulity:
Since it is inconceivable that any climate scientist today could have no opinion on the subject, if 97 percent accept AGW it follows that 3 percent reject it.
Studies like Doran and Zimmerman (2009) and Verheggen et al (2014) do actually get a few “don’t know” answers from samples identified as climate scientists. Some of these “don’t knows” may in fact be “can’t say” answers to questions that the scientists think were poorly framed. But it is surely likely that, in a sample of scientists that contains a minority that outright denies the major human influence on climate, there may also be a few who are genuinely uncertain about it.
Powell:
A scientist who has evidence that AGW is false will be eager to say so and to present that evidence. Who among us would not love to be that scientist!
This is a valid point. Mainstream scientists will be inclined to reserve the limited space of their abstracts for reporting novel results, therefore, statements of the obvious (endorsement of the consensus) may well go unmentioned. On the other hand, a result that goes against the grain of the consensus is, by definition, a novel result and is more likely to be explicitly reported. The C13 methodology, therefore, may well have systematically overestimated the relative level of rejection of AGW.
Like usual frankY is full of shit!!
Here what John Laure think about his study and what he think about you frankY!!!
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-Warming-Study-Nobody-Wants-You-To-See/page10
Posting garbage again frankY!! Your 99.94% have been debunked!!
Here what John Laure think about your garbage post on 99.94 % of scientists supported the AGW climate change.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...l-Warming-Study-Nobody-Wants-You-To-See/page9
