97% Consensis on AGW?

"AGW denier liar whiner777" sobbed: If 31,487 is the 3%, are there enough scientists around to make up the 97% balance?

spot wrote:
It goes on papers published, not people who went to university signing something.

spot wrote:
You have provided evidence that somebody somewhere wrote something.

one thing is;

http://globalwarmingscamandccsuperscam.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/introduction.html?view=timeslide

It seems to be someones internal monologue rather then a scientific paper.

"AGW denier liar whiner 777" shitted: I asked a question.

Tim the plumber wrote:

spot wrote:
You have provided evidence that somebody somewhere wrote something.

one thing is;

http://globalwarmingscamandccsuperscam.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/introduction.html?view=timeslide

It seems to be someones internal monologue rather then a scientific paper.

POPTEC, as he calls himself, has collected 1350+ papers which disprove to some degree the alarmist position and show that CO2 is not going to do any significant damage to the world.

I have no idea what the other site you linked to is.

Tim the plumber wrote:

spot wrote:
You have provided evidence that somebody somewhere wrote something.

one thing is;

http://globalwarmingscamandccsuperscam.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/introduction.html?view=timeslide

It seems to be someones internal monologue rather then a scientific paper.

POPTEC, as he calls himself, has collected 1350+ papers which disprove to some degree the alarmist position and show that CO2 is not going to do any significant damage to the world.

I have no idea what the other site you linked to is.

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

spot wrote:
You have provided evidence that somebody somewhere wrote something.

one thing is;

http://globalwarmingscamandccsuperscam.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/introduction.html?view=timeslide

It seems to be someones internal monologue rather then a scientific paper.

POPTEC, as he calls himself, has collected 1350+ papers which disprove to some degree the alarmist position and show that CO2 is not going to do any significant damage to the world.

I have no idea what the other site you linked to is.

That site I linked is made by an idiot obviously

It's also a link off of the website you posted, it's one of the 1350"scientific papers" that I clicked at random.

So it's obvious to me while it might not be apparent to someone so obviously hard of thinking such as you that although they claim to have a huge number of "scientific papers" there is an extremely low bar for a paper to get on that list so it means nothing.

litesong wrote:

"AGW denier liar whiner777" sobbed: If 31,487 is the 3%, are there enough scientists around to make up the 97% balance?

The trash "petition" (wasn't even a petition, since it was accompanied with PR propaganda) has no validity, being constructed by one paid biased solicitor . It doesn't detail scientists, but conservative supposed & unconfirmed "students with college degrees". Of course, you are an AGW denier liar whiner, supporting a decades long puke piece of PR propaganda.

Wake wrote:

litesong wrote:

"AGW denier liar whiner777" sobbed: If 31,487 is the 3%, are there enough scientists around to make up the 97% balance?

The trash "petition" (wasn't even a petition, since it was accompanied with PR propaganda) has no validity, being constructed by one paid biased solicitor . It doesn't detail scientists, but conservative supposed & unconfirmed "students with college degrees". Of course, you are an AGW denier liar whiner, supporting a decades long puke piece of PR propaganda.

I am curious - why are you so challenged by this that you would use this terminology? What is your own scientific credentials to challenge anyone about anything?

Reading the paper produced by ARTHUR B. ROBINSON, NOAH E. ROBINSON, AND WILLIE SOON Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, 2251 Dick George Road, Cave Junction, Or egon 97523 very closely agrees with my own study of the subject.

And what I have discovered that 97% of the people who defend to the death the very idea of global warming are those without a shred of scientific training.

There can be no scientific discussion when people who do not understand the subject under discussion insist on throwing in their opinions because of no other reason than their mommy spanked them this morning.

The 97% doesn't refer to people; it refers to papers. It's the percentage of peer-reviewed papers taking a position on the subject that agree with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

sceptic777 wrote:
Oh, you are aggressive. I asked a question. This is typical of the shouting down of any questioning dissent by anyone who dares to examine the data and suggest an alternative view. I now know how Copernicus felt.

sceptic777 wrote:
litesong: You should be in the Climate-Debate.com/insults&namecalling section.

spot wrote:
It goes on papers published, not people who went to university signing something.

