Nope you are bullshittingNope, you're bullshitting.
Basketcase nailed you.
Basketcase lost! He was bullshiting!!
See above post #79
Nope you are bullshittingNope, you're bullshitting.
Basketcase nailed you.
Just as I thought. According to you anything over 50% means those are the ones who support the Climate Change and anything less means they do not. That is not what "Limits of Confidence" are about. It just means that with at least a 50% certainty, they support the notion of Man Made Greenhouse Gases being the main reason for Global Warming. Does not mean that anything less than 50% of Limits of Confidence, then they do not support GHG. All it means is that they are not convinced that it is totally GHG, but they believe that it is responsible all the same. They could still either require more Scientific evidence in this respect, or that there are other factors that are alleviating it. As I said only 0.4% believe that Global warming is Fake, and that is the category that you belong to all with all your right wing skeptics. That is cut and dry!!Listen dummy!!
Here are the facts:
https://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/fi...ence-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf
As indicated on page 8 and and the data on page 9 which I ask I pointed previously out to basketcase and now to you. Freaky dummy impecile! LEarn how to read graph ! Here are the data see below quote.
I fixed the quote for you so you can understand it better.
Bullshit .. Look at the figure it clearly point out only 66% of climate scientists support hypothesis. Which also moviefan pointed out to you on his previous post way back. Therefore there were no 97% consensus on AGW.
Again where is the 66.6 % number that you plucked out of the figure 1a.1??? If you add all the blue colours like you mentioned, then it is close to 80% when you look at the "All respondents" top line. But the important stuff is if you calculate all the Publications, then only 88 out of 1882 Research studies are from skeptics. Then the Peer Reviewed Research Papers amount to 1794 that support the GHG Studies out of 1882 of the total Peer Reviewed Research Studies conducted on Global Warming / Climate Change including the deniers fake studies. That sums up to 95.32% is what the claims are regarding the Peer Reviewed Research studies that confirm the Man Made Global Warming / Climate Change is a Reality, and only 4.68% that are from the Fake Climate Change Deniers!!Bottom line there are no 97% or 95% consensus on support on AGW based on page 8 . just look at the table / graph. See figure 1a.1 in all the respondent that show 30.4% don't support the hypothesis.
added up all the blue colour in the figure of all respondents will only give you 66.6% support AGW.
The purple colour and the grey and the white colour in the chart in figure 1a.1 proves that they don't support the hypothesis. That give you 34.4%.
Only 66.6% support the hypothesis.
Obviously you need to go to school to learn some proper Grammar and Statistical Mathematics. All you are good at is being a pathetic loser who goes on and on about "Checkmate". You must be poor at Chess as you do not realize when the Checkmates occur!!Futhermore read what this which I agreement with K Douglas ..,
Checkmate you lost bver_hunter!! What a pathetic loser you are bver_hunter!! Learn how to read a bar chart graph plus also the data on page 9 support what I said! You lost!!
Checkmate!!
Look you pathetic loser..Just as I thought. According to you anything over 50% means those are the ones who support the Climate Change and anything less means they do not. That is not what "Limits of Confidence" are about. It just means that with at least a 50% certainty, they support the notion of Man Made Greenhouse Gases being the main reason for Global Warming. Does not mean that anything less than 50% of Limits of Confidence, then they do not support GHG. All it means is that they are not convinced that it is totally GHG, but they believe that it is responsible all the same. They could still either require more Scientific evidence in this respect, or that there are other factors that are alleviating it. As I said only 0.4% believe that Global warming is Fake, and that is the category that you belong to all with all your right wing skeptics. That is cut and dry!!
Now they could have a similar Survey that Climate Change is not a Reality. Then you would have your 0.4% of respondents split between the 0 and 100% Confidence Limits. The majority of the rest of the 99.6% would then be in the Category that GHG is a Reality, and the tiny numbers of do not know would make up the rest!!
