Lets talk about another Climate Change Hoax Exposed in Australia...

[Julius Skrrvin]

 

[Hiphoplives4eva]

This is the last 2000 years. You can clearly see the Earth heats and cools. I don't believe cars and fossil fuel plants were around in the Medieval Warm Period yet it was hotter then than it is now.

How about the last 425K years for a better time frame reference. You can see we are in the 'Warmer' part of the cycle and as the cycle goes, cooling will come next.

took the words right out of my mouth. I'm at work now so couldn't post the info, but i'm glad your bringing reason to the thread...

 

[Hiphoplives4eva]

No one is agianst green cars, renewables, sustainibility, and all that other good stuff. Hell I have a Prius for christ sakes. What i'm against is FEAR MONGERING, guilt trips, and new taxes forced on the world courtesy of the world bank. Something you and your ilk have a huge problem understanding.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Its funny how you came in here attempting to direct the thread with fukking questions, when you COMPLETELY ignored the OP. So until you reread the OP and comment on that fukk up, i'm not answering shyt. You aint running shyt friend.

Cause you CANT answer the shyt.

I find it funny you're touting the oil companie's rhetoric here.

but whatever. I'm sure that BP check is FAT.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

No one is agianst green cars, renewables, sustainibility, and all that other good stuff. Hell I have a Prius for christ sakes.

oh ok.

What i'm is FEAR MONGERING, guilt trips, and new taxes forced on the world courtesy of the world bank. Something you and your ilk have a huge problem understanding.

So whats your solution?

 

[acri1]

It never ceases to amaze me how over 97% of climate scientists agree that this is real, or how Intergovernmental panels are 95% confident that climate change over the last 60 years is man-made, but that's not good enough for some people. Because it's some sort of vast global conspiracy that 90% of the world's scientists are in on.

Then the same people will turn around and suggest that FOX News or some crackpot with a blog proves all the peer-reviewed studies wrong.

But I guess it's not really about science, it's about politics. Gonna be sad when 50 years from now our grandkids are asking up why we screwed up the planet.

 

[The Real]

No one is agianst green cars, renewables, sustainibility, and all that other good stuff. Hell I have a Prius for christ sakes. What i'm is FEAR MONGERING, guilt trips, and new taxes forced on the world courtesy of the world bank. Something you and your ilk have a huge problem understanding.

The climate-change denialist movement is bankrolled by people who are explicitly against those things. There's a lot of money to be made by denying both climate change and green ideas in general, mostly by established corporations who thrive on environmentally unfriendly and destructive business.

 

[Dr. Sebi Jr.]

Because it's some sort of vast global conspiracy that 90% of the world's scientists are in on.

They are also responsible for faking dinosaur bones, painting every person in old artwork white, and extracting melanin from our PINEAL GLANDS when we are not looking.

 

[Serious]

this never gets old....

 

[Slang]

It never ceases to amaze me how over 97% of climate scientists agree that this is real, or how Intergovernmental panels are 95% confident that climate change over the last 60 years is man-made, but that's not good enough for some people. Because it's some sort of vast global conspiracy that 90% of the world's scientists are in on.

Then the same people will turn around and suggest that FOX News or some crackpot with a blog proves all the peer-reviewed studies wrong.

But I guess it's not really about science, it's about politics. Gonna be sad when 50 years from now our grandkids are asking up why we screwed up the planet.

Remember the rumors about charging you for the air you breath?

 

[Hiphoplives4eva]

It never ceases to amaze me how over 97% of climate scientists agree that this is real, or how Intergovernmental panels are 95% confident that climate change over the last 60 years is man-made, but that's not good enough for some people. Because it's some sort of vast global conspiracy that 90% of the world's scientists are in on.

Then the same people will turn around and suggest that FOX News or some crackpot with a blog proves all the peer-reviewed studies wrong.

But I guess it's not really about science, it's about politics. Gonna be sad when 50 years from now our grandkids are asking up why we screwed up the planet.

Nice. From your first article you quoted:

We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

So of this meta analysis that you posted, 32% of scientists endorsed the concept of global warning. And 66% EXPRESSED no position. (I wonder why...) Which in turn means that most scientists are either against or undecided. The 32% that have endorsed the concept of global warming are now being conflated with the 66% that have no position to create the whole "overwhelming majority of scientists" meme that you negroes parrot over and over again.

Like i've said previously, climate change is occurring and is definitely real. The jury is still out on weather its still man made, something that you've unwittingly proven here in this thread. Thank you.

 

[acri1]

Nice. From your first article you quoted:



So of this meta analysis that you posted, 32% of scientists endorsed the concept of global warning. And 66% EXPRESSED no position. (I wonder why...) Which in turn means that most scientists are either against or undecided. The 32% that have endorsed the concept of global warming are now being conflated with the 66% that have no position to create the whole "overwhelming majority of scientists" meme that you negroes parrot over and over again.