Wake wrote:
Stephen Hawkings developed the Standard Model for Quantum Mechanics. And with the latest increase in power at the Large Hadron Power both proved and disproved his theories and have destroyed his life's work. And he knows it.

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:
Stephen Hawkings developed the Standard Model for Quantum Mechanics. And with the latest increase in power at the Large Hadron Power both proved and disproved his theories and have destroyed his life's work. And he knows it.

Good grief, Wake, you really are a complete fantasist. Almost everything you write is utter nonsense. It's real cargo-cult stuff.

Take the above paragraph, for example. The Standard Model is a model of particle physics, not quantum mechanics. Stephen Hawking (not Hawkings) is a cosmologist, not a particle physicist. His work on black holes and the unification of relativity and quantum theory has little to do with the development of particle physics. The Large Hadron Collider (not Power) is used to find new subatomic particles, most recently the Higgs particle. This has very little bearing at all on Hawking's work in cosmology.

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:
Stephen Hawkings developed the Standard Model for Quantum Mechanics. And with the latest increase in power at the Large Hadron Power both proved and disproved his theories and have destroyed his life's work. And he knows it.

Good grief, Wake, you really are a complete fantasist. Almost everything you write is utter nonsense. It's real cargo-cult stuff.

Take the above paragraph, for example. The Standard Model is a model of particle physics, not quantum mechanics. Stephen Hawking (not Hawkings) is a cosmologist, not a particle physicist. His work on black holes and the unification of relativity and quantum theory has little to do with the development of particle physics. The Large Hadron Collider (not Power) is used to find new subatomic particles, most recently the Higgs particle. This has very little bearing at all on Hawking's work in cosmology.

When you 1. Resort to criticising typos you know you've lost. 2. Because particles are very small, quantum mechanics is the basis for studying particles. SH evolved the Standard Model which the last several tests of the LHC showed not only the expected Higgs Boson but TWO other particles that do not fit and cannot be shoe-horned into the Standard Model. Therefore the Standard Model has collapsed and the entire theory needs to be reviewed.

You just can't find anything to do your attack mouse act with so simply blather on.

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:
Stephen Hawkings developed the Standard Model for Quantum Mechanics. And with the latest increase in power at the Large Hadron Power both proved and disproved his theories and have destroyed his life's work. And he knows it.

Good grief, Wake, you really are a complete fantasist. Almost everything you write is utter nonsense. It's real cargo-cult stuff.

Take the above paragraph, for example. The Standard Model is a model of particle physics, not quantum mechanics. Stephen Hawking (not Hawkings) is a cosmologist, not a particle physicist. His work on black holes and the unification of relativity and quantum theory has little to do with the development of particle physics. The Large Hadron Collider (not Power) is used to find new subatomic particles, most recently the Higgs particle. This has very little bearing at all on Hawking's work in cosmology.

When you 1. Resort to criticising typos you know you've lost. 2. Because particles are very small, quantum mechanics is the basis for studying particles. SH evolved the Standard Model which the last several tests of the LHC showed not only the expected Higgs Boson but TWO other particles that do not fit and cannot be shoe-horned into the Standard Model. Therefore the Standard Model has collapsed and the entire theory needs to be reviewed.

You just can't find anything to do your attack mouse act with so simply blather on.

You are awfully confused. Stephen Hawking is a cosmologist, not a particle physicist. He had nothing to do with the development of the Standard Model. His name isn't mentioned in any histories of the Standard Model.

Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig are generally regarded as the originators of the Standard Model, while Richard Feynman is perhaps the most well-known contributor to its development.

Here's a potted history of the development of the Standard Model:

Modern View (Standard Model)

Notice that Stephen Hawking is not mentioned.

