Battle of the global warming alarmists - Basketcase vs. Frankfooter

[Frankfooter]

Frankie Frankie, 97% out of how many scientists was that again? Please don't piss on my shoe and tell me it's raining ok

97% of those who study the climate.
http://whatweknow.aaas.org/

(and again, I post that link because the AAAS is the organization that represents the largest group of scientists in North America. That's the largest group supporting the consensus claims and the science)

 

[**Sophie**]

97% of those who study the climate.
http://whatweknow.aaas.org/

(and again, I post that link because the AAAS is the organization that represents the largest group of scientists in North America. That's the largest group supporting the consensus claims and the science)

This 97% is a lie of epic proportions. Look it up Frank, it's all out there for you and you know this too

 

[canada-man]

This 97% is a lie of epic proportions. Look it up Frank, it's all out there for you and you know this too

he does not read anything that disagree with him. i posted excerpts from articles since the 1870s that were reporting on climate dooming humanity. he dismissed them asking me what i am trying to prove.

 

[Frankfooter]

Frankie Frankie, 97% out of how many scientists was that again? Please don't piss on my shoe and tell me it's raining ok

And just for fun, why don't we take that medical metaphor and have a look at it.

Say you're a parent with a child who is sick and you don't believe the consensus view that western medicine is legitimate. Say you think that the jury is still out and therefore you are going to keep your kid at home, feed them hot peppers, garlic, onions and horseradish as a start. And when that works you decide to bring in the guns and go to a naturopath and get some echinacea.
What happens if you have a friend who is a nurse, and part of the system you don't trust, and she tells you your kid might have meningitis?

What happens then if your 'treatments' fail and your kid dies?

Here in Canada, if you put others at risk through your own lack of diligence or idiotic ideas, you could go to jail, on top of the horror of being responsible for your own child's death because of your anti-science bias.

Well, if you're moviefan you'd of course then go blaming the system with quotes like this:

"I only wish that you could've seen how you were being played by the Crown's deception, drama and trickery that not only led to our key witnesses being muzzled, but has also now led to a dangerous precedent being set in Canada," Stephan wrote Wednesday.

"The floodgates have now been opened and if we do not fall in line with parenting as seen fit by the government, we all stand in risk of criminal prosecution.

"May heaven help us all!"

Stephan and his wife, Collet, were convicted by a jury in the death of their nearly 19-month-old son in March 2012.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/father-convicted-sons-death-fears-for-other-parents-1.3556405

Have a nice day.

 

[Frankfooter]

This 97% is a lie of epic proportions. Look it up Frank, it's all out there for you and you know this too

You are accusing the vast majority of scientists in North America of lying.
Don't you understand how crazy that sounds?

The backing of the AAAS is about as solid a backing as you can find.

 

[canada-man]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...e-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html

When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data. There was already much evidence of this seven years ago, when I was writing my history of the scare, The Real Global Warming Disaster. But now another damning example has been uncovered by Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science, showing how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world’s most influential climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data. In several posts headed “Data tampering at USHCN/GISS”, Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.

 

[FAST]

You are accusing the vast majority of scientists in North America of lying.
Don't you understand how crazy that sounds?

The backing of the AAAS is about as solid a backing as you can find.

And just what organisations do these "vast majority" of "scientists" work for,...???

FAST

 

[fuji]

It doesn't say anything about warming being exactly what the models predicted.

You may need to get your dictionary and read it again. I'm not sure how much clearer this can be: "These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions".

What part of that are you failing at comprehending?

 

[**Sophie**]

You are accusing the vast majority of scientists in North America of lying.
Don't you understand how crazy that sounds?

The backing of the AAAS is about as solid a backing as you can find.

