Remember me
▼ Content

Neurosis And Global Warming


Neurosis And Global Warming16-02-2017 21:29
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Why are we being presented with people that are repeating something they read in Popular Science as if it were some sort of truth?

Yesterday I wrote a comment concerning the energy balance of the Earth and how it is a negative feedback mechanism. There are all sorts of other articles about that differ widely from the "AGW True Believers."

https://tinyurl.com/hp29wcm
https://tinyurl.com/mt3ach9
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=1169

We can go on forever because it is an outright lie that 97% of scientists believe the AGW garbage. Originally upon exiting the first IPCC conference some 11,000 scientists were questioned about their understanding.

Virtually all of them said that there wasn't any proof of any sort that this sort of thing could occur - they had insufficient data. But some 39 of these scientists said positively either yea or nay. They took THESE as the only knowledgeable group as they identified themselves as "climate scientists". Inasmuch as that wasn't a specialty at that time it's somewhat surprising that anyone would dare to recognize this as a real specialty.

Of these 39 scientists 37 agreed with the idea of AGW. Now THAT is where the 97% number came from. We had the IPCC which is composed of 80% professional politicians telling us that the opinions of some 10,961 real, working scientists are overruled by 37 people SELF IDENTIFIED as "climate scientists".

The latest rape of public opinion carried this same sickening attack, on sanity, on. It would appear that of the ALL of the papers published on Climate Change some 63% of them are STILL saying that we have no proof and no way of obtaining proof. Of the 37% of papers published verifying AGW they are all written by the same people on an average of two papers per "climate scientist". And AGAIN we are seeing the 63% ignored in order to obtain the 97% agreement.

We have already explained that Einstein was considered a crank in science and his theory of relativity was not believed for a quarter of a century. The point of this is that ONE voice of truth crying in the wilderness overrules OPINION of others even if that opinion is held by the entire world.

But in the case of AGW it isn't. In fact MOST of science doesn't even consider it worthy of discussion.

So who is pushing this worthless idea: We know that the IPCC JUMPED at it. But we also had a quote from the Chairman of the IPCC saying "This is not about climate change - this is about redistribution of the world's wealth". Socialism raised it's ugly head and showed itself to be the goal of the IPCC.

And socialists everywhere immediately flocked to the bandwagon.

Those with the education of a bullfrog will defend AGW unto the death.The media actually silences any opinions counter.

Several of the climate change discussion sites have BANNED any "deniers". There is even calls for a law to be passed to arrest and jail anyone that is a "denier". This is the precise thing we had in Nazi Germany: Democratic opinions were not only discouraged but often those who argued for Democracy effectively were "disappeared". This is the modern day AGW True Believers in action.
Edited on 16-02-2017 21:34
16-02-2017 23:26
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Of these 39 scientists 37 agreed with the idea of AGW. Now THAT is where the 97% number came from.

37 out of 39 is about 95%, not 97%.

Your lying would be a little less obvious if you fabricated your numbers a bit more carefully.
16-02-2017 23:52
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Of these 39 scientists 37 agreed with the idea of AGW. Now THAT is where the 97% number came from.

37 out of 39 is about 95%, not 97%.

Your lying would be a little less obvious if you fabricated your numbers a bit more carefully.


http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle

"John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and creator of the blog Skeptical Science (subtitle: "Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism."). In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found "a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible." "Among papers taking a position" is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university's Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook's study, he found that "only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent," endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook's initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. "Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain," Legates concluded."

There is simply no end to your stupidity. It is getting to the point where you will throw absolutely ANYTHING on the table to try and make even the most ignorant point. Very shortly we'll have to treat you like Chief Crazyass and ignore you totally.
17-02-2017 00:48
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Of these 39 scientists 37 agreed with the idea of AGW. Now THAT is where the 97% number came from.

37 out of 39 is about 95%, not 97%.

Your lying would be a little less obvious if you fabricated your numbers a bit more carefully.


http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle

"John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and creator of the blog Skeptical Science (subtitle: "Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism."). In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found "a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible." "Among papers taking a position" is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university's Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook's study, he found that "only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent," endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook's initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. "Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain," Legates concluded."

There is simply no end to your stupidity. It is getting to the point where you will throw absolutely ANYTHING on the table to try and make even the most ignorant point. Very shortly we'll have to treat you like Chief Crazyass and ignore you totally.

