What else did the ’97% of scientists’ say?

[Timshel]

Anyone who thinks consensus is science doesn't understand science. Anyone who thinks that a 1 degree increase in temperature over a 100 year timeframe is greater than anything seen on a supposed 100 million year old world is just down right silly.

BTW is science ever wrong?

Then WHY are you arguing what the consensus says?

Worse still, he misrepresents the claims of that paper (he implies the 97% believe CO2 will cause major climate change in the coming decades, while Anderegg et al say 97% agree that most of the warming of the 20th C was very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases – two very different statements).

Voltaire did not make any statement about what would happen in the next 100 years. Nor did he suggest a policy in that thread. He has said he supports cap-n-trade and I challenged him on that.

Science is wrong when it cannot produce predictable and repeatable results. When it can, over a long period, that is often called CONSENSUS. Go ahead and argue over your stupid labels. It does not change anything.

The planet is warming we are a very likely cause. Few disagree with that.

 

[Timshel]

Do explain how you think the above are all agreeing that Man is the primary cause of the warming?

Read what Tom quoted and I repeated in quotes.

 

[Timshel]

Hey Al gore said so and he invented the internets

Knee jerk and ad hom.

 

[Timshel]

Tell us again Mutt how your AGW religious nuts are actual scientists.

Let me guess Mutt, somehow Theon is not going to be a credible scientist for you... right?

Knee jerk idiot. Your guy says.

Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy,” he added.

Mott says...

I'm capable of drawing my own conclusions and those are that a great deal more research on ACC needs to be done to establish a causal mechanism(s) before any significant public policy can be implemented, if we expect those policies to be affective.

 

[Timshel]

The fact is that I think tinfoil may have a more defendable position than SF and StubbornResistanceToFacts. You two are not COMPLETELY closed off to what people are saying.

Ears and mind open, mouths shut. That is the key to understanding, learning and building some sort of POLITICAL consensus that is rational and broad based. Foam at the mouth all you want. It achieves nothing.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Read what Tom quoted and I repeated in quotes.

So basically you make a comment on what I posted and when I ask for an actual explanation rather than your 'I can do math' answer, your response is to tell me to read someone else's post?

 

[Timshel]

So basically you make a comment on what I posted and when I ask for an actual explanation rather than your 'I can do math' answer, your response is to tell me to read someone else's post?

Post #41. It is one up from what you just quoted. Second quote. That is from Tom's source.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Knee jerk idiot. Your guy says.
Mott says...

Dear Douche bag... Taking one sentence out of everything I quoted? Seriously? When you decide to grow up and discuss what I post, do let me know.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Post #41. It is one up from what you just quoted. Second quote. That is from Tom's source.

Dear douche bag... again... try responding to what I posted. I understand the quotes are from Tom's source. Now, again... are you able to sit back and say that those Scientists are agreeing that man is the primary cause of global warming?

Or are you just going to resort to posting nonsense?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Knee jerk idiot. Your guy says.

The following is the FULL QUOTE that I posted...

Theon declared “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” Theon explained. “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy,” he added.

WHY did you cherry pick just the last line String? I even bolded the portions that I thought were in disagreement with Mutts comments. Yet you didn't include them at all. WHY?

LMAO... and you call me a knee jerk idiot. You dumbass.

 

[Timshel]

Dear douche bag... again... try responding to what I posted. I understand the quotes are from Tom's source. Now, again... are you able to sit back and say that those Scientists are agreeing that man is the primary cause of global warming?

Or are you just going to resort to posting nonsense?

Here is the quote again, maybe Tom's emphasis is confusing you.

Worse still, he misrepresents the claims of that paper (he implies the 97% believe CO2 will cause major climate change in the coming decades, while Anderegg et al say 97% agree that most of the warming of the 20th C was very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases – two very different statements).

Dear douchebag,

Please explain what it is you are not getting or what word you are trying to parse? I DO NOT care about your semantice games. YOU challenged my comments and demanded that I read this thread. Done! Now what? It does not change anything I have said and I don't see where it contrradicts what I said. It does answer your question, which was...

Do explain how you think the above are all agreeing that Man is the primary cause of the warming?

Moving on...

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Here is the quote again, maybe Tom's emphasis is confusing you.

Again dumbass... that has nothing to do with my posts...