Again where is the 66.6 % number that you plucked out of the figure 1a.1??? If you add all the blue colours like you mentioned, then it is close to 80% when you look at the "All respondents" top line. But the important stuff is if you calculate all the Publications, then only 88 out of 1882 Research studies are from skeptics. Then the Peer Reviewed Research Papers amount to 1794 that support the GHG Studies out of 1882 of the total Peer Reviewed Research Studies conducted on Global Warming / Climate Change including the deniers fake studies. That sums up to 95.32% is what the claims are regarding the Peer Reviewed Research studies that confirm the Man Made Global Warming / Climate Change is a Reality, and only 4.68% that are from the Fake Climate Change Deniers!!
Obviously you need to go to school to learn some proper Grammar and Statistical Mathematics. All you are good at is being a pathetic loser who goes on and on about "Checkmate". You must be poor at Chess as you do not realize when the Checkmates occur!!
You've been called out for lying about the results of this poll.Look you pathetic loser..
But that's not what the so called 97% consensus is. The 97% is the belief that human CO2 emissions are the main driver of global warming which could have catastrophic consequences to humanity.
This survey of 6600 scientists disputes that because only 66% of respondents hold that belief. 97% vs 66% is a big difference....
Checkmate Loser!!
Furthermore,....
Listen, your ignorance knows no bounds!! This survey was not about whether Global Warming is a Reality or not. If it was then only 0.4% of those surveyed in this study would say that yes it is not a reality. Now go back and look at all the threads from the past where all you right wing losers argued that Global Warming / Climate Change was Fake, it is only a cycle, and the weather will be back to the normal patterns. Yes, 0.4% agree with that tripe, but you make 99.999 % of the drivel type of noise on this board.Look you pathetic loser..
But that's not what the so called 97% consensus is. The 97% is the belief that human CO2 emissions are the main driver of global warming which could have catastrophic consequences to humanity.
This survey of 6600 scientists disputes that because only 66% of respondents hold that belief. 97% vs 66% is a big difference....
Checkmate Loser!!
Furthermore,
http://www.cfact.org/2016/02/17/pro...ientist-trashes-97-consensus-claim/#iLightbox[gallery26691]/
‘Propaganda’: Top MIT climate scientist trashes ‘97% consensus’ claim
By Michael Bastasch|February 17th, 2016|Climate|119 Comments
Dr. Richard Lindzen is sick and tired of the media repeating the so-called “97 percent consensus” statistic to show just how strong the global warming agreement is among climate scientists. It’s purely “propaganda,” argues Lindzen.
“It was the narrative from the beginning,” Lindzen, a climatologist at the Daily Caller New FoundationMassachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), told RealClear Radio Hour host Bill Frezza Friday. “In 1998, [NASA’s James] Hansen made some vague remarks. Newsweek ran a cover that says all scientists agree. Now they never really tell you what they agree on.”
“It is propaganda,” Lindzen said. “So all scientists agree it’s probably warmer now than it was at the end of the Little Ice Age. Almost all Scientists agree that if you add CO2, you will have some warming. Maybe very little warming.”
“But it is propaganda to translate that into it is dangerous and we must reduce CO2,” he added.
Lindzen is referring to the often cited statistic among environmentalists and liberal politicians that 97 percent of climate scientists agree human activities are causing the planet to warm. This sort of argument has been around for decades, but recent use of the statistic can be traced to a 2013 report by Australian researcher John Cook.
Cook’s paper found of the scientific study “abstracts expressing a position John Cookon [manmade global warming], 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.” But Cook’s assertion has been heavily criticized by researchers carefully examining his methodology.
A paper by five leading climatologists published in the journal Science and Education found only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate studies examined in Cook’s study explicitly stated mankind has caused most of the warming since 1950 — meaning the actual consensus is 0.3 percent.
“It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%,” said Dr. David Legates, a geology professor at the University of Delaware and the study’s lead author.
A 2013 study by Andrew Montford of the Global Warming Policy Foundation found that Cook had to cast a wide net to cram scientists into his so-called consensus. To be part of Cook’s consensus, a scientific study only needed to agree carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human activities have warmed the planet “to some unspecified extent” — both of which are uncontroversial points.