Like i've said previously, climate change is occurring and is definitely real. The jury is still out on weather its still man made, something that you've unwittingly proven here in this thread. Thank you.

You can be serious. These are abstracts, not opinion polls.

The fact that a lot of the abstracts didn't contain the authors' opinions on AGW doesn't mean that they have "no position" on it, only that it wasn't expressed in the paper.

And also, you just gonna ignore the rest of it?

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

I guess the fact that a HUGE majority of papers actually expressing an opinion endorsed AGW is just a coincidence.

 

[Hiphoplives4eva]

You can be serious. These are abstracts, not opinion polls.

The fact that a lot of the abstracts didn't contain the authors' opinions on AGW doesn't mean that they have "no position" on it, only that it wasn't expressed in the paper.

And also, you just gonna ignore the rest of it?



I guess the fact that a HUGE majority of papers actually expressing an opinion endorsed AGW is just a coincidence.

The fact still stands that the majority of abstracts have no position on AGW. I think that's obvious 97% of 33% is still a minority breh.

 

[The Real]

You can be serious. These are abstracts, not opinion polls.

The fact that a lot of the abstracts didn't contain the authors' opinions on AGW doesn't mean that they have "no position" on it, only that it wasn't expressed in the paper.

And also, you just gonna ignore the rest of it?



I guess the fact that a HUGE majority of papers actually expressing an opinion endorsed AGW is just a coincidence.

The other thing is that it's not a poll of all scientists, it's a study of papers from the early 90s to now. Some of the scientists could have changed their opinions, the consensus could have become overwhelming in the last few years, etc, and none of that would show in the stat about the undecided vs decided, etc. The percentages aren't of scientists...

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

@Ill you have no idea how horribly misinformed and in the dark you are. I don't even have time to address every single distortion, half-truth, and half ass pseudo "skeptical" and oil-industry-concocted talking point you've espoused here. But you obviously have not even researched or grasped what climate change is about, and I'm pretty sure you probably got your info from some bullshyt ass libertarian bloggers and sites that are scientifically illiterate and hide behind a veneer of mere skepticism, which you uncritically parroted here. I've read every single one of these asinine talking points you've mentally copy/pasted here and debunked every single one of them several times over already on sohh. It's sad that 4 or 5 years later, this exercise is still necessary.

First, you start off erroneously claiming that there is equal science for "both sides" of this debate, which isn't even a debate amongst scientists and hasn't been for years. Then you attempt to cast aspersions on the idea of anthropogenic global warming by saying it's a fraud perpetuated by Al Gore. Like there wasn't a strong scientific consensus on AGW since before Al Gore started making an issue of it, that has grown even stronger since then.

Let's just ignore that 98% of climatologists conclude that AWG is real, as strong of a consensus that you'll get on the existence of any causal process in science, it's just Al Gore. http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/evidence-for-a-consensus-on-climate-change/?_r=0

Let's just ignore 34 scientific academies and societies in the world, everyone worth their salt, say AWG is real, it's just Al Gore.

Then you go on to cite the bullshyt claim about 30,000 scientists who are supposedly suing Al Gore over climate change, a ridiculous hoax that climate change deniers moved off of years ago. You were late getting the memo. This mythical 30,000 "scientists" that were going to sue Al Gore was a fraudulent claim made by some guy named John Coleman, which was nothing more than a list some professor made in 1998, falsely claiming it came from the National Academy of Sciences, where he got a bunch of people to sign a petition against global warming. The "scientists" on the list were actually just people who had at least a bachelors in Science. So some 22 year old with a B.S. in nutrition could've just signed a piece of paper they received and supposedly this is an endorsement of a "scientist." And many of the names on the list were found out to be people who were dead people who don't exist, Star Wars characters, members of the Spice Girls, and other made-up people. The names on the list were never authenticated or verified. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

But it gets worse for you...you embarrass yourself more. Now who was the person who issued that petition you might ask? The same person who you then post an article--not a peer-reviewed scientific journal--but a flimsy data-devoid opinion piece article--from in your next post. And that person is Frederick Seitz. This man.

Now who is Frederick Seitz? He is the physicist consultant HIRED BY THE TOBACCO COMPANIES TO HEAD THEIR MEDICAL RESEARCH COMMITTEE TO LIE ABOUT THE HEALTH EFFECTS OF SMOKING! This is with whom you place your faith?

There is a clear consensus among scientists on global warming. http://www.theguardian.com/environm.../may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange Because one can search the ends of the Earth to find a handful of scientists who claim they still remain skeptical does not change that just like because you can find a few of crackpots like Peter Duesberg, the biologist who think AIDS is caused by behavior and environmental conditions doesn't change the scientific consensus that AIDS is caused by HIV.

Now that we've established that your "both sides have equal evidence" false equivalency is rubbish, we'll move on from scientific opinion to the actual science itself. But I gotta give my dog his medicine and bath and some other shyt around the house. I'll be back a little while later....