You keep changing your story from post to post. First you say the 97% comes from 37 of 39, then you say it comes from 33 of 34. Of course, neither of these are true but, if you must lie, you'd be well advised to stick to the same story if you want anyone to believe you.
17-02-2017 19:26
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
[b]Surface Detail wrote: You keep changing your story from post to post. First you say the 97% comes from 37 of 39, then you say it comes from 33 of 34. Of course, neither of these are true but, if you must lie, you'd be well advised to stick to the same story if you want anyone to believe you.


When even your own environmentalists are spitting in your eye perhaps it's time to face facts.
18-02-2017 03:20
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
[b]Surface Detail wrote: You keep changing your story from post to post. First you say the 97% comes from 37 of 39, then you say it comes from 33 of 34. Of course, neither of these are true but, if you must lie, you'd be well advised to stick to the same story if you want anyone to believe you.


When even your own environmentalists are spitting in your eye perhaps it's time to face facts.

How does this cryptic comment relate to your inability to tell the same lie twice?
18-02-2017 22:43
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
[b]Surface Detail wrote: You keep changing your story from post to post. First you say the 97% comes from 37 of 39, then you say it comes from 33 of 34. Of course, neither of these are true but, if you must lie, you'd be well advised to stick to the same story if you want anyone to believe you.


When even your own environmentalists are spitting in your eye perhaps it's time to face facts.

How does this cryptic comment relate to your inability to tell the same lie twice?


By ALL means tell me about that lie I told of quoting not just an article but a book with the studies reproduced and shown to be in grave error.

You will do absolutely ANYTHING to avoid the truth won't you?

That makes you either a fool or a liar.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/16/scientists-balk-at-hottest-year-claims-we-are-arguing-over-the-significance-of-hundredths-of-a-degree-the-pause-continues/

I've already put this out without any response from you. When even NOAA and NASA are saying that they are being misquoted and misrepresented by the True Believers don't you think that it's time to actually use some knowledge rather than your usual "someone else said that someone else said"?
18-02-2017 23:20
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
[b]Surface Detail wrote: You keep changing your story from post to post. First you say the 97% comes from 37 of 39, then you say it comes from 33 of 34. Of course, neither of these are true but, if you must lie, you'd be well advised to stick to the same story if you want anyone to believe you.


When even your own environmentalists are spitting in your eye perhaps it's time to face facts.

How does this cryptic comment relate to your inability to tell the same lie twice?


By ALL means tell me about that lie I told of quoting not just an article but a book with the studies reproduced and shown to be in grave error.

You will do absolutely ANYTHING to avoid the truth won't you?

That makes you either a fool or a liar.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/16/scientists-balk-at-hottest-year-claims-we-are-arguing-over-the-significance-of-hundredths-of-a-degree-the-pause-continues/

I've already put this out without any response from you. When even NOAA and NASA are saying that they are being misquoted and misrepresented by the True Believers don't you think that it's time to actually use some knowledge rather than your usual "someone else said that someone else said"?

Wake, you are certainly master of the non sequitur. If caught lying, just spout another load of unrelated crap. That's the way to do it, eh?
19-02-2017 19:24
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
[b]Surface Detail wrote: You keep changing your story from post to post. First you say the 97% comes from 37 of 39, then you say it comes from 33 of 34. Of course, neither of these are true but, if you must lie, you'd be well advised to stick to the same story if you want anyone to believe you.


When even your own environmentalists are spitting in your eye perhaps it's time to face facts.

How does this cryptic comment relate to your inability to tell the same lie twice?


By ALL means tell me about that lie I told of quoting not just an article but a book with the studies reproduced and shown to be in grave error.

You will do absolutely ANYTHING to avoid the truth won't you?

That makes you either a fool or a liar.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/16/scientists-balk-at-hottest-year-claims-we-are-arguing-over-the-significance-of-hundredths-of-a-degree-the-pause-continues/

I've already put this out without any response from you. When even NOAA and NASA are saying that they are being misquoted and misrepresented by the True Believers don't you think that it's time to actually use some knowledge rather than your usual "someone else said that someone else said"?

Wake, you are certainly master of the non sequitur. If caught lying, just spout another load of unrelated crap. That's the way to do it, eh?


And not only do you not show any credentials but you can use words like "non-sequitur" without even mentioning what this particular non-sequitur was.

Why do you continue to blather on your mindless chatter like nothing more than an attack mouse?




Join the debate Neurosis And Global Warming:

Remember me

▲ 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