Wow just wow

The study was done “in collaboration with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)”. Here’s the description from the Pew Center of the method used:

The survey of scientists was conducted online with a random sample of 3,748 U.S.-based members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) from September 11 to October 13, 2014. AAAS is the world’s largest general scientific society, and includes members from all scientific fields. Founded in 1848, AAAS publishes Science, one of the most widely circulated peer-reviewed scientific journals in the world. Membership in AAAS is open to all.
​

Sounds good … until you realize that not only is membership in AAAS “open to all”, but in addition anyone who subscribes to Science magazine is a member of AAAS … and for years Science magazine has been a strong supporter of the hypothesis that “climate change is mostly caused by human activity”, whatever that might mean.
So we are already dealing with a self-selected group of people, many of them not scientists, who read a magazine that for years has strongly supported the “anthropogenic global warming” (AGW) hypothesis.
But wait … it gets worse. For starters, you’d think that the Pew Research folks would have made a selection of scientists that weren’t subscribers to a magazine that has an axe to grind. And you’d also think that they would have picked … well … scientists.
But failing both of those, once the Pew Center folks had foolishly chosen to sample from AAAS members, surely they would make their own random selection of the AAAS membership? … well, think again. Their methods section cited above goes on to say:

A simple random sample of AAAS members was selected for participation by the staff of AAAS.
​

At this point, I’ve got to assume that the good folks at Pew have lost the plot entirely. They let the staff of the AAAS, a group which by and large seems to have swallowed the climate koolaid without demur, choose a “random sample” of which “scientists” the Pew folks would interview. Yeah, that’s the ticket, that inspires confidence …
And it gets worse yet, because the self-selection increases:

A total of 19,984 members were mailed a letter requesting participation in the survey.
​

And out of those, how many were actually sampled?

A total of 3,748 members completed the survey for an overall response rate of 18.8%.
​

 

[FAST]

Wow just wow

The study was done “in collaboration with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)”. Here’s the description from the Pew Center of the method used:

The survey of scientists was conducted online with a random sample of 3,748 U.S.-based members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) from September 11 to October 13, 2014. AAAS is the world’s largest general scientific society, and includes members from all scientific fields. Founded in 1848, AAAS publishes Science, one of the most widely circulated peer-reviewed scientific journals in the world. Membership in AAAS is open to all.
​

Sounds good … until you realize that not only is membership in AAAS “open to all”, but in addition anyone who subscribes to Science magazine is a member of AAAS … and for years Science magazine has been a strong supporter of the hypothesis that “climate change is mostly caused by human activity”, whatever that might mean.
So we are already dealing with a self-selected group of people, many of them not scientists, who read a magazine that for years has strongly supported the “anthropogenic global warming” (AGW) hypothesis.
But wait … it gets worse. For starters, you’d think that the Pew Research folks would have made a selection of scientists that weren’t subscribers to a magazine that has an axe to grind. And you’d also think that they would have picked … well … scientists.
But failing both of those, once the Pew Center folks had foolishly chosen to sample from AAAS members, surely they would make their own random selection of the AAAS membership? … well, think again. Their methods section cited above goes on to say:

A simple random sample of AAAS members was selected for participation by the staff of AAAS.
​

At this point, I’ve got to assume that the good folks at Pew have lost the plot entirely. They let the staff of the AAAS, a group which by and large seems to have swallowed the climate koolaid without demur, choose a “random sample” of which “scientists” the Pew folks would interview. Yeah, that’s the ticket, that inspires confidence …
And it gets worse yet, because the self-selection increases:

A total of 19,984 members were mailed a letter requesting participation in the survey.
​

And out of those, how many were actually sampled?

A total of 3,748 members completed the survey for an overall response rate of 18.8%.
​

Typical of the CLIMATE CHAOS RELIGION.

And still no answer on what organisations the supposed 97% of ALL climate scientist work for .


FAST

 

[**Sophie**]

And just for fun, why don't we take that medical metaphor and have a look at it.Say you're a parent with a child who is sick and you don't believe the consensus view that western medicine is legitimate. Say you think that the jury is still out and therefore you are going to keep your kid at home, feed them hot peppers, garlic, onions and horseradish as a start. And when that works you decide to bring in the guns and go to a naturopath and get some echinacea. What happens if you have a friend who is a nurse, and part of the system you don't trust, and she tells you your kid might have meningitis?What happens then if your 'treatments' fail and your kid dies?Here in Canada, if you put others at risk through your own lack of diligence or idiotic ideas, you could go to jail, on top of the horror of being responsible for your own child's death because of your anti-science bias.Well, if you're moviefan you'd of course then go blaming the system with quotes like this:http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/father-convicted-sons-death-fears-for-other-parents-1.3556405Have a nice day.

Just for fun Frank

Medical science is several centuries old (there were schools around the first millennium). It wasn't like the medical science of today obviously. Back then they probably healed with herbs and ointments. Medical science came along way since then. The human body is studied very detailed, even the human genome is known to the last sequence. Lots of disease have been studied and for most of them a successful cure was found or can be controlled. This has been done over many centuries and many, many patients. Experience about diagnosing and curing diseases is very good. Can the same be said about climate science? Climate science is a baby compared to medical.

In medical science, patients can be studied by comparing them with healthy individuals. Last time I checked we don't have a spare planet exactly as ours to investigate the difference that will occur when we pump in or extract co2 out of the atmosphere.

For example: I will only go to a cardiologist that I trust. I will not go to someone who is known for making wrong diagnoses time after time or exaggerate their diagnoses for whatever reason.

 

[FAST]

Just for fun Frank

Medical science is several centuries old (there were schools around the first millennium). It wasn't like the medical science of today obviously. Back then they probably healed with herbs and ointments. Medical science came along way since then. The human body is studied very detailed, even the human genome is known to the last sequence. Lots of disease have been studied and for most of them a successful cure was found or can be controlled. This has been done over many centuries and many, many patients. Experience about diagnosing and curing diseases is very good. Can the same be said about climate science? Climate science is a baby compared to medical.

In medical science, patients can be studied by comparing them with healthy individuals. Last time I checked we don't have a spare planet exactly as ours to investigate the difference that will occur when we pump in or extract co2 out of the atmosphere.

For example: I will only go to a cardiologist that I trust. I will not go to someone who is known for making wrong diagnoses time after time or exaggerate their diagnoses for whatever reason.

:clap2:

FAST

 

[bishop]

Stop whining about how the science works.
Stop complaining when legit sources show you are wrong.
Stop complaining that posting legit sources is 'deceitful'.
Stop denying science.
Stop telling me what I should do just because you don't accept reality.

You post up CIMP5 which only has at best 2 years of projections and you use that graph to show that projections are accurate. Please tell me if I am wrong, because if I am wrong then I am sorry, if not then you are a fucking dishonest retard as this must be the 4th time I busted you on posting up CIMP5. Stop posting CIMP5 you dishonest retard.

 

[Moviefan-2]

They project ranges, its just a troll argument that you claim they have to exactly match the mean of the all the models.

"Exactly" was Fuji's word. I think we know who the real troll is.

 

[Moviefan-2]

You may need to get your dictionary and read it again. I'm not sure how much clearer this can be: "These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions".

What part of that are you failing at comprehending?

I'm failing to see how you think that confirms that the warming is "EXACTLY" what was predicted.

It looks like you're interpretation of the word "predictions" is suspect. When you look at the entire paragraph, that particular sentence is referring to predictions that the Greenhouse Effect exists. It's not referring to numerical predictions about the extent of warming that would occur.

Indeed, even if your interpretation were shown to be correct, it would mean nothing. The data only apply to two locations, the Southern Great Plains and the North Slope of Alaska. Researchers couldn't possibly draw conclusions about the Earth's temperature based on just those two locations.

