What blog do you get your info from? A picture is worth a thousand words. Originally Posted by i'va biggenI don't get my info from websites that display bogus NASA satellite images.
Jim
- Mr MojoRisin
- 04-10-2016, 10:04 AM
Jim
- i'va biggen
- 04-10-2016, 10:28 AM
I don't get my info from websites that display bogus NASA satellite images.You claim all scientists/climatologists are wrong all satellite images are wrong. Where is your info coming from ,TV news reporters? Or some wacco blog? The moon landing was faked, right?
Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin
- Mr MojoRisin
- 04-10-2016, 04:12 PM
You claim all scientists/climatologists are wrong all satellite images are wrong. Where is your info coming from ,TV news reporters? Or some wacco blog? The moon landing was faked, right?I never claimed that all Scientists are wrong. I am claiming you're always wrong.
Jim
- i'va biggen
- 04-10-2016, 04:36 PM
- IIFFOFRDB
- 04-10-2016, 04:44 PM
Hate to break the news to you jm, but your opinion ain't shit. Originally Posted by i'va biggen
Buzzard Headed ekimomo from the bowels of LBJ, read and learn...
Deep-sixing another useless climate mythhttps://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/...-climate-myth/
Guest Blogger / 3 hours ago April 10, 2016
The vaunted “97% consensus” on dangerous manmade global warming is just more malarkey
by Dr. David R. Legates
By now, virtually everyone has heard that “97% of scientists agree: Climate change is real, manmade and dangerous.” Even if you weren’t one of his 31 million followers who received this tweet from President Obama, you most assuredly have seen it repeated everywhere as scientific fact.
The correct representation is “yes,” “some,” and “no.” Yes, climate change is real. There has never been a period in Earth’s history when the climate has not changed somewhere, in one way or another.
let's talk about the 0.3%...
- Mr MojoRisin
- 04-10-2016, 05:01 PM
Hate to break the news to you jm, but your opinion ain't shit. Originally Posted by i'va biggenMy opinion means everything. You've never done any research nor do you use any common sense. You just read something that sounds good and say "Yep that's it" Just because a bunch of men say something is true doesn't mean that it is. You fall for anything every time without question, and without doing your own research.
Jim
- i'va biggen
- 04-10-2016, 07:05 PM
My opinion means everything. You've never done any research nor do you use any common sense. You just read something that sounds good and say "Yep that's it" Just because a bunch of men ( like climatologists )say something is true doesn't mean that it is. You fall for anything every time without question, and without doing your own research.No facts from you, nothing to back up your claims. Otherwise nothing but hot air. Just another bullshitter. You are excused jim.........
Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin
- Mr MojoRisin
- 04-10-2016, 07:27 PM
No facts from you, nothing to back up your claims. Otherwise nothing but hot air. Just another bullshitter. You are excused jim......... Originally Posted by i'va biggenNo facts from me? I don't have to prove anything. I am not the one advocating man induced Climate Change. No one doubts the climate goes through changes, it's the "man induced" part that nobody can prove.
Jim
- i'va biggen
- 04-10-2016, 09:40 PM
No facts from me? I don't have to prove anything. I am not the one advocating man induced Climate Change. No one doubts the climate goes through changes, it's the "man induced" part that nobody can prove.If you cannot prove anything, your opinion is like assholes, everyone has one.
Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin
- Mr MojoRisin
- 04-10-2016, 10:22 PM
If you cannot prove anything, your opinion is like assholes, everyone has one. Originally Posted by i'va biggenI don't have the burden of proof. Furthermore those 97% of the Scientists who claim man is the reason for Global Warming are also obligated to devise viable solutions to the problem and our Government who is also advocates of Global warming is also obligated to fund and see to it those solutions are implemented. That is not what's happening. Instead they fuel the fire more so uninformed non scientific drips like you can pick arguments over it.
Jim
- RedLeg505
- 04-10-2016, 10:45 PM
If you cannot prove anything, your opinion is like assholes, everyone has one. Originally Posted by i'va biggenSo.. then you can PROVE that man is causing the climate to change? I'll be fascinated to see the SOURCE of your proof.
But since you can't, you are just spouting more asshole opinions, right?
