Since your computer only gets you stuff from 2007 and before here is something a bit more recent. Google is amazing. The first 50 links that came up are from the last 3 years and discuss the "consensus" or agreement among climate scientists on the issue.
And in the case you are too dense to get the quotations. I never said anything about consensus and neither would any climate scientist. That is something deniers made up to try and divert the real argument.
Posty Poster wrote:
And in the case you are too dense to get the quotations. I never said anything about consensus and neither would any climate scientist. That is something deniers made up to try and divert the real argument.
“The ‘97% consensus’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it.”
– Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)
Everything is fine. We should continue with a global infrastructure based on fossil fuels. They are an infinite resource.
Fcuking climate change fags. Pah!
jjjjjj wrote:
Why don't we get some actual climate scientists to comment? 97% of them agree that there is global warming.
The 97% claim was thoroughly debunked in the article above.
eh!? wrote:
global warming = astrology wrote:He has spent several years studying the field. It's not difficult to spot sh|tty science in a different field. It's about the theory, the methods, and the validity of predictions (among other). And this guy is not dependent on liberal governments or NGOs that profit from the AGW scam.
America is probably the only developed western democracy with global warming deniers. You should build a roof over the entire country and declare it the biggest mental institution in the world.
What's funny about this is that the rest of the world has essentially already built that roof in their minds.
UFO Expert wrote:
No, I got it wrote:So says the PMSNBC fan boy.
So says the Fox News fan boy.
I'm just asking the question: The earth continually getting hotter isn't a problem?
A much more basic, fundamental question that has never - and will never - be answered is what should the average temperature be on Earth? I mean, what are we shooting for here? Is the optimum temp 63 or 82? Or maybe 71? After this is answered, THEN we can begin answering questions like yours, because we'd have a point of reference and a clear objective.
Are the polar ice caps melting? If so does this indicate climate change?
Inconvenient facts wrote:
Posty Poster wrote:So why is this guy so special? The bulk of other scientists say differently. Would you say that if a scientist is dependent on an entity that has a reason to deny global warming then they would be wrong? Please, please, please answer this question. The reply will be fun.
Because "the bulk of others scientist" is a false claim.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/consensus.pdfAbstract
It is often said that there is a scientific “consensus” to the effect that climate change will be “catastrophic” and that, on this question, “the debate is over”. The present paper will demonstrate that the claim of unanimous scientific “consensus” was false, and known to be false, when it was first made; that the trend of opinion in the peer-reviewed journals and even in the UN’s reports on climate is moving rapidly away from alarmism; that, among climate scientists, the debate on the causes and extent of climate change is by no means over; and that the evidence in the peer-reviewed literature conclusively demonstrates that, to the extent that there is a “consensus”, that “consensus” does not endorse the notion of “catastrophic” climate change.
Here's a summary of the article:
Brenchley’s paper goes on to cite the origin of the claim that global warming has universal consensus among the scientific community, when in fact, there never was consensus. His paper also addresses a more serious issue at hand here. The issue of fraud being perpetuated by some in the scientific community and by the journal Science specifically.
The claim of “consensus” can be traced back to an article in the journal Science entitled “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change” by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian who lacked qualifications in climatology. In her essay (not a scientific peer-reviewed paper) published in 2004, she analyzed 928 abstracts published in peer-reviewed science journals between 1993 and 2003, using the key words “climate change”.
She concluded that 75% of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the “consensus” view; 25% took no position, being concerned with palaeoclimate rather than today’s climate; and –“Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. … This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect. … Our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it. … There is a consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.”
A lot of heavy stuff coming from one essay, however, when true scientific scrutiny was applied to her essay, it turns out it was bunk. After all, replication of scientific findings is the hallmark of science.
Benchley goes on to cite an attempt to replicate Oreskes study by Dr Benny Peiser, of Liverpool John Moores University in the UK. He found that using the search words “climate change” in the ISI Web of Science database, there were over 12,000 papers (from 1993 to 2003) not the 928 as Oreskes claimed. When he notified Science of his findings, the editors backpedaled and said that her search was based on “global climate change” not “climate change”.
Peiser then changed his search to “global climate change” which yielded 1117 documents, 929 articles and 905 abstracts. Among the many conflicting conclusions Peiser found was that fewer than 33% of the articles either explicitly or implicitly endorsed the “consensus” as defined by Oreskes (not the 75% that she claimed), and that more than HALF of the 905 abstracts didn’t mention anthropogenic climate change at all! Only 13 of the 1117 documents explicitly agreed with Oreskes own definition of “consensus.” That’s only 1%!
Dr Peiser wrote Science with his findings pointing out the many holes in Oreskes findings, only to have Science return a letter requesting a shortened version, when he did, they refused to publish it anyway! The editors of Science refused to publish any of the letters they received pointing out the deficiencies in the Oreskes analysis.
The Science and Public Policy Center? The one that's funded by ExxonMobil?
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/28/business/exxon-backs-groups-that-question-global-warming.htmlJust be dat dude wrote:
UFO Expert wrote:So says the Fox News fan boy.
