LOL. So now you're saying that 65.9 plus 5.2 (the percentage of respondents in the 26 to 50 range) adds up to 90??
Where did you learn math?
25 Years Of Predicting The Global Warming ‘Tipping Point’
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
Where did you learn math?
What???
You've spent days arguing that the so-called "consensus" includes all kinds of scientists who don't believe man-made greenhouse gases have been the dominant cause of warming since 1950 (which has been the IPCC's position for at least the last 15 years).
Furthermore, many of the scientists in your so-called "consensus" don't believe the Earth faces a temperature increase of 2 degrees Celsius.
You keep changing your mind every day.
Give us some clear answers:
- What do you say "anthropogenic climate change" is?
- What do you think the word "consensus" means?
Skeptical Science is a propaganda website that has nothing whatsoever to do with science.
Groggy likes to lift his information from that site. But as we have seen in this thread and others, Groggy gets his ass handed to him when he confronts people who actually know the subject matter.
That may be true for some.
But there are many people who have a problem with the fact that man-made global warming is being sold as "settled science" when the hypothesis isn't supported by evidence. It's possible that some of your American friends are people who don't like to see science corrupted by advocacy agendas.
Playing dumb, or are you just dumb?
We covered this.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ing-Point%92&p=5266924&viewfull=1#post5266924
You really can't tell the difference between science and propaganda, can you?
But I guess that's why you are such an easy mark for Heartland junk.
Also covered.
Did you miss the part where its been found there never was any 'pause'?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/g...es-as-temperatures-rise-study-finds-1.3100345
You really should send an angry letter to climatedepot or whatever propaganda site you get your information from, tell them there information is old and out of date.
Let's try this again, Groggy.
Give us some clear answers:
- What do you say "anthropogenic climate change" is?
- What do you think the word "consensus" means?
Give us some clear answers:
- What do you say "anthropogenic climate change" is?
- What do you think the word "consensus" means?
LOL. I'm not the one who had to flip flop on the cause of the Earth's warming for the period from 1920 to 1940.
In the context of climate variation, anthropogenic factors are human activities which affect the climate. The scientific consensus on climate change is "that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities,"[58] and it "is largely irreversible."[59]
Of most concern in these anthropogenic factors is the increase in CO2 levels due to emissions from fossil fuel combustion, followed by aerosols (particulate matter in the atmosphere) and the CO2 released by cement manufacture. Other factors, including land use, ozone depletion, animal agriculture[60] and deforestation, are also of concern in the roles they play – both separately and in conjunction with other factors – in affecting climate, microclimate, and measures of climate variables.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Human_influences
: a general agreement about something : an idea or opinion that is shared by all the people in a group
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus
As stated by NASA:
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
As repeated by 18 of the most important American Scientific Agencies:
From the same NASA site.
And for bonus, a list of 200 more fucking scientific agencies that support the IPCC findings.
http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php
Oh, and for the free extra, extra bonus, a quote from the AAAS, the world's largest scientific body, representing a fucking 120,000 scientists.
http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/
That is a fucking massive consensus.
200 scientific associations?
97% agreement?
one body alone representing 120,000 fucking scientists?
That is a massive fucking consensus.
What did you have?
Two papers you lied about that supported the consensus claim.
Hmm. The "in large part" phrasing seems a little vague.
Does your definition of "anthropogenic climate change" align with the IPCC's long-time assertion (also repeated by your 18 scientific associations) that man-made emissions are the dominant cause of warming, or does your definition allow for the possibility that the dominant cause is natural factors.
Please clarify.
No.
Not until you admit that you are wrong about the consensus.
I won't debate any other point until you admit you are wrong about the consensus.
I will copy and paste the post above until you admit you were wrong, or can prove that you are smarter then NASA, 200 scientific associations and smarter then at least 120,000 scientists, that you know something they don't.
Not a lot credibility here
Funny how this bunch point to the rise in ocean levels as an indicator of global warming cause by man.
Problem is ,... their own graphs indicate the oceans have been rising at a steady rate since 1870.
But some how, man is only responsible for the last 1/3 of their graph.
Just one example of how they think everybody is stupid,...rather insulting.
If there is a cause from man for global warming,...its all the hot air from this bunch of experts,...!!!
FAST
Funny how this bunch point to the rise in ocean levels as an indicator of global warming cause by man.
Problem is ,... their own graphs indicate the oceans have been rising at a steady rate since 1870.
But some how, man is only responsible for the last 1/3 of their graph.
Just one example of how they think everybody is stupid,...rather insulting.
If there is a cause from man for global warming,...its all the hot air from this bunch of experts,...!!!
FAST
Groggy, you didn't do any growing up during your vacation from TERB. Stop your blubbering.
You know the real reason you won't answer my question is because you're screwed no matter which way you answer it.
You either have to acknowledge that many of the scientists that you claim are supporters of "anthropogenic climate change" actually disagree with the IPCC. Or you stick with the IPCC and watch your fairy-tale "consensus" fall apart.
I have no idea what you are on about, but this claim is nonsense.
Sadly, I'm going to have to repeat myself here until you admit you are wrong, that you cant' raise a single legit argument.
Remember, so far you cited surveys that you lied about, and that's all you've got so far.
: a general agreement about something : an idea or opinion that is shared by all the people in a group
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus
As stated by NASA:
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
As repeated by 18 of the most important American Scientific Agencies:
From the same NASA site.
And for bonus, a list of 200 more fucking scientific agencies that support the IPCC findings.
http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php
Oh, and for the free extra, extra bonus, a quote from the AAAS, the world's largest scientific body, representing a fucking 120,000 scientists.
http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/
That is a fucking massive consensus.
200 scientific associations?
97% agreement?
one body alone representing 120,000 fucking scientists?
That is a massive fucking consensus.
What defence did you bring?
Two papers you lied about that supported the consensus claim.
Prove it. Answer the question.
Does your definition of "anthropogenic climate change" align with the IPCC's long-time assertion (also repeated by your 18 scientific associations) that man-made emissions are the dominant cause of warming, or does your definition allow for the possibility that the dominant cause is natural factors?
No.
No, not until you admit the consensus is legit.
You lost that argument, all you did was lie about the two surveys that proved you wrong.
You need to admit you lost that debate before we move on anywhere.
I've given you NASA, the IPCC, 200 other organizations and the AAAS, representing 120,000 scientists all supporting the consensus.
Admit that the claim that the scientific consensus supports the claims of the IPCC about anthropogenic climate change.
After you admit that, we can move on.
Jesus Frankfooter! Looks like your bet ideer is catching on!
http://www.csicop.org/news/press_releases/show/skeptics_dare_heartland_institute
I blame the media. In the rush to present every single motherfucking thing as a 2-sided issue, they have failed to point out that the "other side" is wholesale bullshit. It's the same fucking failure to inform that allowed the tobacco companies to obfuscate the connection between their product and cancer for decades after countless peer reviewed studies showed it to be there. But since they had money, lobbyists and snazzy spokespeople, their lies received equal time with the opposing "opinion" (i.e., fact) time and again. So yeah. The media. And stupid people.
