“Climate change” is a LIE… Ask… HELLLLO!!!... SCIENTISTS (of all people)!

Ah, chick, you continue to quote mine dead guys.

But why pick someone who claims as he did? Why not pay attention to the vast majority of scientists who found otherwise? I'm sure you have no agenda.

How badly do you not want fresh air and water?

Hello? Republicans? You're the only major political party in the world that denies climate science.

More whining about climate change. Frankly, I'm tired of the endless news articles and people reposting them on Facebook. Not many people are really asking what do we do about climate change? What immediate changes can we, the people, do to reduce enviromnental pollution? It's seems the majority of folks are just sitting around waiting the goverment to do something about it. It will be too late by then.

in a couple of hours, i'm gonna convert a gallon of gasoline into carbon dioxide and spew it into the atmosphere

and there's nothing you can do to stop me!

There's nothing more hilarious than a ship going to study global warming getting stuck in an oceanic field of ice.

exminister said:

How badly do you not want fresh air and water?

Click to expand...

Does that have anything to do with the lie of CAGW? NO, nothing.

Alate_One said:

Hello? Republicans? You're the only major political party in the world that denies climate science.

Click to expand...

Why do you purposely lie?

"The 97% “consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook’s study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it

"The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook’s (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% “consensus” study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook’s study is an embarrassment to science."

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/97_percent_busted.jpg

brewmama said:

Why do you purposely lie?

"The 97% “consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook’s study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it

"The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook’s (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% “consensus” study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook’s study is an embarrassment to science."

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/97_percent_busted.jpg

Click to expand...

Your list was not a list. Gotta list?

brewmama said:

Why do you purposely lie?

"The 97% “consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook’s study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it

"The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook’s (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% “consensus” study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook’s study is an embarrassment to science."

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/97_percent_busted.jpg

Click to expand...

Please provide the scholarly peer reviewed journals you referred to.

Jonahdog said:

Your list was not a list. Gotta list?

Click to expand...

Sorry.

[ Journal Coverage ]

Energy Policy – Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis (October 2014)
Energy Policy – Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: Rejoinder (October 2014)
Science & Education – Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change (August 2013)

[ Media Coverage ]

American Thinker – Climate Consensus Con Game (February 17, 2014)
Breitbart – Obama’s ’97 Percent’ Climate Consensus: Debunked, Demolished, Staked through the heart (September 8, 2014)
Canada Free Press – Sorry, global warmists: The ’97 percent consensus’ is complete fiction (May 27, 2014)
Financial Post – Meaningless consensus on climate change (September 19, 2013)
Financial Post – The 97%: No you don’t have a climate consensus (September 25, 2013)
Forbes – Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring ’97-Percent Consensus’ Claims (May 30, 2013)
Fox News – Balance is not bias — Fox News critics mislead public on climate change (October 16, 2013)
Herald Sun – That 97 per cent claim: four problems with Cook and Obama (May 22, 2013)
Power Line – Breaking: The “97 Percent Climate Consensus” Canard (May 18, 2014)
Spiked – Global warming: the 97% fallacy (May 28, 2014)
The Daily Caller – Where Did ’97 Percent’ Global Warming Consensus Figure Come From? (May 16, 2014)
The Daily Telegraph – 97 per cent of climate activists in the pay of Big Oil shock! (July 23, 2013)
The Guardian – The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up (June 6, 2014)
The New American – Global Warming “Consensus”: Cooking the Books (May 21, 2013)
The New American – Cooking Climate Consensus Data: “97% of Scientists Affirm AGW” Debunked (June 5, 2013)
The New American – Climategate 3.0: Blogger Threatened for Exposing 97% “Consensus” Fraud (May 20, 2014)
The Patriot Post – The 97% Consensus — A Lie of Epic Proportions (May 17, 2013)
The Patriot Post – Debunking the ‘97% Consensus’ & Why Global Cooling May Loom (August 7, 2014)
The Press-Enterprise – Don’t be swayed by climate change ‘consensus’ (September 10, 2013)
The Tampa Tribune – About that ’97 percent’: It ain’t necessarily so (May 19, 2014)
The Wall Street Journal – The Myth of the Climate Change ‘97%’ (May 26, 2014)
Troy Media – Bandwagon psychology root of 97 per cent climate change “consensus” (February 18, 2014)
WND – Black Jesus’ Climate Consensus Fantasy (June 25, 2013)