- The_Waco_Kid
- 04-10-2016, 11:02 PM
The 97 Percent Solution
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...sus-ian-tuttle
“Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists” say no such thing.
Unable to address Texas senator Ted Cruz’s questions about “the Pause” — the apparent global-warming standstill, now almost 19 years long — at Tuesday’s meeting of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, Sierra Club president Aaron Mair, after an uncomfortable pause of his own, appealed to authority: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists concur and agree that there is global warming and anthropogenic impact,” he stated multiple times.
The relevant exchange begins at 1:39 (though the whole segment is worth watching):
The myth of an almost-unanimous climate-change consensus is pervasive. Last May, the White House tweeted: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” A few days later, Secretary of State John Kerry announced, “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists tell us this is urgent.”
“Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists” say no such thing. There are multiple relevant questions: (1) Has the earth generally warmed since 1800? (An overwhelming majority of scientists assent to this.) (2) Has that warming been caused primarily by human activity? And, if (1) and (2), is anthropogenic global warming a problem so significant that we ought to take action?
In 2004, University of California-San Diego professor Naomi Oreskes reported that, of 928 scientific abstracts from papers published by refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, “75% . . . either explicitly or implicitly accept[ed] the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.” Also remarkably, the papers chosen excluded several written by prominent scientists skeptical of that consensus. Furthermore, the claims made in abstracts — short summaries of academic papers — often differ from those made in the papers themselves. And Oreskes’s analysis did not take up whether scientists who subscribe to anthropogenic global warming think the phenomenon merits changes in public policy.
The “97 percent” statistic first appeared prominently in a 2009 study by University of Illinois master’s student Kendall Zimmerman and her adviser, Peter Doran. Based on a two-question online survey, Zimmerman and Doran concluded that “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific bases of long-term climate processes” — even though only 5 percent of respondents, or about 160 scientists, were climate scientists. In fact, the “97 percent” statistic was drawn from an even smaller subset: the 79 respondents who were both self-reported climate scientists and had “published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” These 77 scientists agreed that global temperatures had generally risen since 1800, and that human activity is a “significant contributing factor.”
Ivan .. you idiot .. there's your "97%" .. 97% of only 77 scientists.
A year later, William R. Love Anderegg, a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to determine that “97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” The sample size did not much improve on Zimmerman and Doran’s: Anderegg surveyed about 200 scientists.
Studies showing a wider range of opinion often go unremarked. A 2008 survey by two German scientists, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, found that a significant number of scientists were skeptical of the ability of existing global climate models to accurately predict global temperatures, precipitation, sea-level changes, or extreme weather events even over a decade; they were far more skeptical as the time horizon increased. Most did express concerns about global warming and a desire for “immediate action to mitigate climate change” — but not 97 percent.
A 2012 poll of American Meteorological Society members also reported a diversity of opinion. Of the 1,862 members who responded (a quarter of the organization), 59 percent stated that human activity was the primary cause of global warming, and 11 percent attributed the phenomenon to human activity and natural causes in about equal measure, while just under a quarter (23 percent) said enough is not yet known to make any determination. Seventy-six percent said that warming over the next century would be “very” or “somewhat” harmful, but of those, only 22 percent thought that “all” or a “large” amount of the harm could be prevented “through mitigation and adaptation measures.”
And according to a study of 1,868 scientists working in climate-related fields, conducted just this year by the PBL Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency, three in ten respondents said that less than half of global warming since 1951 could be attributed to human activity, or that they did not know.
Given the politics of modern academia and the scientific community, it’s not unlikely that most scientists involved in climate-related studies believe in anthropogenic global warming, and likely believe, too, that it presents a problem. However, there is no consensus approaching 97 percent. A vigorous, vocal minority exists. The science is far from settled. – Ian Tuttle is a William F. Buckley Jr. Fellow in Political Journalism at the National Review Institute.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...sus-ian-tuttle
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...sus-ian-tuttle
“Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists” say no such thing.
Unable to address Texas senator Ted Cruz’s questions about “the Pause” — the apparent global-warming standstill, now almost 19 years long — at Tuesday’s meeting of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, Sierra Club president Aaron Mair, after an uncomfortable pause of his own, appealed to authority: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists concur and agree that there is global warming and anthropogenic impact,” he stated multiple times.