I'm just asking the question: The earth continually getting hotter isn't a problem?
A much more basic, fundamental question that has never - and will never - be answered is what should the average temperature be on Earth? I mean, what are we shooting for here? Is the optimum temp 63 or 82? Or maybe 71? After this is answered, THEN we can begin answering questions like yours, because we'd have a point of reference and a clear objective.
I am wondering if it is possible for anyone to actually be as stupid as you come across with posts like this ^ .
UFO Expert wrote:
No, I got it wrote:So says the PMSNBC fan boy.
So says the Fox News fan boy.
I'm just asking the question: The earth continually getting hotter isn't a problem?
But the Earth ISN'T getting any hotter. The last 2 decades (nearly) the Earth HAS NOT warmed. What we have is this:
1) No warming in nearly 20 years.
2) Repeated lying from these so-called Global "Scientists"
3) A silent directive to adhere to Global Warming nonsense or lose your grant money or funding.
4) And we are to believe in "Global Warming?" LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sally Vixxxxxxens wrote:
But the Earth ISN'T getting any hotter. The last 2 decades (nearly) the Earth HAS NOT warmed. What we have is this:
1) No warming in nearly 20 years.
2) Repeated lying from these so-called Global "Scientists"
3) A silent directive to adhere to Global Warming nonsense or lose your grant money or funding.
4) And we are to believe in "Global Warming?" LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Refute this.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htmNobel Prize-winning president tells physicist to f*ck off.
Jeff Wigand wrote:
Sally Vixxxxxxens wrote:But the Earth ISN'T getting any hotter. The last 2 decades (nearly) the Earth HAS NOT warmed. What we have is this:
1) No warming in nearly 20 years.
2) Repeated lying from these so-called Global "Scientists"
3) A silent directive to adhere to Global Warming nonsense or lose your grant money or funding.
4) And we are to believe in "Global Warming?" LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Refute this.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm
What should I be refuting? You do know that the purported "increases" in Global temps the last few years are DWARFED by the margins of error? By like fivefold. You knew that? AND these Global Warming "scientists" (I am laughing calling them that) have repeatedly lied to us? You know that too?
Sally Vixxxxxxens wrote:
But the Earth ISN'T getting any hotter. The last 2 decades (nearly) the Earth HAS NOT warmed. What we have is this:
1) No warming in nearly 20 years.
2) Repeated lying from these so-called Global "Scientists"
3) A silent directive to adhere to Global Warming nonsense or lose your grant money or funding.
4) And we are to believe in "Global Warming?" LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Only someone bereft of cognitive ability would say that there has been no warming in 20 years. The same kind of dullard that would say that LT had 0 career tackles for loss or that someone had 2 double eagles in a major this year.
Nice.try wrote:
The Nobel Laureate's specialty is physics, and he received the prize for "quantum tunneling." That means he doesn't know sh*t about climate science. Yes, there are sub-specialties in science, and just because one knows a lot about one, doesn't mean they're qualified to comment on another that's far afield from what they do.
The fact that he left the American Physical Society over this, coupled with the comments he made in the article, tells me that he likes to be a contrarian.
Nobells? wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/08/nobel-prize-winning-scientist-says-obama-is-dead-wrong-on-global-warming/He says global warming is a "non-problem."
contrarian = curious scientist who questions the status quo and who favors facts & scientifically proven data. Well we can't have that!
OMFG. Can both sides give it a rest? This is so boring.
Even outside of track, there are more important things to be discussing, like Confederate flags, and ISIS, and the bad Chinese hacking US computers, and so forth.
Hard to believe... I know.
UFO Expert wrote:
I'm just asking the question: The earth continually getting hotter isn't a problem?
It hasn't gotten hotter in 19 years - I think you mean "climate change." But many believe the earth getting slightly warmer would not be a significant problem.
Science is where you formulate a theory to explain observed phenomena. You then look for any evidence which would disprove your theory. If you find any evidence disproving your theory, then the theory must be discarded or changed.
Global Warmists theorize that the Earth is warming but they only look for data supporting their claim while ignoring any data which undermines their claims. They corrupt the peer review process to keep skeptics from publishing papers, and attack anyone who presents contrary evidence while try to destroying their reputations and careers.
Therefore Global Warming is not science. It is junk science.
Global Warming is simultaneously a religion, a mythology, a political movement, and a big business... but it isn't science.
Jeff Wigand wrote:
Sally Vixxxxxxens wrote:But the Earth ISN'T getting any hotter. The last 2 decades (nearly) the Earth HAS NOT warmed. What we have is this:
1) No warming in nearly 20 years.
2) Repeated lying from these so-called Global "Scientists"
3) A silent directive to adhere to Global Warming nonsense or lose your grant money or funding.
4) And we are to believe in "Global Warming?" LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Refute this.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm
Easy. He is just making stuff up. There does not exist any historical deep sea temperature records. The available sea temperature records show no warming at all.