[ Organization Coverage ]

Competitive Enterprise Institute – Consensus Shmensus (September 5, 2013)
Cornwall Alliance – Climate Consensus? Nonsense! (June 16, 2014)
Friends of Science – Friends of Science Challenge the Cook Study for Bandwagon Fear Mongering on Climate Change and Global Warming (May 21, 2013)
Friends of Science – Only 65 Scientists of 12,000 Make up Alleged 97% on Climate Change and Global Warming Consensus (May 28, 2013)
Friends of Science – 97% Consensus? No! Global Warming Math Myths & Social Proofs (PDF) (February 3, 2014)
Friends of Science – Climate Change Is a Fact of Life, the Science Is Not Settled and 97% Consensus on Global Warming Is a Math Myth (February 4, 2014)
George C. Marshall Institute – The Corruption of Science (October 5, 2014)
John Locke Foundation – The 97% consensus on global warming exposed (July 3, 2014)
Liberty Fund – David Friedman on the 97% Consensus on Global Warming (February 27, 2014)
Global Warming Policy Foundation – Consensus? What Consensus? (PDF) (September 2, 2013)
Global Warming Policy Foundation – Fraud, Bias And Public Relations: The 97% ‘Consensus’ And Its Critics (PDF) (September 8, 2014)
National Center for Policy Analysis – The Big Lie of the “Consensus View” on Global Warming (July 30, 2014)
National Center for Public Policy Research – Do 97% of All Climate Scientists Really Believe Mankind is Causing Catastrophic Global Warming? (February 10, 2014)
Principia Scientific International – Exposed: Academic Fraud in New Climate Science Consensus Claim (May 23, 2013)
The Heartland Institute – What 97 Percent of Climate Scientists Do (May 12, 2014)

[ Weblog Coverage ]

Australian Climate Madness – ‘Get at the truth, and not fool yourself’ (May 29, 2014)
Bishop Hill – ‘Landmark consensus study’ is incomplete (May 27, 2013)
Climate Audit – UnderCooked Statistics (May 24, 2013)
Climate Etc. – The 97% ‘consensus’ (July 26, 2013)
Climate Etc. – The 97% ‘consensus’: Part II (July 27, 2013)
Climate Etc. – The 97% feud (July 27, 2014)
Climate Resistance – Tom Curtis Doesn’t Understand the 97% Paper (July 27, 2013)
JoNova – Cook’s fallacy “97% consensus” study is a marketing ploy some journalists will fall for (May 17, 2013)
JoNova – That’s a 0.3% consensus, not 97% (July 1, 2013)
JoNova – “Honey, I shrunk the consensus” – Monckton takes action on Cooks paper (September 24, 2013)
JoNova – John Cook’s consensus data is so good his Uni will sue you if you discuss it (May 18, 2014)
JoNova – Uni Queensland defends legal threats over “climate” data they want to keep secret (May 21, 2014)
JoNova – Cook scores 97% for incompetence on a meaningless consensus (June 6, 2014)
José Duarte (Ph.D.) – Cooking stove use, housing associations, white males, and the 97% (August 28, 2014)
José Duarte (Ph.D.) – The art of evasion (September 9, 2014)
Making Science Public – What’s behind the battle of received wisdoms? (July 23, 2013)
Popular Technology.net – 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists’ Papers, according to the scientists that published them (May 21, 2013)
Popular Technology.net – The Statistical Destruction of the 97% Consensus (June 1, 2013)
Popular Technology.net – Cook’s 97% Consensus Study Game Plan Revealed (June 4, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – The Consensus Project: An update (August 16, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – Biases in consensus data (August 24, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – More irregularities in the consensus data (August 24, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – Open letter to the Vice-chancellor of the University of Queensland (August 27, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – Bootstrap results for initial ratings by the Consensus Project (August 28, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – The 97% consensus (May 10, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – My First Audioslide (May 20, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – A new contribution to the consensus debate (June 4, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – 24 errors? (June 8, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – More Cook data released (July 21, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – Days of rater bias (July 23, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – Days of rater bias (ctd) July 28, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – Another chapter on the 97% nonsensus (August 1, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – ERL does not want you to read this (October 14, 2014)
The Blackboard – I Do Not Think it Means What You Think it Means (May 15, 2013)
The Blackboard – On the Consensus (May 17, 2013)
The Blackboard – Nir Shaviv: One of the 97% (May 17, 2013)
The Blackboard – Why Symmetry is Bad (May 19, 2013)
The Blackboard – Possible Self-Selection Bias in Cook: Author responses. (May 20, 2013)
The Blackboard – Bias Author Survey: Pro AGW (May 21, 2013)
The Lid – Claim 97% of Climate Scientists Believe In Global Warming is TOTALLY BOGUS! (May 21, 2014)
The State of the Climate – Cook’s survey not only meaningless but also misleading (May 17, 2013)
WUWT – The Collapsing ‘Consensus’ (May 22, 2013)
WUWT – Self admitted cyber thief Peter Gleick is still on the IOP board that approved the Cook 97% consensus paper (June 4, 2013)
WUWT – ‘Quantifying the consensus on global warming in the literature’: a comment (June 24, 2013)
WUWT – On the 97 percenters: ‘You Must Admit, They Were Careful’ (July 28, 2013)
WUWT – What Is Cook’s Consensus? (July 29, 2013)
WUWT – Cooks ‘97% consensus’ disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors (September 3, 2013)
WUWT – 97% Climate consensus ‘denial’: the debunkers debunked (September 9, 2013)
WUWT – Join my crowd-sourced complaint about the ‘97% consensus’ (September 20, 2013)
WUWT – The 97% consensus myth – busted by a real survey (November 20, 2013)
WUWT – 97% of pictures are worth 1000 climate words (February 26, 2014)
WUWT – John Cook’s 97% consensus claim is about to go ‘pear-shaped’ (May 10, 2014)
WUWT – An Open Letter puts the University of Queensland in a dilemma over John Cook’s ‘97% consensus’ paper (May 22, 2014)
WUWT – The climate consensus is not 97% – it’s 100% (June 11, 2014)
WUWT – The disagreement over what defines ‘endorsment of AGW’ by Cook et al. is revealed in raters remarks, and it sure isn’t a 97% consensus (June 24, 2014)
WUWT – If 97% of Scientists Say Global Warming is Real, 100% Say It Has Nearly Stopped (November 18, 2014)