The relevant exchange begins at 1:39 (though the whole segment is worth watching):
The myth of an almost-unanimous climate-change consensus is pervasive. Last May, the White House tweeted: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” A few days later, Secretary of State John Kerry announced, “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists tell us this is urgent.”
“Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists” say no such thing. There are multiple relevant questions: (1) Has the earth generally warmed since 1800? (An overwhelming majority of scientists assent to this.) (2) Has that warming been caused primarily by human activity? And, if (1) and (2), is anthropogenic global warming a problem so significant that we ought to take action?
In 2004, University of California-San Diego professor Naomi Oreskes reported that, of 928 scientific abstracts from papers published by refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, “75% . . . either explicitly or implicitly accept[ed] the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.” Also remarkably, the papers chosen excluded several written by prominent scientists skeptical of that consensus. Furthermore, the claims made in abstracts — short summaries of academic papers — often differ from those made in the papers themselves. And Oreskes’s analysis did not take up whether scientists who subscribe to anthropogenic global warming think the phenomenon merits changes in public policy.
The “97 percent” statistic first appeared prominently in a 2009 study by University of Illinois master’s student Kendall Zimmerman and her adviser, Peter Doran. Based on a two-question online survey, Zimmerman and Doran concluded that “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific bases of long-term climate processes” — even though only 5 percent of respondents, or about 160 scientists, were climate scientists. In fact, the “97 percent” statistic was drawn from an even smaller subset: the 79 respondents who were both self-reported climate scientists and had “published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” These 77 scientists agreed that global temperatures had generally risen since 1800, and that human activity is a “significant contributing factor.”
Ivan .. you idiot .. there's your "97%" .. 97% of only 77 scientists.
A year later, William R. Love Anderegg, a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to determine that “97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” The sample size did not much improve on Zimmerman and Doran’s: Anderegg surveyed about 200 scientists.
Studies showing a wider range of opinion often go unremarked. A 2008 survey by two German scientists, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, found that a significant number of scientists were skeptical of the ability of existing global climate models to accurately predict global temperatures, precipitation, sea-level changes, or extreme weather events even over a decade; they were far more skeptical as the time horizon increased. Most did express concerns about global warming and a desire for “immediate action to mitigate climate change” — but not 97 percent.
A 2012 poll of American Meteorological Society members also reported a diversity of opinion. Of the 1,862 members who responded (a quarter of the organization), 59 percent stated that human activity was the primary cause of global warming, and 11 percent attributed the phenomenon to human activity and natural causes in about equal measure, while just under a quarter (23 percent) said enough is not yet known to make any determination. Seventy-six percent said that warming over the next century would be “very” or “somewhat” harmful, but of those, only 22 percent thought that “all” or a “large” amount of the harm could be prevented “through mitigation and adaptation measures.”
And according to a study of 1,868 scientists working in climate-related fields, conducted just this year by the PBL Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency, three in ten respondents said that less than half of global warming since 1951 could be attributed to human activity, or that they did not know.
Given the politics of modern academia and the scientific community, it’s not unlikely that most scientists involved in climate-related studies believe in anthropogenic global warming, and likely believe, too, that it presents a problem. However, there is no consensus approaching 97 percent. A vigorous, vocal minority exists. The science is far from settled. – Ian Tuttle is a William F. Buckley Jr. Fellow in Political Journalism at the National Review Institute.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...sus-ian-tuttle
- IIFFOFRDB
- 04-10-2016, 11:55 PM
- Mr MojoRisin
- 04-11-2016, 12:04 AM
- i'va biggen
- 04-11-2016, 12:09 AM
I don't have the burden of proof. Furthermore those 97% of the Scientists who claim man is the reason for Global Warming are also obligated to devise viable solutions to the problem and our Government who is also advocates of Global warming is also obligated to fund and see to it those solutions are implemented. That is not what's happening. Instead they fuel the fire more so uninformed non scientific drips like you can pick arguments over it.It is easy to sit back make pronouncements, have no facts then say it is not you obligation to prove anything. Now why not take a page from JD's book, and proclaim yourself the winner.
Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin