Not at all.
Not all papers by climatologists are about climate change.
The 97% statement is correct.
David Suzuki tries to challenge the fact the planet isn't warming
- Thread starter Moviefan-2
- Start date
Not all papers by climatologists are about climate change.
The 97% statement is correct.
I already provided a direct quote from the article showing it supported the headline.
Of course, you are too stupid to recognize that.
Just as you are so incredibly stupid that you both can't summarize the argument you supposedly back, and therefore can't do any more then parrot statements you've copied and pasted from other websites.
You don't understand the Met Office data arguments. Its too much for your puny little brain.
Even when given the 10 year old, dumbed down explanation, you can't even summarize the argument.
Even when given a two word description of the differences you failed to undestande or debate their import.
In short, you are too stupid for this argument.
i lump suzuki, dr oz and all the other pop-culture sound-biters together. they all use some real proven science, throw in a little mysticism and add some wild what-if's. anybody who disagrees is hung. basically, if u saw it on tv, it's as close to bogus as you can get. and they are all very smart so it's fairly obvious they know what they say is wrong. it suits their goals.
Wow. Just wow. You do know that the 97% is complete crap don't you? It's based on a bogus survey, with bogus data, and massaged results.
Mysticism? How does this apply to Suzuki? So everything you see on TV is (close to) bogus?
i gues you don't watch much on Discovery, History. or National Geographic channels much as it's mostly bogus.How is it crap? We put the survey through quite a discussion in past threads and it certainly isn't. Care to tell us how it is crap?
dr. suzuki knows better than anyone the difference between weather and climate. that's why his "maybe not" answer is more of a lie than if you or i said it. if he would start speaking truth, he would be worth listening to. but his anti-west/money agenda overwhelms him (yes, i know he is a millionaire. that makes it worse).
His answer is correct, scientifically, and supported by the work of the IPCC and over 97% of the people who are actual scientists who study the climate.
Your criticism is similar to moviefan's, its an uneducated parroting from some Exxon funded site, and not based on understanding the science or the issues.
If you can use your own words, not copying and pasting some hack's falsehoods, and explain your rationale then we could debate the issue.
Otherwise, you're just another foolish sufferer of the dunning-kruger effect who thinks they are smarter then they are.
Here's the relevant quote you provided:
Does that show the other news reports were "wrong" when they cited the timeline? Uh, no. Actually, it confirms the timeline that was in the other news reports. And the "reduced warming" language is just being cute. There wasn't any statistically significant warming over that period. The Met Office doesn't dispute that.
The headline that Groggy keeps posting was wrong.
"Most definitely" ... "definitely" ... "probably" ... "maybe" ... "maybe not" ... "probably not" ... "definitely not"....
To some people, it all kind of means the same thing. :biggrin1:
---
Look, here's what we know.
On the one hand, we have the scientific evidence -- evidence that has been accepted by people on the political left, the right, and in the centre.
On the other hand, we have erroneous headlines, bogus "consensus" numbers, and the usual angry name-calling.
My recommendation: Choose the scientific evidence.
The headline is correct, in fact its your Exxon funded guru, Whitehouse, who is wrong. Again, to bring it down to the level of 5 year olds (maybe you can understand this).
Draw a squiggly line from the bottom left corner to the top right corner on a piece of paper.
Maybe it will look like this:
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/usa48_1.jpg
Oh, and look, if you take that little bit at the right and draw a line between two specific points, as Whitehouse and all the Exxon scammers do, you can pretend that temperature is going down.
The problem is it misses the full point of the graph, which is this:
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/usa48_2.jpg
Get it?
That's called cherry picking, picking two data points that make your fake case even though they are really in odds with the full findings.
So yes, The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual. , but the full pattern of rise in temperature is clearly up, just in a squiggly line.
Are you smart enough to understand that?
I know, its very, very, technical for your little pea brain, but try and let it sink in for a minute or two before you go copying and pasting.
If only you would follow your own advice.
Why not listen to the words of 97% of the people who know what they are talking about, instead of the 1% that are quacks funded by the oil companies?
When the tobacco companies pulled the exact same stunt decades ago, commissioning fake studies with hired 'experts' who turned out to be quacks, did you buy the smokes and think they were healthy?
Are you still smoking because 3 out of 5 tobacco funded doctors think its good for you?
How many times do I have to answer this?
Apart from the fact the "consensus" number is bogus, I don't pay attention to "consensus" numbers because they have nothing to do with science. Scientific evidence isn't gathered through straw votes.
Indeed, the alarmists who put those types of numbers together do it precisely because they know the real-world evidence is working against them. At this point in time, their computer-model projections are failing.
That's why.
So bringing the argument down to a 5 year old's level was still too much for you?
Is that why you had to ignore it, couldn't understand it?
Are you really that stupid, that you don't even understand how little you know?
Do you have no counter argument to the case I clearly made that your source was cherry picking the data set to support his Exxon funded position?
Are you that stupid?
What does this even mean?
That you listen only to those whose positions you 'feel' are right?
That you don't care that only a handful of Exxon lobbyists making up fake studies, like the cherry picked numbers above support your faith based views?
Do you not believe in gravity or evolution either, since that's only the consensus view and contrary to your fairy inhabited world view?
The only body that presents detailed, peer assessed work with all sources of data is the IPCC, that really does represent science.
I have no idea why you think the handful of quacks you quote, people who are not respected in the field, have anything to do with science.
Are you really still smoking for your health?
Are you really such an idiot?
Not angry, just shocked that moviefan could even think he's keeping up in this conversation.
He really doesn't understand how little he really understands.
From MattRoxx's link:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:Scientific_consensus
Even better is this quote, also from the MattRoxx link:
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/scientific-consensus/
No serious person would use RationalWiki to learn how science works. But it is amusing that MattRoxx provided the link to such damning indictments of the global warming theory.
Once again, you are quite wrong.
Climate study is over 100 years old, with the greenhouse theory started around the 1890's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science
Add that to the list of things you know nothing about.
I'm still shocked that you are posting here, having totally ignored how ridiculously out argued you have been at ever point.
Even this latest point is more copy and pasting from sites and arguments you don't full understand.
And the test, which you have failed every time:
Show us your understanding by putting it into your own words.
But you can't.
So out you come with another stupid, error filled post.
A work in progress
Just a quick comment on whether or not the science community is plausible , regarding this subject.
I think it is,...when they say something to the effect,..."we don't know why,...but have we have some ideas".
FAST.
PS: Do understand, I don’t claim to be in the same league as the self professed “experts” here, just my opinion.
Just a quick comment on whether or not the science community is plausible , regarding this subject.
I think it is,...when they say something to the effect,..."we don't know why,...but have we have some ideas".
FAST.
PS: Do understand, I don’t claim to be in the same league as the self professed “experts” here, just my opinion.