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html




"To get to the truth, I emailed a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper. Their responses are eye opening and evidence that the Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists' papers as "endorsing AGW", apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors."...

"Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism."...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

republicanchick said:

“Climate change” is a LIE… Ask… HELLLLO!!!... SCIENTISTS (of all people)!​

A SCIENTIST BY THE NAME OF Reid Bryson was one of 31,000 (yeh, you read that correctly... 31,000) scientists who signed the following RE climate change


[Keep in mind that these are people who have STUDIED… scientifically STUDIED climate patterns (as opposed to say… Marxism…]




“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997… and any other similar proposals.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will in the foreseeable future cause catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the earth’s climate.

Moreover there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth.





+

Click to expand...

Hey watch it buddy
I get food stamps

What alarmists try to conceal is that climate scientists are still trying to find proof of global warming. It's exactly why they went on the expedition to Antarctica where they ironically got trapped in ice due to a rapidly growing ice shelf.

They jumped the gun on climate change and made it into some mythical danger, but the fact is that for the past 17 years there has been no marked change in climate.

That is to say- from the time the alarm went off to now, there has been virtually nothing to suffice it's claim. It's nothing more than a money rake, and scientists are funded by governments to justify getting money from industries.

Being that the Left is largely a band of liars who rely on problems rather than solutions to maintain themselves, this should be hardly surprising. But, don't expect them to not call you a 'conspiracy theorist' anyway- it's just a tactic to snuff out the otherwise plain reality right under everyone's noses.

brewmama said:

Does that have anything to do with the lie of CAGW? NO, nothing.

Click to expand...

Why is the air in Beijing opaque?

exminister said:

Why is the air in Beijing opaque?

Click to expand...

Godless atheistic communism. It would be so much clearer and cleaner if they embraced capitalism and let free markets work without any government interference at all. Free markets would clean all that up, just like they did in the US without any government regulation.

Oh wait....sorry forgot about the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, etc.

But the godless part still stays.

Brew: Wow 97 articles. 4 appear to come from journals, the rest from newspapers (and we know how accurate and unbiased those are), other media outlets and comments from deniers funded by Big Oil etc.

But that's OK you are likely to be dead before climate change effects your grandchildren. Not a big deal.

Once again I will only comment with, "How is a cleaner environment a bad thing"? Even IF climate change isn't a real thing, how is treating our only home better a bad thing? Not once has a climate change denier been able to answer that question.