Again dumbass... why did you cherry pick one sentence from the paragraph of that indivdiual

Again dumbass... what I posted does indeed refute the stupidity of the consensus crowd

Again dumbass... if you want to discuss what I posted, quit referring to what Tom posted. What I posted contradicts the crap Brent posted on the other thread. It was Brent I told to come here and check it out. You then butted in and I invited you to check it out as well. You then asked for me to narrow it down for you so that we could discuss. I did. You then pulled this crap of talking about a line from Tom's post that is not relevant to what I posted.

Again dumbass... it is a myth/religious belief that man is the primary cause of global warming. Which is why, as the people I quoted pointed out (and you ignored), stated just that.

Please explain what it is you are not getting or what word you are trying to parse? I DO NOT care about your semantice games. YOU challenged my comments and demanded that I read this thread. Done! Now what? It does not change anything I have said and I don't see where it contrradicts what I said. It does answer your question, which was...

Dear douche bag... I am not playing word games. I am quoting directly from Scientists who are clearly stating that the AGW crowd is full of shit. You continue to ignore what they have stated and pretend it is not there. Very similar to how the AGW religious nutjobs tend to respond.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Read what? I have. I don't see what you see. It seems that most are agreed that global warming is happening and that we are a main cause. Apparently, you think some bullshit semantic nitpicking over what this word means or that word means will change the data.

1 = 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3
1/3 = 1/3

That's math bitches, deal with it.

This is your bullshit after I stated bump for Brent.

The data does not support you. That is what you would have found out had you actually bothered reading what I posted. But you instead prefer to toss your little tantrum. Again... very typical of the AGW religious fanatics.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

But the credibility of these computer model predictions took a significant hit in June 2007 when Dr. Jim Renwick, a top UN IPCC scientist, admitted that climate models do not account for half the variability in nature and thus are not reliable. "Half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don’t expect to do terrifically well," Renwick conceded. (LINK)

Theon declared “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” Theon explained. “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy,” he added.

Award-winning NASA Astronaut and Physicist Walter Cunningham of NASA’s Apollo 7 also recently chastised Hansen. “Hansen is a political activist who spreads fear even when NASA’s own data contradict him,” Cunningham wrote in an essay in the July/August 2008 issue of Launch Magazine. “NASA should be at the forefront in the collection of scientific evidence and debunking the current hysteria over human-caused, or Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Unfortunately, it is becoming just another agency caught up in the politics of global warming, or worse, politicized science,” Cunningham wrote.

IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr Vincent Gray, of New Zealand, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001," declared “The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense” in an April 10, 2007 article. (LINK)

“All [UN IPCC does] is make ‘projections’ and ‘estimates’. No climate model has ever been properly tested, which is what ‘validation’ means, and their ‘projections’ are nothing more than the opinions of ‘experts’ with a conflict of interest, because they are paid to produce the models. There is no actual scientific evidence for all these ‘projections’ and ‘estimates,'” Gray noted.

Many prominent scientists have spoken out in 2007 to debunk many fears relating to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball recently explained that one of the reasons climate models are failing is because they overestimate the warming effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. Ball described how CO2’s warming impact diminishes. “Even if CO2 concentration doubles or triples, the effect on temperature would be minimal. The relationship between temperature and CO2 is like painting a window black to block sunlight. The first coat blocks most of the light. Second and third coats reduce very little more. Current CO2 levels are like the first coat of black paint,” Ball explained in a June 6, 2007 article in Canada Free Press. (LINK)

Boston College paleoclimatologist Dr. Amy Frappier recently explained how carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can cease to have a warming impact. Frappier noted in a February 1, 2007 article in Boston College’s newspaper The Heights, that greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere do not consistently continue to have a warming effect on Earth, but the impact of the gases instead stabilize and cease having a warming effect.

"At some point the heat-trapping capacity of [CO2] and its effect gets saturated," said Frappier, "and you don't have increased heating." (LINK) "The geologic record shows that many millions of years ago, CO2 levels were indeed higher - in some cases many times higher - than today," Frappier, who believes mankind is having an impact on the climate, explained. According the article, Frappier criticizes Gore because “the movie (An Inconvenient Truth) fails to mention any ancient incongruity between carbon dioxide and temperature.

Do explain how you think the above are all agreeing that Man is the primary cause of the warming?

 

[Rune]

Big oil finds another 300 scientists to bribe... right Mutt?http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8

Seriously? 35,000 scientists work for Exxon alone.

 

[Timshel]

SF

You are relying on a strawman argument. I have not defended the IPCC. I do not care to. NOTHING in your numerous quotes which YOU cherry picked does anything to answer YOUR question, refute Mott or what brent stated in the other thread. Let's review what YOU asked, aaaaaagain.

