22 hours ago, DM07 said:

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

Just read the first paragraph, right under the graph!

I can't be arsed to explain anymore!

I stick with the 97(!)% of climate scientists who say, that climate change is most likely man made!

As soon as 97% of them state the opposite, I will gladly bow my head to climate change -deniers!

55555555  ?  ha, ha, ha.....the old “97%” number still being tossed into the ring. So funny.

 

The most highly cited paper supposedly found 97 per cent of published scientific studies support man-made global warming. But in addition to poor survey methodology, that tabulation is often misrepresented. Most papers (66 per cent) actually took no position. Of the remaining 34 per cent, 33 per cent supported at least a weak human contribution to global warming. So divide 33 by 34 and you get 97 per cent, but this is unremarkable since the 33 per cent includes many papers that critique key elements of the IPCC position.

The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:

“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”

—Dr. Richard Tol

“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”

—Dr. Craig Idso

“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”

—Dr. Nir Shaviv

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman I argument . . .”

—Dr. Nicola Scafetta

Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.

 

 

 

25 minutes ago, Catoni said:

55555555  ?  ha, ha, ha.....the old “97%” number still being tossed into the ring. So funny.

 

The most highly cited paper supposedly found 97 per cent of published scientific studies support man-made global warming. But in addition to poor survey methodology, that tabulation is often misrepresented. Most papers (66 per cent) actually took no position. Of the remaining 34 per cent, 33 per cent supported at least a weak human contribution to global warming. So divide 33 by 34 and you get 97 per cent, but this is unremarkable since the 33 per cent includes many papers that critique key elements of the IPCC position.

The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:

“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”

—Dr. Richard Tol

“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”

—Dr. Craig Idso

“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”

—Dr. Nir Shaviv

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman I argument . . .”

—Dr. Nicola Scafetta

Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.

 

 

 

•  

Dr. Craig Idso: (Wikipedia) "He is the former Director of Environmental Science at Peabody Energy"

And what is Peabody Energy?

Well: "Peabody Energy, (...) is the largest private-sector coal company in the world."

What a totally credible climate change critic!

 

Bye! ?

23 minutes ago, DM07 said:

Dr. Craig Idso: (Wikipedia) "He is the former Director of Environmental Science at Peabody Energy"

And what is Peabody Energy?

Well: "Peabody Energy, (...) is the largest private-sector coal company in the world."

What a totally credible climate change critic!

 

Bye! ?

Wasn't Craig Idso's paper included in the study from which the 97% meme originated? Doesn't that make him one of the '97% of climate scientists'? Are you suggesting that not all of the 97% of climate scientists are credible?

 

On 9/16/2018 at 11:23 PM, DM07 said:

And still they do more, then a bunch of other developed nations, most of all 'Murica!

Actually worse. You forget that many US states, like California have their own environmental standards. When California, the most powerful economy in the USA, and the 5th largest in the world sets its tough standards, it forces  key industries to comply. Classic example are automobile emissions and safety standards.

 

Don't forget that  the USA uses clean coal. It may have  inefficient plants, but it has the advantage of low emissions coal. Are you aware that the worst coal emissions come from the EU? Low quality coal with  inefficient and  out of date power plants. Germany still has its wonderful plants from the   East German era. .Japan  has the best emissions record, closely followed by China. Yes, China.  

On this you are bashing the wrong country, because the USA isn't the one clear cutting valuable  forest for diabolical strip mining.

48 minutes ago, DM07 said:

Dr. Craig Idso: (Wikipedia) "He is the former Director of Environmental Science at Peabody Energy"

And what is Peabody Energy?

Well: "Peabody Energy, (...) is the largest private-sector coal company in the world."

What a totally credible climate change critic!

 

Bye! ?

And every science defender of the Alarmist Gore Bull Warming position is collecting government and special interest and leftist foundation grants and many have a leftist political-economic agenda they support.  Talk about vested interest. LOL   Have to keep the alarm level high to keep those funds flowing. Squeaky wheel gets the grease.....55555

    Bye !

8 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

Don't forget that  the USA uses clean coal. It may have  inefficient plants, but it has the advantage of low emissions coal. Are you aware that the worst coal emissions come from the EU? Low quality coal with  inefficient and  out of date power plants. Germany still has its wonderful plants from the   East German era. .Japan  has the best emissions record, closely followed by China. Yes, China.  

The problem is 100000 plants * "clean" = loads of pollution, 10 plants * "dirty" = some pollution. Japan is leading because of the nuclear power, which is the obvious answer, but then the alarmists start spinning at 100000rpm instantly.

55 minutes ago, DM07 said:

Dr. Craig Idso: (Wikipedia) "He is the former Director of Environmental Science at Peabody Energy"

And what is Peabody Energy?

Well: "Peabody Energy, (...) is the largest private-sector coal company in the world."

What a totally credible climate change critic!

 

Bye! ?

Something wrong with him making a pay check? You did say “former” didn’t you?

    How about Michael “Hockey Schtick” Mann collecting government and leftist foundation funds? I guess he has a vested interest also. Or how about James “Fudgin’ the Numbers” Hansen collecting leftist Heinz cash? Want to disqualify him? 

     Let’s see how fair or hypocritical you are. 

    You might want to start by throwing out any organization or scientist taking checks from George Soros.

    How about that? Bye ? 

    

10 minutes ago, Catoni said:

And every science defender of the Alarmist Gore Bull Warming position is collecting government and special interest and leftist foundation grants and many have a leftist political-economic agenda they support.  Talk about vested interest. LOL   Have to keep the alarm level high to keep those funds flowing. Squeaky wheel gets the grease.....55555

    Bye !

 

2 minutes ago, Catoni said:

Something wrong with him making a pay check? You did say “former” didn’t you?

    How about Michael “Hockey Schtick” Mann collecting government and leftist foundation funds? I guess he has a vested interest also. Or how about James “Fudgin’ the Numbers” Hansen collecting leftist Heinz cash? Want to disqualify him? 

     Let’s see how fair or hypocritical you are. 

    You might want to start by throwing out any organization or scientist taking checks from George Soros.

    How about that? Bye ? 

    

Oh...someone's a bit fired up!

Yeah...George Sorros...the Illuminati...leftist agenda....The Jews under the mountain...

...blah blah...

 

Bye!

33 minutes ago, goatfarmer said:

Wasn't Craig Idso's paper included in the study from which the 97% meme originated? Doesn't that make him one of the '97% of climate scientists'? Are you suggesting that not all of the 97% of climate scientists are credible?

 

No "sir"- I am suggesting that THIS PARTICULAR man is not credible!

Is that too hard to understand?

4 minutes ago, DM07 said:

No "sir"- I am suggesting that THIS PARTICULAR man is not credible!

Is that too hard to understand?

Since 'this particular man' makes up part of the 97%, I'll take that as a 'yes'. Not all of the '97%' are 'credible'. 

 

Here are a few more you might like to exclude from the list:

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

22 minutes ago, DM07 said:

 

Oh...someone's a bit fired up!

Yeah...George Sorros...the Illuminati...leftist agenda....The Jews under the mountain...

...blah blah...

 

Bye!

Yeah, that’s the ticket. When you can’t intelligently rebut the other person’s points, just mud sling, ad hominem, and smugly dismiss. 

     Typical socialist/leftist scraping the bottom of the barrel failure tactic when they have nothing left.

      LOL 55555 ?   Please do have a wonderful day ? 

Can't help myself............