Since you’re now listening to experts in the field, how about listening to the other 95%?
2 Likes
UPDATE. And here come the idiots:
We are saddened by the massive earthquake & tsunami in #Indonesia. Its time to realize that #climatechange & #globalwarming are real. We need to do something about it before it’s too late to do anything about it. #Krakatoa #Tsunami pic.twitter.com/5Uw6OiqWB1
— IndiaGreenWild (@IndiaGreenWild) December 23, 2018
1 Like
I thought the magic number was 97%, you know, the same 97% Stalin was voted in on election after election and just as credible.
The original 97% figure came from a university student in the USA who with the help of his lecturer sent out over 10,300 surveys on climate change to institutions across America, They received 4,237 replies, this was whittled down to 79 that they found acceptable of which 77 agreed with the viewpoint of the lecuterer and that children is how we got 97%.
1 Like
Source?
Since, you know, you suddenly consider NASA reputable again.
1 Like
Are you ignoring emailgate?
Kevin Trenberth in an email to Phil Jones in 2006 wrote, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
Trenberth stated the “missing heat” was around the equator, disproved.
The missing heat is in the troposphere, disproved by millions of weather balloons.
Suddenly the missing heat was 700 metres deep in the ocean.
And this is the type of scientist you put your faith in.
Phil Jones retired as head of the CRU when the torch was put to him rather than answer questions about the scandal.
1 Like
Well your ignoring 121,364 other papers on the subject.
2 Likes
Mmm. Mmm. Do go on.
And exactly how many of those 121,364 papers were written under duress?
Conform to the establishment view at James Cook University or you will be sacked as were Bob Carter and Peter Ridd.
You are ignoring the 30,000 scientists, 9,000 of who have PHD’s who have had the courage to sign a petition to the effect the Global Warming is a crock at the risk of losing their jobs.
Seven.
You obviously don’t know the difference between NASA and the embarrassment that is GISS that operate using the NASA label to give themselves some credibility.
Honestly, I don’t.
Are they the people who go to airports on hot days and take photos of ice cream trucks, or are they against or ambivalent to that sort of thing?
You really are a gullible fool.
At risk of losing their jobs? Spare me.
If anyone had any, and I mean even a loose hypothesis that cast any tanglible doubt over ACC or CC in general, they would make millions, and I mean millions of dollars from external companies to get that data out there.
But no, you reckon they all want to hang onto their 70k US p/a jobs to keep up the hoax?
This is what your busted mind fails to understand. Unlike you, the scientific method has no bias. There is only science, and if the science exists to change a consensus and the data is sound, then it is reviewed, replicated and then that becomes the new consensus.
As for that petition, everyone knows it was about as noteworthy as a list of 30,000 names of people who signed up for hawthorn memberships
Only 12 percent of them even had a degree in earth or atmos science, most of them weren’t even scientists at all. The whole thing was a set up by Fredrik Seitz, who’s previous work includes “smoking doesn’t cause cancer”
He is a ■■■■■■■■■■■■ of a human being who is thankfully now burning in the fires of hell.
You fell for that?
Get out of here, seriously.
10 Likes
Confirmation bias is powerful. People will look for anything, however obscure to validate their beliefs, rather than change their opinion or admit they are wrong.
Which is actually why they shouldn’t talk about anything relating to science.
3 Likes
Cognitive stupidense.
2 Likes
Most of the below material was written 4 or 5 yrs ago by scientists. My understanding is nothing has changed and the trend toward a Grand Solar Minimum is increasing being more probable. The next 18 months will see it either proven or not based on solar activity. Some of the contributors to this thread would do well to get some balance in their views by reading and understanding what these people are saying:
According to Desmog, Principia Scientific International (PSI) is an organization based in the United Kingdom which promotes fringe views and material to claim that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas. PSI was formed in 2010 around the time they published their first book, titled Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory. Our review of the website reveals a climate denial website that promotes climate change as a grand conspiracy with scientists “fudging” data. Overall, this is a pseudoscience website. (D. Van Zandt 7/18/2017)
5 Likes
And some of you would do well to try and understand how the scientific method works
1 Like
I have a balanced view IMO, yes humans have increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere, yea it may have marginally increased average global temperatures.
Should we limit our use of fossil fuels… yes completely agreed, but for a different reason than most of you. My reason is that carbon based fuels are a finite resource, so our reliance logically should be greatly reduced makes perfect sense. I don’t think CO2 is a poison either, it is in fact needed for life on earth to exist !!!
I also think that the information the public is getting from “climate change scientists” completely ignores the fact that solar activity maximums and minimums greatly impact global temperatures. Until such time as solar activity is included in climate models they are meaningless.
Just saying, I read this threat all the time, am interested in other views and do a lot of independent research, but admit I am no scientist.
You may also note I have not attacked anyone at a personal level who has a differing view to mine, which regrettibly can’t be said for many of you.
3 Likes
But why do you think the scientists haven’t considered the sun and it’s impact?
The answer is they have and their resulting viewpoint is the balanced one.
2 Likes