Do explain how you think the above are all agreeing that Man is the primary cause of the warming?

Again, your cherrypicked bs does not answer either way. So, here is the answer from THIS thread.

Worse still, he misrepresents the claims of that paper (he implies the 97% believe CO2 will cause major climate change in the coming decades, while Anderegg et al say 97% agree that most of the warming of the 20th C was very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases – two very different statements).

You have not provided a damn thing to refute Mott. You are apparently jumping to conclusions and assuming that he must believe that we should implement Kyoto tomorrow, though he VERY CLEARLY stated otherwise. That is what will happen when you use a strawman and split hairs. Again, nobody went for the statment that the IPCC or whatever else you want to quote, was 100% accurate. The point of this thread was what the 97% said and therefore what is the consensus. Tom answered. The consensus is.
...

most of the warming of the 20th C was very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases

And finally here is what I said and you tried to challenge but failed miserably with irrelevant quotes.

Read what? I have. I don't see what you see. It seems that most are agreed that global warming is happening and that we are a main cause.

 

[Timshel]

This is your bullshit after I stated bump for Brent.

The data does not support you. That is what you would have found out had you actually bothered reading what I posted. But you instead prefer to toss your little tantrum. Again... very typical of the AGW religious fanatics.

You are the one throwing the tantrum dumbass douchebag.

The data says EXACTLY what I said.

Worse still, he misrepresents the claims of that paper (he implies the 97% believe CO2 will cause major climate change in the coming decades, while Anderegg et al say 97% agree that most of the warming of the 20th C was very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases – two very different statements).

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You are relying on a strawman argument. I have not defended the IPCC. I do not care to. NOTHING in your numerous quotes which YOU cherry picked does anything to answer YOUR question, refute Mott or what brent stated in the other thread. Let's review what YOU asked, aaaaaagain.

The only one creating a straw man is you. I did not state you were defending the IPCC, not once. I have debunked Mutts stupid consensus claim over and over again. You continue to ignore it and instead continue throwing up your straw man.

Again, your cherrypicked bs does not answer either way. So, here is the answer from THIS thread.

Dear douche bag... I pulled quotes from professionals who disagree with the consensus. That is how you debunk someone who shouts consensus. That is what I did. The fact that you aren't intelligent enough to comprehend it, even when it is reposted several times for you shows that you simply want to be a monkey throwing poo.

You have not provided a damn thing to refute Mott.

Actually, I have. You simply refuse to read it or comment on it. Post 54 is a recap... I am not posting it again.

You are apparently jumping to conclusions and assuming that he must believe that we should implement Kyoto tomorrow, though he VERY CLEARLY stated otherwise. That is what will happen when you use a strawman and split hairs.

This is quite funny as the above is yet another straw man from you.

Again, nobody went for the statment that the IPCC or whatever else you want to quote, was 100% accurate.

Again douche bag, the above is a strawman from you. I never once stated that the 97% quote was or was not accurate, nor did I say anyone else did. Not once.

The point of this thread was what the 97% said and therefore what is the consensus. Tom answered. The consensus is.

If you are going to jump in the middle of what I was saying to Mutt, then at least have the courtesy to understand what was said. Otherwise do shut the fuck up.

I was not commenting to Mutt on the OP. I was commenting on the absurdity of a scientist (Mutt) trying to proclaim a consensus was there. Hence (again) the numerous quotes from professionals who disagreed with the so-called 'consensus'.

And finally here is what I said and you tried to challenge but failed miserably with irrelevant quotes.

dear douchebag... AGAIN... I never 'challenged' that one phrase you keep cherry picking. I agree that the 97% quote is bogus as it is used. Why would I try to challenge that? I challenged his stupid claim that there is a consensus.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Read what? I have. I don't see what you see. It seems that most are agreed that global warming is happening and that we are a main cause. Apparently, you think some bullshit semantic nitpicking over what this word means or that word means will change the data.

1 = 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3
1/3 = 1/3

That's math bitches, deal with it.

Once again String, the above was your nonsense. You proclaim that 'most are agreed' man is causing global warming. You proclaim you saw nothing else. Despite the fact that I showed a lot of evidence to the contrary. Not once did I talk about the 97% comment. Yet you seem to want to pretend I did.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I am a douche bag and will continue to refuse to read what you are actually writing.

I figured as much.