U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Why do 97% of scientific studies agree that climate change is manmade?
1. Consipracy 22 41.51%
2. Scientists are not as smart as average Joe 5 9.43%
3. Scientists don't believe in the bible or the rapture 26 49.06%
Voters: 53. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
Old 05-19-2013, 02:30 AM
Location: Victoria, BC.
31,669 posts, read 32,485,622 times
Reputation: 12961


Originally Posted by Nonarchist View Post
How many researchers have been allowed to publish their research on the climatic affects-effects of HAARP and Chemtrails?

Answer: None
Science does not do research on loony toon nonsense. "Chemtrails" (contrails) are composed mainly of dioxyhydride...Not a bit toxic....

Last edited by sanspeur; 05-19-2013 at 02:38 AM..

Old 05-19-2013, 02:38 AM
3,846 posts, read 2,019,885 times
Reputation: 390
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
Science does not do research on loony toon nonsense.
Oh yeah?

How about all the AGW "research" deliberately eliminating causative co-factors and correlative interplay?

Scientists: Earth

Here! Try having a belt of Van Allen.
Old 05-19-2013, 07:10 AM
13,055 posts, read 11,630,323 times
Reputation: 2608
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
Show me that it is not a fact... We don't even need studies any more, as we can all observe the results of a warming world... Melting glaciers also behind sea-level rise - Times Of India

The 97% consensus – a lie of epic proportions | Watts Up With That?

(Update: some folks aren’t getting the significance of Schollenberger’s findings, using Cook’s own data and code, which have been shown to be replicable at Lucia’s comment thread, Schollenberger finds 65 that say AGW/human caused, but there’s 78 that reject AGW. Cook never reported that finding in the paper, thus becoming a lie of omission, because it blows the conclusion. Combine that with the lack of reporting of the 32.6%/66.1% ratio in Cook’s own blog post and media reports, and we have further lies of omission.)

Remembering AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming, or global warming caused by humans, take a minute to let that sink in. This study done by John Cook and others, praised by the President of the United States, found more scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are primarily to blame for it.

The “consensus” they’re promoting says it is more likely humans have a negligible impact on the planet’s warming than a large one.
Cook’s survey not only meaningless but also misleading « De staat van het klimaat

As you can see the 78 “rejection of AGW” abstracts are the added number of category 5-7. Category 1-3 together adds up to 3932 papers. This 3932 divided by 4010 (the total of category 1-3 + 5-7) gives their impressive 97% (with the above numbers it is even 98%, see * for more explanation about how these numbers were found). However of these 3932 abstracts 2933 (75%) fall in category 3. Now how strong is the endorsement of AGW in this category? Here is the description:
3. Implicit Endorsement of AGW
3.1 Mitigation papers that examine GHG emission reduction or carbon sequestration, linking it to climate change
3.2 Climate modelling papers that talks about emission scenarios and subsequent warming or other climate impacts from increased CO2 in the abstract implicitly endorse that GHGs cause warming
3.3 Paleoclimate papers that link CO2 to climate change
3.4 Papers about climate policy (specifically mitigation of GHG emissions) unless they restrict their focus to non-GHG issues like CFC emissions in which case neutral
3.5 Modelling of increased CO2 effect on regional temperature – not explicitly saying global warming but implying warming from CO2
3.6 Endorsement of IPCC findings is usually an implicit endorsement. (updated this so it is more than just reference to IPCC but actual endorsement of IPCC)
I like 3.2: “endorse that GHG’s cause warming”. I also strongly agree with this part of 3.5: “implying warming from CO2″. The meaningless result of their whole exercise is that 75% of the abstracts that say something about AGW at all “link CO2 to climate change” or “imply warming from CO2″.
The misleading part is that they didn’t specify this result in their paper. Nowhere in their paper or in the supplementary material they even mentioned the total numbers in the different categories like I did in the simple table above. They only showed the total of category 1-3 in their figure 1(a):
Like I said, not fact, simply charlatans playing games. Cook is a liar and manipulator. He should go back to doing cartoons.
Old 05-19-2013, 07:12 AM
13,055 posts, read 11,630,323 times
Reputation: 2608
Originally Posted by JimRom View Post
You do both realize that the fallacy behind the OP has already been exposed, don't you? The entire thread is based on information that was gathered by a blogger who has a known reputation for falsifying information....

There is that, but they have already looked over his novice attempts and shown the lies in his paper already. It is propaganda, plain and simple. Typical from such types.
Old 05-19-2013, 07:15 AM
13,055 posts, read 11,630,323 times
Reputation: 2608
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
The Institute of Physics, is a blogger? Really now....

The narrative presented by some dissenters is that the scientific consensus is '...on the point of collapse' (Oddie 2012) while '...the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year' (Allègre et al 2012). A systematic, comprehensive review of the literature provides quantitative evidence countering this assertion. The number of papers rejecting AGW is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

John Cook is, you know... the idiot who wrote this paper? Seriously, are you that dense?

John Cook1,2,3, Dana Nuccitelli2,4, Sarah A Green5, Mark Richardson6, Bärbel Winkler2, Rob Painting2, Robert Way7, Peter Jacobs8 and Andrew Skuce2,9
Two people known for devious behavior on his site and who have been caught many times falsifying information to promote their agenda.

They are liars, plain and simple, but we all know that a liar in your pocket is considered acceptable right?
Old 05-19-2013, 07:22 AM
13,055 posts, read 11,630,323 times
Reputation: 2608
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
You gotta be kidding....

He has you pegged, which is why you are angry. You know very well that your group can't win this argument in the science, so... you resort to using statistical hokum and appeals to authority to try and get the mob riled to your position. Thing is, that countless manipulation and deceit has bought you a reputation that you can't escape and in the realm of trying to use reputation as a position of authority, being caught in a lie is devastating. Guess you folks will have to return to what you have done in history, "forcing" people to accept your claims. Better get back to trying to ban those guns.
Old 05-19-2013, 07:40 AM
19,991 posts, read 18,085,098 times
Reputation: 11050
Scientists with their hands out who get paid to go along with whatever they're told to say. And unedumacated folks who use that to back their own politically motivated beliefs.
Old 05-19-2013, 07:50 AM
Location: Canada
124 posts, read 123,161 times
Reputation: 74
global warming is a natural occurrence on this planet. it happens every couple thousand years (ie ice age) as a way for the earth to regenerate itself. think of the planet like an immune system. when it gets "sick" it needs to heal. global warming happens for this purpose. humans have sped up this process with pollution and green house gasses. we didn't cause it, but we definitely are speeding up the process.
Old 05-19-2013, 09:45 AM
47,533 posts, read 61,735,306 times
Reputation: 22304
Originally Posted by Icy Tea View Post
Scientists with their hands out who get paid to go along with whatever they're told to say. And unedumacated folks who use that to back their own politically motivated beliefs.
True -- in order to tap in on that huge grant money from the government, they have to do it the way the government insists.

Through that grant money and the big greed, the government controls the research being done and the outcomes.
Old 05-19-2013, 10:56 AM
6,331 posts, read 4,532,461 times
Reputation: 1640
Originally Posted by ellemint View Post
No, the thread is about the fact that very few real scientists (<0.7%) dispute that global warming has man-made causes, and why some lay people don't understand this. It's because there are so many ignorant people with little or no understanding of science.
The typical American knows much more about science than the scientific community?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.

Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top