Remember me
▼ Content

97% Consensis on AGW?



Page 1 of 212>
97% Consensis on AGW?31-01-2017 15:02
sceptic777
☆☆☆☆☆
(19)
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.
31-01-2017 15:16
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
The statement that the world's climate has warmed and that human activity is to some extent responsible for this is not something anybody would really disagree with. Thus who the hell are the 3%?

That this is then twisted into panic run for the hills! is where the trouble starts.

Edited on 31-01-2017 15:16
31-01-2017 16:17
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"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.
31-01-2017 16:39
sceptic777
☆☆☆☆☆
(19)
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.
31-01-2017 19:21
spot
★★★★☆
(1225)
It goes on papers published, not people who went to university signing something.
31-01-2017 20:15
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
spot wrote:
It goes on papers published, not people who went to university signing something.


That, different, study was where they took any paper which mention AGW as supporting the alarmist position and any climate paper that did not mention human influence as being on the other side.

Here is a link to some climate papers supporting the skeptic position;

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
31-01-2017 21:13
spot
★★★★☆
(1225)
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.
31-01-2017 22:08
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
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.
31-01-2017 22:13
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"AGW denier liar whiner 777" shitted: I asked a question.

AGW denier liar whiners ask questions, & proceed with bad science, showing themselves to be AGW denier liar whiners. Join the free-for-all.
01-02-2017 00:25
spot
★★★★☆
(1225)
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.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
01-02-2017 01:57
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.

We've done this before. It would be more accurate to say that "POPTEC" has collected 1350+ papers which he claims disprove to some degree the "alarmist" position. The trouble is that POPTEC, like yourself, obviously has had little scientific training and has simply misunderstood many of the papers that he lists here. The ones that I've looked at don't actually contradict the scientific consensus on AGW at all.
01-02-2017 22:21
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
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.


Which of the papers in POPTEC's list was this from? I would like to follow this to check if you are reporting the real thing.
02-02-2017 00:23
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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.
02-02-2017 02:36
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.
02-02-2017 03:16
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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.


This number has been used for everything from the a poll of 3000 scientists at a meeting of which they had had only 2% agree with the idea so they reduced this number to only those who were self proclaimed "climate scientists" 79 out of the 3000.

Presently that number is being used as "only those who claim to be climate scientists and are published".

If you are telling me that someone that gathers statistics on sea ice extents knows more than an oceanographer specializing in arctic areas obviously you should realize that something is seriously wrong.

There is exactly the same bias here.
15-02-2017 21:38
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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.


Initially there was a meeting that contained some 11,000 scientists in which they discussed climate change. Upon exit virtually ALL of these scientists said that there was insufficient data to reach any conclusions.

Since this represented a LOT of power and funding they looked at everyone's answers and then ended up taking the the answers from only 39 of the 11,000. These were self-identified "climate scientist" since there was no such thing at the time.

Of that 39 only 2 said that there was no climate change occurring as a result of increasing CO2. This is where the ORIGINAL figure of 97% came from.

Presently they are claiming that some 1100 papers of which only 37% of the papers return a positive are the only important papers.

They disregard the REST of the papers with the excuse that these other scientists are not "climate scientists" and hence don't count. What's even more; of these 37% of the papers they are only written by half of that number of researchers.

So the 97% of anything is completely rigged and was a lie from the outset. Only 37% or less of scientists believe in AGW.
18-02-2017 15:18
sceptic777
☆☆☆☆☆
(19)
litesong: I've seen the way you debate and it appears you are in the wrong forum. You should be in the Climate-Debate.com/insults&namecalling section.
18-02-2017 15:45
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
sceptic777 wrote:
litesong: You should be in the Climate-Debate.com/insults&namecalling section.

No. I do NOT insult. Names of old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiners are very accurately given. Its just like the Native Tribal tradition of letting babies accurately name themselves. In the case of old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiners, the concentrated evil spirit is wrapped up in bags of human flesh & unleashed upon the Earth.
It is well beyond coincidence that so many AGW denier liar whiners are also old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pigs. It is well beyond coincidence that so many AGW denier liar whiners do NOT have hi skule DEE-plooomaas. It is well beyond coincidence that so many AGW denier liar whiners never took science chemistry astronomy physics algebra & pre-calc.
It could be sceptic777 needs renaming.... possibly skkkeptikkk666. Shortened name first? It does appear a longer, more accurate name for you is needed, considering you came on this website toting the misery of the Oregon Institute "survey" that was an old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate AGW denier liar whiner piece of PR propaganda poop.
Edited on 18-02-2017 15:53
18-02-2017 22:07
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote:
It goes on papers published, not people who went to university signing something.


spot - you don't have a grasp on science yet. The Big Bang Theory has been the accepted start of the universe for 100 years now.

The trouble is: 1. Where did the energy or matter come from to trigger such a massive explosion? 2. The galaxies are NOT moving as they should which has coined the theory of dark energy and dark matter. 3. If there WAS a big bang the expansion of the universe would be slowing and could be expected to come to a stop and then collapse into itself in order to cause ANOTHER big bang. Instead the expansion of the universe is accelerating and not slowing.

Most of science is holding on to the Big Bang theory despite the latest theory that the universe is eternal. Physicists have a very hard time conceiving of something with no beginning and no end.

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.

When conclusive proof of the failure of a hypothesis comes along you either stick with it because it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling or you try to find explanations that work.

AGW was proven false within months of Dr. Mann's predictions. There hasn't been ONE single reason to support it since.
18-02-2017 23:09
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.
19-02-2017 19:31
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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.
19-02-2017 19:57
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.
Edited on 19-02-2017 20:01
19-02-2017 19:59
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Also, your belief that the Standard Model has collapsed is completely unfounded. Where on Earth did you get that idea from?
19-02-2017 21:22
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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.
19-02-2017 21:29
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.

Fine. You just keep right on barking at the moon then.
19-02-2017 21:31
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
[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?
19-02-2017 21:36
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.
Edited on 19-02-2017 21:36
19-02-2017 22:00
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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.
19-02-2017 22:14
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.

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.
19-02-2017 23:23
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
[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.
20-02-2017 00:16
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.

Enough of your gibbering. We're still waiting for that reference proving your claim that Hawking developed the Standard Model. You do know what the Standard Model is, don't you? Here's some help: Standard Model
20-02-2017 17:03
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
[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.
20-02-2017 19:40
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.
20-02-2017 20:24
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
Surface Detail wrote: You were... bullshitting when when you claimed that Stephen Hawking developed the Standard Model.

Well said. bullshitting= "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up".
21-02-2017 06:54
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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?
21-02-2017 13:29
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.
21-02-2017 13:35
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
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
Edited on 21-02-2017 13:39
21-02-2017 13:50
spot
★★★★☆
(1225)
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.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
21-02-2017 13:54
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.

A case of the heart overruling the head, I'm afraid.
21-02-2017 14:11
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
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



STATEMENT BY THE COUNCIL
OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
REGARDING GLOBAL CHANGE PETITION


April 20, 1998


The Council of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is concerned about the confusion caused by a petition being circulated via a letter from a former president of this Academy. This petition criticizes the science underlying the Kyoto treaty on carbon dioxide emissions (the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change), and it asks scientists to recommend rejection of this treaty by the U.S. Senate. The petition was mailed with an op-ed article from The Wall Street Journal and a manuscript in a format that is nearly identical to that of scientific articles published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal.

The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.


http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=s04201998
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate 97% Consensis on AGW?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
What exactly is the evidence that AGW is happening or5625-11-2019 15:53
The only straw the Church of AGW can grasp is Venus8826-09-2019 05:49
The only straw the Church of AGW can grasp is Venus and Mercury418-09-2019 22:37
If you believe in the AGW concept and want change but you8819-08-2019 22:09
Argument against AGW science314-08-2019 20:51
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact