97% and Climate Change

[Quetzal]

You have no idea where my data comes from since you refuse to even look at it. This is how the climate alarmist game is played. You have no clue what the opposition has to say. And it includes plenty of scientists.

We aren't talking about climate alarmists. We are discussing a very simple, straight forward statistic. But, to address your point, I know where your data doesn't come from. It doesn't come from the most sophisticated measuring devices this planet has ever seen. It doesn't come from NOAA satellites that can register ocean depth by up to ~3cm. It doesn't come from NASA climate models. It doesn't come from the peer reviewed publications of IOP Science. Because if it came from any of those things we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. I am sure there is some scientists somewhere who disagree, I never claimed otherwise.

 

[gcthomas]

Brewmama, your very long post includes a statement rejecting the results because the raters where dishonest. You obviously haven't read the Cook paper methodology. Look it up and you'll see why this rejection is ludicrous and deliberately misleading. A lie, in fact.

 

[rexlunae]

You have no idea where my data comes from since you refuse to even look at it. This is how the climate alarmist game is played. You have no clue what the opposition has to say.

On the contrary. It's been a long time since I've heard anything new from the denialists, so it's hard to believe you'd have anything I haven't heard plenty of times. But I've read a lot of their claims.

And it includes plenty of scientists.

Name a few of them.

 

[journey]

Man-made global warming is the biggest con game in the history of mankind. What isn't fabrication is blatant lies. It's simply a fraud to redistribute wealth. God said:

Genesis 8:21-22 KJV And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. 22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.

 

[Tyrathca]

Man-made global warming is the biggest con game in the history of mankind. What isn't fabrication is blatant lies. It's simply a fraud to redistribute wealth.

Redistribute wealth from who to who and how? Who is coordinating this masterful fraud involving so many people it statistically would have collapsed within its first few years? How do the organisers benefit?

The global warming conspiracy theory makes no sense to me. All that effort for so little gain to anyone who would organise it, why wouldn't they exert all that immense ability for something more lucrative?

 

[Jose Fly]

The 97% estimate is indeed wrong. It's actually more like 99%.

The 97 Percent Scientific Consensus on Climate Change Is Wrong—It’s Even Higher

That’s according to James L. Powell, director of the National Physical Sciences Consortium, who reviewed more than 24,000 peer-reviewed scientific articles on climate change published between 2013 and 2014.

Powell identified 69,406 authors named in the articles, four of which rejected climate change as being caused by human emissions.

That’s one in every 17,352 scientists. Oliver would need a much bigger studio to statistically represent that disparity.

“The 97 percent is wrong, period,” Powell said. “Look at it this way: If someone says that 97 percent of publishing climate scientists accept anthropogenic [human-caused] global warming, your natural inference is that 3 percent reject it. But I found only 0.006 percent who reject it. That is a difference of 500 times.”

 

[ok doser]

iow, 97.1% of the climate change papers accepted for publication are drinking the same koolaid as those who decide which papers get published?

 

[Quetzal]

Redistribute wealth from who to who and how? Who is coordinating this masterful fraud involving so many people it statistically would have collapsed within its first few years? How do the organisers benefit?

The global warming conspiracy theory makes no sense to me. All that effort for so little gain to anyone who would organise it, why wouldn't they exert all that immense ability for something more lucrative?

I have these questions, too. No real answer from the other side yet.

 

[journey]

Redistribute wealth from who to who and how? Who is coordinating this masterful fraud involving so many people it statistically would have collapsed within its first few years? How do the organisers benefit?

The global warming conspiracy theory makes no sense to me. All that effort for so little gain to anyone who would organise it, why wouldn't they exert all that immense ability for something more lucrative?

Follow the money - huge amounts of money. Google "global warming money" and read until you get worn out.

 

[Quetzal]

Follow the money - huge amounts of money. Google "global warming money" and read until you get worn out.

There is more money in oil and finite resources, why would they push the opposite?

 

[journey]

There is more money in oil and finite resources, why would they push the opposite?

My previous post answers this question - follow the money.

 

[Jonahdog]

There is more money in oil and finite resources, why would they push the opposite?

Because godless, atheistic, abortion on demand, destroy the 2nd Amendment, it's all connected, haven't you figured that out by now.

 

[Tyrathca]

My previous post answers this question - follow the money.

That's the thing, the money doesn't seem to go to any source that would benefit a conspiracy. And the amount of money does not seem to match the scale of conspiracy. Also climate scientists aren't all that rich so they don't seem to be benefiting much from the conspiracy (certainly not enough to keep them quiet about some super secret organisation in charge of their results)

So how about you just say who you think the money is going to, how much you think they roughly get (millions, billions, trillions?) and how you think they keep everyone quiet.

 

[Quetzal]

Because godless, atheistic, abortion on demand, destroy the 2nd Amendment, it's all connected, haven't you figured that out by now.

We are discussing climate change. A completely different political platform. Unless your sole purpose was to lump it all together to further your own political bias. You wouldn't do that... would you? :think:

 

[Quetzal]

My previous post answers this question - follow the money.

No, it doesn't. Who is benefitting? By how much? Where is the power here? Needless to say, I do not see political power or substantial financial gain coming from the construction of wind mills and solar panels. Sure, the oil industry might take a hit, but why would those who support renewable energy act against their own financial gain if that is their true goal? The short answer is you have no idea because this conspiracy doesn't exist.

 

[journey]

You've got my answer - the only answer you're going to get - see my first post.

Google "global warming money" and read until you're worn out. I assume that you know how to read. If not, hire someone to read the links to you.

 

[gcthomas]

I Googled (Start-paged really) that phrase and found little except that governments are funding research, as they have always done, while the fossil fuel industry is working hard to discredit a business ruining science.

Are you trapped in a Google bubble? You do know that Google tries to return links it knows you will click on, based on your search history, emails and such like, denying you the chance to see things you disagree with, don't you?

 

[journey]

Sample for you:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/12/on-global-warming-follow-the-money-2.php

 

[journey]

Here's another sample for you, but the last one. You can find them yourself in seconds:

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/the-amazing-story-behind-the-global-warming-scam.html

 

[gcthomas]

Sample for you:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/12/on-global-warming-follow-the-money-2.php

I can find the articles easily, but they have no usable information. For example the first quote in your link (a blog, not proper research!) above is from a politician ("If all the industrial nations went down to zero emissions –- remember what I just said, all the industrial nations went down to zero emissions -– it wouldn’t be enough, not when more than 65% of the world’s carbon pollution comes from the developing world.").

If we could get down to 65% of current emissions then we will substantially have solved the CO2 emissions problem, so what point was the unqualified politician trying to make? Jolly statements to cheer the voters?