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:
Stephen Hawkings developed the Standard Model for Quantum Mechanics. And with the latest increase in power at the Large Hadron Power both proved and disproved his theories and have destroyed his life's work. And he knows it.

Good grief, Wake, you really are a complete fantasist. Almost everything you write is utter nonsense. It's real cargo-cult stuff.

Take the above paragraph, for example. The Standard Model is a model of particle physics, not quantum mechanics. Stephen Hawking (not Hawkings) is a cosmologist, not a particle physicist. His work on black holes and the unification of relativity and quantum theory has little to do with the development of particle physics. The Large Hadron Collider (not Power) is used to find new subatomic particles, most recently the Higgs particle. This has very little bearing at all on Hawking's work in cosmology.

When you 1. Resort to criticising typos you know you've lost. 2. Because particles are very small, quantum mechanics is the basis for studying particles. SH evolved the Standard Model which the last several tests of the LHC showed not only the expected Higgs Boson but TWO other particles that do not fit and cannot be shoe-horned into the Standard Model. Therefore the Standard Model has collapsed and the entire theory needs to be reviewed.

You just can't find anything to do your attack mouse act with so simply blather on.

You are awfully confused. Stephen Hawking is a cosmologist, not a particle physicist. He had nothing to do with the development of the Standard Model. His name isn't mentioned in any histories of the Standard Model.

Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig are generally regarded as the originators of the Standard Model, while Richard Feynman is perhaps the most well-known contributor to its development.

Here's a potted history of the development of the Standard Model:

Modern View (Standard Model)

Notice that Stephen Hawking is not mentioned.

When you 1. Resort to criticising typos you know you've lost. 2. Because particles are very small, quantum mechanics is the basis for studying particles. SH evolved the Standard Model which the last several tests of the LHC showed not only the expected Higgs Boson but TWO other particles that do not fit and cannot be shoe-horned into the Standard Model. Therefore the Standard Model has collapsed and the entire theory needs to be reviewed.

You just can't find anything to do your attack mouse act with so simply blather on.

[b]Surface Detail wrote: Fine. You just keep right on barking at the moon then.

Wake wrote:

[b]Surface Detail wrote: Fine. You just keep right on barking at the moon then.

And again with references like yours who could argue with a total null?

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

[b]Surface Detail wrote: Fine. You just keep right on barking at the moon then.

And again with references like yours who could argue with a total null?

You're the idiot claiming that Stephen Hawking evolved the Standard Model.

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

[b]Surface Detail wrote: Fine. You just keep right on barking at the moon then.

And again with references like yours who could argue with a total null?

You're the idiot claiming that Stephen Hawking evolved the Standard Model.

And you're the one claiming that he wasn't the major contributor, You have continuously made the claim that major models are the group of a single individual. That because I worked on a team on major projects that I wasn't a contributor but only a janitor.

But you haven't given us ONE SINGLE qualification you have or what you actually do for a living when it's pretty plain that you have neither an education nor a background in science and have one goal in this life and that is to be right for once in your life even if it is founded on a mountain of lies.

[b]Surface Detail wrote: YOU made the specific claim that Stephen Hawking developed the Standard Model. Now stop prevaricating and back your claim up with a reference, or admit that you're talking nonsense.

Wake wrote:

[b]Surface Detail wrote: YOU made the specific claim that Stephen Hawking developed the Standard Model. Now stop prevaricating and back your claim up with a reference, or admit that you're talking nonsense.

Hawkings studies SINCE the 1970's have all contributed to quantum mechanics. String Theory is quantum mechanics or are you unaware of that?

His papers on quantum gravity and quantum entanglement are ALL part of quantum mechanics and compose the standard model.

Let's hear another big "DUHHHHHHHH" from you. That you would suggest that the greatest thinker since Einstein wouldn't be involved in the mathematics of the standard model shows what a complete moron is using your fingers to comment.

[b]Surface Detail wrote: url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model]Standard Model[/url]

Wake wrote:

[b]Surface Detail wrote: url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model]Standard Model[/url]

Funny how you would reference that without even reading it.

Surface Detail wrote: You were... bullshitting when when you claimed that Stephen Hawking developed the Standard Model.

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

[b]Surface Detail wrote: url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model]Standard Model[/url]

Funny how you would reference that without even reading it.

I read it, and there's no mention of Stephen Hawking. Nor is their any mention of Stephen Hawking in the other reference to the history of the development of the Standard Model that I gave earlier in the thread. You were either mistaken or bullshitting when when you claimed that Stephen Hawking developed the Standard Model.

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

[b]Surface Detail wrote: url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model]Standard Model[/url]

Funny how you would reference that without even reading it.

I read it, and there's no mention of Stephen Hawking. Nor is their any mention of Stephen Hawking in the other reference to the history of the development of the Standard Model that I gave earlier in the thread. You were either mistaken or bullshitting when when you claimed that Stephen Hawking developed the Standard Model.

Hawking is famous for making a bet that the Higgs boson could never be found. That must be because he never had anything to do with the development of the standard theory. Could you ever be more stupid? Or have you overreached even your own stupidity to gain a new plateau?

sceptic777 wrote:
I would like to question the statement that has been printed that 97% of the worlds climate scientists agree that AGW is sound science. Is this figure still pushed in the argument about man caused GW?
How is this figure correct when there is a website (petitionproject.org) that gives the names of 31,487 American scientists who disagree with the current conclusion that the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 causes the current climate change? If 31,487 is the 3%, are there enough scientists around to make up the 97% balance? It appears to me that the 97% figure has been grossly inflated.

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

[b]Surface Detail wrote: url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model]Standard Model[/url]

Funny how you would reference that without even reading it.

I read it, and there's no mention of Stephen Hawking. Nor is their any mention of Stephen Hawking in the other reference to the history of the development of the Standard Model that I gave earlier in the thread. You were either mistaken or bullshitting when when you claimed that Stephen Hawking developed the Standard Model.

Hawking is famous for making a bet that the Higgs boson could never be found. That must be because he never had anything to do with the development of the standard theory. Could you ever be more stupid? Or have you overreached even your own stupidity to gain a new plateau?

Seriously? Your evidence that Stephen Hawking developed that Standard Model is that he lost a bet on the discovery of the Higgs boson?

I lost a bet that my local football (soccer) team, Aston Villa, would win the English Premiership last year. I suppose that, in your eyes, this makes me the manager of Aston Villa.

spot wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

[b]Surface Detail wrote: url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model]Standard Model[/url]

Funny how you would reference that without even reading it.

I read it, and there's no mention of Stephen Hawking. Nor is their any mention of Stephen Hawking in the other reference to the history of the development of the Standard Model that I gave earlier in the thread. You were either mistaken or bullshitting when when you claimed that Stephen Hawking developed the Standard Model.

Hawking is famous for making a bet that the Higgs boson could never be found. That must be because he never had anything to do with the development of the standard theory. Could you ever be more stupid? Or have you overreached even your own stupidity to gain a new plateau?

Seriously? Your evidence that Stephen Hawking developed that Standard Model is that he lost a bet on the discovery of the Higgs boson?

I lost a bet that my local football (soccer) team, Aston Villa, would win the English Premiership last year. I suppose that, in your eyes, this makes me the manager of Aston Villa.

Aston Villa wining the premiership? I think you let blind bias override your better judgment.

Ceist wrote:

sceptic777 wrote:
I would like to question the statement that has been printed that 97% of the worlds climate scientists agree that AGW is sound science. Is this figure still pushed in the argument about man caused GW?
How is this figure correct when there is a website (petitionproject.org) that gives the names of 31,487 American scientists who disagree with the current conclusion that the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 causes the current climate change? If 31,487 is the 3%, are there enough scientists around to make up the 97% balance? It appears to me that the 97% figure has been grossly inflated.

Debunking the old Oregon petition project:

Peter Sinclair with Climate Crock of the Week:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py2XVILHUjQ