That chart is incredibly stupid bait and switch, larue.
Sure larue, like the oil industry is out for your good.yeah
No problem = no funding
No funding = no problem
this is out dated
View attachment 323763
.
and yet Frankfooter and the rest of the climate lunatics seems to think a scientist who accepted a $10K grant to fund a summer student, needs to be "cancelled" because the money was tied to Exxon
They all have something in common: making money.How does that work, skoob?
How do you get scientists funded by right wing governments and left wingers, over 4 decades and in over 100 countries to all come up with the same results?
You claim its a conspiracy, who is paying them all to do the same thing?
If you think it was biased government funding, how come it was the same under rump and the Bushes?
Norway seems to think so. You should too.Sure larue, like the oil industry is out for your good.
99.9% of climatologists back the IPCC reports, which summarizes the findings.They all have something in common: making money.
If that means funding "research" to justify special projects that result in people making money, then it doesn't matter which side of the political spectrum someone is on.
And they didn't all come up with the same results as you suggest. It has been a constant bickering of the facts and interpretation of the data that is based on computer models that are easily tailored to support a narrative. That narrative through the years has been to justify initiatives that ultimately make the funders a lot of money.
You think too small.
99.9%? haha that's funny99.9% of climatologists back the IPCC reports, which summarizes the findings.
Scientists get funded for proposals to study areas of interest, not on findings.
How do you get 100 countries to all fund research and have it all come out with similar findings?
Your conspiracy theory makes zero sense.
You are so clueless.99.9%? haha that's funny
theconversation.com
You are so gullible.You are so clueless.
![]()
The ‘97% climate consensus’ is over. Now it’s well above 99% (and the evidence is even stronger than that)
One of the most famous stats in the climate debate is the 97% of scientists who endorse the consensus on human-induced global heating. Ahead of the Glasgow summit, that figure has climbed even higher.theconversation.com
Skoob, your ignorance is constantly surprising.You are so gullible.
A for-profit website that was used to search for reports. Yep, no bias there.
And you use this as your proof that 99.9% of scientists believe this is all true? That's quite deceptive of you.
btw volcano eruptions are now caused by climate change? hahahahaha that's funny.
The article you shared said this:Skoob, your ignorance is constantly surprising.
This was an article that cited a scientific paper, the link was in the first paragraph.
Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature
Mark Lynas4,1, Benjamin Z Houlton2 and Simon Perry3
Published 19 October 2021 • © 2021 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd
Our finding is that the broadly-defined scientific consensus likely far exceeds 99% regarding the role of anthropogenic GHG emissions in modern climate change, and may even be as high as 99.9%. Of course, the prevalence of mis/disinformation about the role of GHG emissions in modern climate change is unlikely to be driven purely by genuine scientific illiteracy or lack of understanding [14]. Even so, in our view it remains important to continue to inform society on the state of the evidence. According to the IPCC AR6 summary and many other previous studies, mitigating future warming requires urgent efforts to eliminate fossil fuels combustion and other major sources of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Our study helps confirm that there is no remaining scientific uncertainty about the urgency and gravity of this task.
And why do you have a problem with this?The article you shared said this:
Both studies searched the Web of Science database – an independent worldwide repository of scientific paper citations – using the keywords “global climate change” and “global warming”. However, the recent study added “climate change” to the other two keyword searches, because the authors found that most climate-contrarian papers would not have been returned with only the two original terms.
The link in the first paragraph essentially said the same thing:
2. Method
Previous attempts to quantify the consensus on climate change have employed many different methodologies, varying from expert elicitation to examination of abstracts returned by a keyword search. We base our methodology on C13 with some important refinements. We searched the Web of Science for English language 'articles' added between the dates of 2012 and November 2020 with the keywords 'climate change', 'global climate change' and 'global warming'.
Do you even read the bs you post?
there is never 99.9% agreement on anything99.9% of climatologists back the IPCC reports, which summarizes the findings.
Scientists get funded for proposals to study areas of interest, not on findings.
How do you get 100 countries to all fund research and have it all come out with similar findings?
Your conspiracy theory makes zero sense.
Because you tried to peddle misleading information by stating that 99.9% of scientists believe the same thing and didn't realize that this sampling was just based on this for-profit website.And why do you have a problem with this?
Even science deniers use the words 'climate change' and 'global warming'.
That's because the science is clear and the evidence massive, larue.there is never 99.9% agreement on anything
especially such a controversial subject with such a definative conclusion
it only takes one out a thousand to say , ''hold on
Yourconspiracy theorybullshit math makes zero sense.
The information came from a study that sampled thousands of papers, skoob.Because you tried to peddle misleading information by stating that 99.9% of scientists believe the same thing and didn't realize that this sampling was just based on this for-profit website.
I'll give you credit for trying...you're just not good at it and it makes you untrustworthy.
Because you tried to peddle misleading information by stating that 99.9% of scientists believe the same thing and didn't realize that this sampling was just based on this for-profit website.
I'll give you credit for trying...you're just not good at it and it makes you untrustworthy.
what have I got ?That's because the science is clear and the evidence massive, larue.
The planet is warming, CO2 levels rising and all the evidence posts to the IPCC projections and science to be correct.
What have you got?
The opinions of those 0.01% who think otherwise yet can't explain what is happening and what is going to happen next?






