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.
Many people and scientists are unsupportive of the left's politically driven "climate change" agenda, not because they do not believe the climate is changing, but because they know that it is, that it always has been, and always will be. The very suggestion that we should try to stop the Earth's climate from changing is truly absurd.
When these same people realize that the prescriptions advocated by the left are at the end of the day reduced to the left's standard predictable economic agenda of increased taxes, redistribution of wealth and much more government control with the left presiding, all they can do is laugh. And as well they should.
Many people and scientists are unsupportive of the left's politically driven "climate change" agenda, not because they do not believe the climate is changing, but because they know that it is, that it always has been, and always will be. The very suggestion that we should try to stop the Earth's climate from changing is truly absurd.
When these same people realize that the prescriptions advocated by the left are at the end of the day reduced to the left's standard predictable economic agenda of increased taxes, redistribution of wealth and much more government control with the left presiding, all they can do is laugh. And as well they should.
97% of scientists agree that humans are causing global warming so you might want to look up the definition of "many". But why does this have to be a partisan issue? My husband and I might argue about 'why' the roof is leaking but we fix it anyway. I don't understand how anyone who has children or grandchildren (or plan to) is willing to take a chance, even what they consider a slight chance, that global warming is caused by humans and that we are the only ones who have a chance to slow down or reverse the effects of it.
97% of scientists agree that humans are causing global warming so you might want to look up the definition of "many". But why does this have to be a partisan issue? My husband and I might argue about 'why' the roof is leaking but we fix it anyway. I don't understand how anyone who has children or grandchildren (or plan to) is willing to take a chance, even what they consider a slight chance, that global warming is caused by humans and that we are the only ones who have a chance to slow down or reverse the effects of it.
That is just a flat out lie.
This supposed "consensus" is the thoroughly-debunked result of a survey by grad student Naomi Oreskes, now Prof. of "The History of Science" at Harvard, who reviewed a hand-picked "sample" of global warming articles, then followed-up with an online survey. She sent out 11,000 questionnaires, got back 77 of which 75 agreed that mankind causes the climate to warm. 75/77 is 97%.
A 2013 British study of peer-reviewed papers found that of the 33 percent of papers that had taken a position on global warming, 97 percent endorsed the "consensus" position.
That is where the 97% figure comes from. It is another intentionally misleading representation from the warmists.
Quote:
Where did this 97 percent figure come from? When you explore the lineage of this cliché, it appears about as convincing as a North Korean election.
Most footnotes point to a paper published last year by Prof. John Cook of the University of Queensland, which purported to have reviewed the abstracts of over 11,000 climate science articles. But the abstract of Cook’s paper actually refutes the talking point:
We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW [anthropogenic global warming], 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.
In other words, two-thirds of the articles expressed no opinion about the human causation of climate change, while the one-third that did were twisted by Cook into a simpleminded tautology: Among all the scientists who agree with the “consensus” are all of the scientists who agree with the consensus. Cook, incidentally, refused to share how he and his graduate students coded the 11,000 abstracts, which is reminiscent of the East Anglia cabal and their withholding of tree ring data. But as with the East Anglia group, someone at the University of Queensland left the data on the Internet, where blogger Brandon Shollenberger came across it and starting noting its weaknesses. The predictable happened: The University of Queensland claimed that the data had been hacked, and sent Shollenberger a cease-and-desist letter. Nothing bespeaks confidence and transparency like the threat of lawsuits.
The only real surprise about Cook’s conclusion is that the number wasn’t 100 percent, since a human role in climate change is acknowledged by every single prominent climate skeptic including Pat Michaels, Roy Spencer, John Christy, Freeman Dyson, Judith Curry, and Richard Lindzen.
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.
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.