“Almost everybody involved in the climate debate, including the majority of sceptics, accepts these propositions, so little can be learned from the Cook et al. paper,” wrote Montford. “The extent to which the warming in the last two decades of the twentieth century was man-made and the likely extent of any future warming remain highly contentious scientific issues.”
Either you should explain the scientific rationale for your claim of bullshit or just admit you have a conspiracy view of avoiding science you don't like.Of course I read it. Sheer nonsense. And never once have I stated science is a conspiracy. Climate alarmism is.
The fact is less than 1% support your view that CO2 isn't playing a role.Listen dummy!! ...
I can understand you not understanding science but you obviously don't understand what the word "lost" means.Nope you are bullshitting
Basketcase lost! He was bullshiting!!
See above post #79
Listen, your ignorance knows no boundsListen, your ignorance knows no bounds!! This survey was not about whether Global Warming is a Reality or not. If it was then only 0.4% of those surveyed in this study would say that yes it is not a reality. Now go back and look at all the threads from the past where all you right wing losers argued that Global Warming / Climate Change was Fake, it is only a cycle, and the weather will be back to the normal patterns. Yes, 0.4% agree with that tripe, but you make 99.999 % of the drivel type of noise on this board.
Back to what exactly this Survey is about. It is whether Man Made Green House Emissions are causing this warm up. When the Limits of Confidence is 0 -100%, then all of them agree that Climate Change / Global Warming is a Reality. Whether GHG is the cause, then most agree that it is, and the rest agree as well but also think that other factors should be taken into consideration. All in all over 80% believe that Climate Change has multiple factors besides GHG and then you can add the Do Not Know ones who also believe in Climate Change / Global Warming, but are not sure what causes them. In other words you have scored an own goal by posting this survey. Remember that the 97% of the Peer Reviewed Published Papers believe in Man Made Global Warming / Climate Change. It is in line with this particular survey. Well this media did a great job of surveying all the peer reviewed scientific papers:
https://www.theguardian.com/environ.../may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange
So tell me if you now think that Climate Change / Global Warming is a Reality or not?? If you cannot answer this question then it is useless arguing with someone who is in tandem with the 0.4% of Climate Change Deniers!!
Anyway, you post about Richard Linden. Well read about how his own colleagues disputed his very non-scientific facts:
http://climate-science.mit.edu/news...y-working-on-climate-write-to-president-trump
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...l-scientists-richard-lindzen-mit-donald-trump
Does that mean that if we find a single link from you that's not from a climatologist we'll know for sure that all of your arguments are bullshit?Listen, your ignorance knows no bounds
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html
Truth about skeptical science A fucking Nazis and a cartoonist .. LOL
What a pathetic loser and a imbecile you are!
LOL
Sunday, March 18, 2012
The Truth about Skeptical Science
Source: Skeptical Science Forums
Skeptical Science is a climate alarmist website created by a self-employed cartoonist, John Cook
You are an idiot who believes Popular Technology that is a right wing media, who although they have many PhD members, none of them are in Climate Technology fields.http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html
Truth about skeptical science A fucking Nazis and a cartoonist .. LOL
What a pathetic loser and a imbecile you are!
LOL
Sunday, March 18, 2012
The Truth about Skeptical Science
Source: Skeptical Science Forums
Skeptical Science is a climate alarmist website created by a self-employed cartoonist, John Cook (who apparently pretends to be a Nazi). It is moderated by zealots who ruthlessly censor any and all form of dissent from their alarmist position. This way they can pretend to win arguments, when in reality they have all been refuted. The abuse and censorship does not pertain to simply any dissenting commentator there but to highly credentialed and respected climate scientists as well; Dr. Pielke Sr. has unsuccessfully attempted to engage in discussions there only to be childishly taunted and censored, while Dr. Michaels has been dishonestly quoted and smeared. The irony of the site's oxymoronic name "Skeptical Science" is that the site is not skeptical of even the most extreme alarmist positions.
