Greenpeace Founder: Climate Change Is Bogus

jahbrudda

jahbrudda

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
where did 67% say there was no consensus?
Click to expand...
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.
66.4%+0.7%+0.3%=67.4%
>67% do NOT support AGW
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
jahbrudda said:
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.
66.4%+0.7%+0.3%=67.4%
>67% do NOT support AGW
Click to expand...
but they dont agree with bucky so those 67.4% dont count

only the 32.6% that support his assumptions are reliable.
 
Sand4x105

Sand4x105

Well-Known Member
Sand4x105 said:
You might be interested in:

The period of "Global Cooling" [we are now in, is almost as long as the last "Global Warming" period...

http://blog.heartland.org/2014/03/the-period-of-no-global-warming-will-soon-be-longer-than-the-period-of-actual-global-warming/
Click to expand...
Quote from article:

If you look at the record of global temperature data, you will find that the late 20th Century period of global warming actually lasted about 20 years, from the late 1970s to the late 1990s. Before that, the globe was dominated by about 30 years of global cooling, giving rise in the 1970s to media discussions of the return of the Little Ice Age (circa 1450 to 1850), or worse.But the record of satellite measurements of global atmospheric temperatures now shows no warming for at least 17 years and 5 months, from September, 1996 to January, 2014. That is surely 17 years and 6 months now, accounting for February.
When the period of no global warming began, the alarmist global warming establishment responded that even several years of temperature data does not establish a climate trend. That takes much longer. But when the period of no global warming gets longer than the period of actual global warming, what is the climate trend then?
Click to expand...
 
B

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
how is taking no stance on AGW a denial of AGW?
Click to expand...
Good point.

But what makes you consider it an endorsement?

You throw out the majority because they don't point a finger either way. You then only look at the ones who take a stance, which the majority, vast majority, say is man made.

But it is still the truth that MOST of the scientists from the source GodHere provided are undecided.
 
jahbrudda

jahbrudda

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
but they dont agree with bucky so those 67.4% dont count

only the 32.6% that support his assumptions are reliable.
Click to expand...
I love it that their own "empirical evidence" came to bit them in the ass, Godhere and Buck were quick to scream moron and idiot to anyone that disagreed.

Sand4x105 said:
You might be interested in:

The period of "Global Cooling" [we are now in, is almost as long as the last "Global Warming" period...

http://blog.heartland.org/2014/03/the-period-of-no-global-warming-will-soon-be-longer-than-the-period-of-actual-global-warming/
Click to expand...
This is an excellent article, but the Heartland Institute is attacked repeatedly by the alarmists in the media and here(marching orders)
 
jahbrudda

jahbrudda

Well-Known Member
BigNBushy said:
Good point.

But what makes you consider it an endorsement?

You throw out the majority because they don't point a finger either way. You then only look at the ones who take a stance, which the majority, vast majority, say is man made.

But it is still the truth that MOST of the scientists from the source GodHere provided are undecided.
Click to expand...
And it all depends on how you word it.
66.4 took a stance saying the science isn't settled.
 
Sand4x105

Sand4x105

Well-Known Member
I am starting to worry about a lengthening time of global cooling...

Britain’s Met Office, an international cheerleading headquarters for global warming hysteria, conceded in December, 2012 that there would be no further warming at least through 2017, which would make 21 years with no global warming.
Click to expand...
 
Sand4x105

Sand4x105

Well-Known Member
The science behind all of this is thoroughly explained in the 1200 pages of Climate Change Reconsidered II, authored by 50 top scientists organized into the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), and published by the Heartland Institute in Chicago. You will want to own this volume (or just the summary) if for no other reason than that it says here that future generations of scientists will look back and say this is the moment when we took the political out of the political science of “climate change,” and this is how we did it. Real scientists know that these 50 co-authors are real scientists. That is transparent from the tenor of the report itself.
The publication (PDF) is “double peer reviewed,” in that it discusses thousands of peer reviewed articles published in scientific journals, and is itself peer reviewed. That is in sharp contrast to President Obama’s own EPA, which issued its “endangerment finding” legally authorizing regulation of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, without submitting the finding to its own peer review board, as required by federal law. What were they so afraid of if 97% of scientists supposedly agree with them?
 
Pinworm

Pinworm

Well-Known Member
Sand4x105 said:
The science behind all of this is thoroughly explained in the 1200 pages of Climate Change Reconsidered II, authored by 50 top scientists organized into the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), and published by the Heartland Institute in Chicago. You will want to own this volume (or just the summary) if for no other reason than that it says here that future generations of scientists will look back and say this is the moment when we took the political out of the political science of “climate change,” and this is how we did it. Real scientists know that these 50 co-authors are real scientists. That is transparent from the tenor of the report itself.
The publication (PDF) is “double peer reviewed,” in that it discusses thousands of peer reviewed articles published in scientific journals, and is itself peer reviewed. That is in sharp contrast to President Obama’s own EPA, which issued its “endangerment finding” legally authorizing regulation of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, without submitting the finding to its own peer review board, as required by federal law. What were they so afraid of if 97% of scientists supposedly agree with them?
Click to expand...
No one can read your tiny penis font.
 
MuyLocoNC

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
Kid's released from school early again due to freezing temperatures and black ice. When the fuck is that global warming going to kick in? Plus, it's so much cheaper to cool the house than heat it. More global warming please.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
What happened to the days of making your kids go to school even if it snowed 40 inches and was 30 below zero out?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top