 

[PornAddict]

Just for fun Frank

Medical science is several centuries old (there were schools around the first millennium). It wasn't like the medical science of today obviously. Back then they probably healed with herbs and ointments. Medical science came along way since then. The human body is studied very detailed, even the human genome is known to the last sequence. Lots of disease have been studied and for most of them a successful cure was found or can be controlled. This has been done over many centuries and many, many patients. Experience about diagnosing and curing diseases is very good. Can the same be said about climate science? Climate science is a baby compared to medical.

In medical science, patients can be studied by comparing them with healthy individuals. Last time I checked we don't have a spare planet exactly as ours to investigate the difference that will occur when we pump in or extract co2 out of the atmosphere.

For example: I will only go to a cardiologist that I trust. I will not go to someone who is known for making wrong diagnoses time after time or exaggerate their diagnoses for whatever reason.

:clap2::clap2::clap2::focus:

 

[Moviefan-2]

This 97% is a lie of epic proportions. Look it up Frank, it's all out there for you and you know this too

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).

Franky doesn't care. He prefers his fairy tales over reality.

http://business.financialpost.com/f...ensus-among-the-misinformed-is-not-worth-much

http://business.financialpost.com/f...sts-support-climate-alarm-cannot-be-supported

 

[fuji]

I'm failing to see how you think that confirms that the warming is "EXACTLY" what was predicted.

Try reading it again. The purpose of the study was to confirm the theoretical prediction of how much warming greenhouse gases create. That rate of warming WAS theoretical prior to this study. Now it's observed, which in turn proves the theory.

You can still argue that there are other factors compensating for or counteracting the greenhouse gas effect, but the greenhouse gas effect itself is proven by hard science now. Not models. Hard empirical science with precision instruments.

 

[Frankfooter]

Wow just wow

The study was done “in collaboration with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)”. Here’s the description from the Pew Center of the method used:

The survey of scientists was conducted online with a random sample of 3,748 U.S.-based members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) from September 11 to October 13, 2014. AAAS is the world’s largest general scientific society, and includes members from all scientific fields. Founded in 1848, AAAS publishes Science, one of the most widely circulated peer-reviewed scientific journals in the world. Membership in AAAS is open to all.
​

Sounds good … until you realize that not only is membership in AAAS “open to all”, but in addition anyone who subscribes to Science magazine is a member of AAAS … and for years Science magazine has been a strong supporter of the hypothesis that “climate change is mostly caused by human activity”, whatever that might mean.
So we are already dealing with a self-selected group of people, many of them not scientists, who read a magazine that for years has strongly supported the “anthropogenic global warming” (AGW) hypothesis.
But wait … it gets worse. For starters, you’d think that the Pew Research folks would have made a selection of scientists that weren’t subscribers to a magazine that has an axe to grind. And you’d also think that they would have picked … well … scientists.
But failing both of those, once the Pew Center folks had foolishly chosen to sample from AAAS members, surely they would make their own random selection of the AAAS membership? … well, think again. Their methods section cited above goes on to say:

A simple random sample of AAAS members was selected for participation by the staff of AAAS.
​

At this point, I’ve got to assume that the good folks at Pew have lost the plot entirely. They let the staff of the AAAS, a group which by and large seems to have swallowed the climate koolaid without demur, choose a “random sample” of which “scientists” the Pew folks would interview. Yeah, that’s the ticket, that inspires confidence …
And it gets worse yet, because the self-selection increases:

A total of 19,984 members were mailed a letter requesting participation in the survey.
​

And out of those, how many were actually sampled?

A total of 3,748 members completed the survey for an overall response rate of 18.8%.
​

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.

 

[Frankfooter]

In medical science, patients can be studied by comparing them with healthy individuals. Last time I checked we don't have a spare planet exactly as ours to investigate the difference that will occur when we pump in or extract co2 out of the atmosphere.

For example: I will only go to a cardiologist that I trust. I will not go to someone who is known for making wrong diagnoses time after time or exaggerate their diagnoses for whatever reason.

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.

Can the same be said about climate science? Climate science is a baby compared to medical.

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