John Cook is now desperately trying to cover up his background that he was employed as a cartoonist for over a decade with no prior employment history in academia or climate science.
Thanks to the Wayback Machine we can reveal what his website originally said,
"I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist" - John Cook, Skeptical Science
HA....HA..HA... A fucking nazi & a cartoonist which is a climate expert!!
Checkmate .. YOU LOSE!!
You are an idiot who believes Popular Technology that is a right wing media, who although they have many PhD members, none of them are in Climate Technology fields.
But it is good that you brought up John Cook who used to be a Comedian. However, what your right wing source fails to reveal to you is that he is:
"John Cook is a research assistant professor at the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University, researching cognitive science. In 2007, he founded Skeptical Science, a website which won the 2011 Australian Museum Eureka Prize for the Advancement of Climate Change Knowledge and 2016 Friend of the Planet Award from the National Center for Science Education. John co-authored the college textbooks Climate Change: Examining the Facts with Weber State University professor Daniel Bedford. He was also a coauthor of the textbook Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis and the book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand. In 2013, he published a paper analysing the scientific consensus on climate change that has been highlighted by President Obama and UK Prime Minister David Cameron. In 2015, he developed a Massive Open Online Course at the University of Queensland on climate science denial, that has received over 25,000 enrollments.
John earned his PhD in Cognitive Science at the University of Western Australia in 2016."
https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/portfolio-view/john-cook/
He has also trained as a Solar Physicist. Show me where anyone from your source has the same credentials??
As usual you never get the facts for the whole story. Anyway I debunked your garbage that you had posted, and I noticed that you deliberately did not respond to my question. But you scored an own goal as you are a Climate Change Denier, that identified yourself with just the 0.4% of the Deniers in that Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency Survey that you posted. Obviously, you could not comprehend what on earth you were trying to post!! :bump2:
What nonsense are you coming up from some right wing organization that is funded by oil companies such as Exxon:http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/John_Cook_Skeptical_Science.pdf
John earned his PhD in Cognitive Science at the University of Western Australia in 2016.
As fucking shrink as a climate scientists. LOL !!
John Cook published a paper analysing the scientific consensus on climate change that has been highlighted by President Obama and UK Prime Minister David Cameron. And we know how flaw his methodology is LOL!!
It ain't about not liking it, it's about not respecting it. Because it's either irrelevant, junk or fraudulent.Either you should explain the scientific rationale for your claim of bullshit or just admit you have a conspiracy view of avoiding science you don't like.
Cook's paper is a stats paper on support amongst climatology.http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/John_Cook_Skeptical_Science.pdf
John earned his PhD in Cognitive Science at the University of Western Australia in 2016.
As fucking shrink as a climate scientists. LOL !!
John Cook published a paper analysing the scientific consensus on climate change that has been highlighted by President Obama and UK Prime Minister David Cameron. And we know how flaw his methodology is LOL!!
NopeSure you did, larue.
YawnThis is your reaction to the IPCC reports:
And You would be guessing wrong.Guess its still too technical for you.
That is so ironic as many scientists who do not tow the party line on Climate Change have had their funding cut off, reassigned to non climate departments been ostracized in the science community, (silenced) and have been subjected to character assassinations by morons like FrankfooterYes. In a discussion about science, the people who refuse to listen to science are deniers and their own opinion is irrelevant.
Oh so you speak for them do you ?Sorry but you are arguing against the vast majority of the scientists who actually study the topic.
WTF ??Even the scientists you mention only disagree with exactly how much of a role human CO2 plays or how log it will take before the change becomes catastrophic to human society.
Well it might have helped him not mis-classify and mis-represent scientistsCook's paper is a stats paper on support amongst climatology.
You don't need a climatology degree to do a poll.
Science is not a proven or disproven by polls stupidHis work has been supported by every other poll with climatologists and scientists, by the way.