Teenager Thunberg angrily tells U.N. climate summit 'you have stolen my dreams'

[Tug]

Wow Greta you are certainly holding their feet to the fire lol you have succeeded in getting the conversation going great job!!

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, Forethat said:

They are two different data sets.

1. Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index. 

2. Combined Land Surface Air & Sea Surface Water Temperature

 

I have used both dataset and each time linked to the data as well as been specific as to which set was used. In addition, I have previously described the difference in data sets and warming outcome to exactly the numbers you describe. Here:

 

In addition, the 0.24 warming was according to the data set used to create the graph YOU first posted. But I concur, the warming for the period 1998-2018 is 0.24 degrees Celsius if you use the Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index.

 

 

So why did you write this?

"There hasn't been any significant warming during the period 1998-2018. I have posted graphs, data and links to data sources that shows EXACTLY how much warming there has been during the period. The graph is valid. The data is valid. The links are valid. The data sources are valid. Live with it."

After all, extrapolated to a hypothetical century, it becomes a temperature increase of 1.2 degrees centigrade. 

 

[Forethat]

14 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

 

So why did you write this?

"There hasn't been any significant warming during the period 1998-2018. I have posted graphs, data and links to data sources that shows EXACTLY how much warming there has been during the period. The graph is valid. The data is valid. The links are valid. The data sources are valid. Live with it."

After all, extrapolated to a hypothetical century, it becomes a temperature increase of 1.2 degrees centigrade. 

 

There's no relevance in extrapolating data only to create a sensationalist view of a warming that never occurred. We have the actual data and we don't need to guess or speculate. The warming for the period in question was 0.24 degrees Celsius using the data set YOU referred to. Fact. 

 

Presumably, given the correctly made up parameters and extrapolated values, there is probably a chance that Bangkok was covered in a layer of six meter thick ice last week, but it'll be much easier to check the real data to figure out that wasn't the case. 

 

I notice you have now resorted to fairytales and what can only be described as a climate alarmists christmas wish list. It'd be a lot easier if you simply admitted to yourself that the data doesn't lie - there IS no significant global warming to speak of during the period 1998-2018, and if you have a problem recognising the facts I suggest you send an email to NASA or NOAAD, where the data I have referred to is published.

 

Hope that helps!

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, Forethat said:

There's no relevance in extrapolating data only to create a sensationalist view of a warming that never occurred. We have the actual data and we don't need to guess or speculate. The warming for the period in question was 0.24 degrees Celsius using the data set YOU referred to. Fact. 

 

Presumably, given the correctly made up parameters and extrapolated values, there is probably a chance that Bangkok was covered in a layer of six meter thick ice last week, but it'll be much easier to check the real data to figure out that wasn't the case. 

 

I notice you have now resorted to fairytales and what can only be described as a climate alarmists christmas wish list. It'd be a lot easier if you simply admitted to yourself that the data doesn't lie - there IS no significant global warming to speak of during the period 1998-2018, and if you have a problem recognising the facts aI suggest you send an email to NASA or NOAAD, where the data I have referred to is published.

 

Hope that helps!

So after all that nonsense of yours about how I was refuted by the particular stretch of years that I chose, 

 

"If you want to debate another period, feel free to do so, but in case you initiate a debate regarding the period 1998-2018 the facts are conclusive - as provided by NASA - the global warming measured in Combined Land Surface Air & Sea Surface Water Temperature is 0.45 degrees Celsius. Using the Land-Ocean Temperature Index the warming for the period YOU brought up for discussion is 0.24 degrees Celsius."

 

hoist by mine own petard so to speak, (although actually I was replying to the time period that canuckamuck chose) it turns out that it wasn't a question of the time period at all. That, by your lights, it could have been any set of dates. Because whatever dates get chosen you reject NASA's interpretation of it.

And why would I send Nasa an email about their data? Because some anonymous party on Thaivisa disputes their claim that global warming did occur from the period from 1998 to 2018? That they somehow don't understand what their data means? It is to laugh.

Maybe I should send the following to NASA. It may give them a laugh:

"Presumably, given the correctly made up parameters and extrapolated values, there is probably a chance that Bangkok was covered in a layer of six meter thick ice last week, but it'll be much easier to check the real data to figure out that wasn't the case."

Or who knows, maybe they'll smack their collective forehead and realize that their work has been revealed to be empty and that their lives have been a waste.

[Forethat]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

So after all that nonsense of yours about how I was refuted by the particular stretch of years that I chose, 

 

"If you want to debate another period, feel free to do so, but in case you initiate a debate regarding the period 1998-2018 the facts are conclusive - as provided by NASA - the global warming measured in Combined Land Surface Air & Sea Surface Water Temperature is 0.45 degrees Celsius. Using the Land-Ocean Temperature Index the warming for the period YOU brought up for discussion is 0.24 degrees Celsius."

 

hoist by mine own petard so to speak, (although actually I was replying to the time period that canuckamuck chose) it turns out that it wasn't a question of the time period at all. That, by your lights, it could have been any set of dates. Because whatever dates get chosen you reject NASA's interpretation of it.

And why would I send Nasa an email about their data? Because some anonymous party on Thaivisa disputes their claim that global warming did occur from the period from 1998 to 2018? That they somehow don't understand what their data means? It is to laugh.

Maybe I should send the following to NASA. It may give them a laugh:

"Presumably, given the correctly made up parameters and extrapolated values, there is probably a chance that Bangkok was covered in a layer of six meter thick ice last week, but it'll be much easier to check the real data to figure out that wasn't the case."

Or who knows, maybe they'll smack their collective forehead and realize that their work has been revealed to be empty and that their lives have been a waste.

I have yet to see anyone dispute that warming occurred during the period in question. At least on here. I certainly don't dispute that fact. Contrary, I have provided facts to show to show exactly how MUCH warming.

 

Hope that helps.

[Scott]

Off-topic, troll posts reported and removed.  

[bristolboy]

4 hours ago, Forethat said:

There's no relevance in extrapolating data only to create a sensationalist view of a warming that never occurred. We have the actual data and we don't need to guess or speculate. The warming for the period in question was 0.24 degrees Celsius using the data set YOU referred to. Fact. 

 

 

I'm just copying your method to come up with results you describe as being sensationalistic. If so, the sensationalism is on you. Take the temperature at the origin point of a timespan and subtract it from the final year's average temperature.

Just like using drawings, my extrapolation of the data derived using your method simply shows that a warming of .24 degrees is no more or less steep than an increase of 1.2 degrees over 100 years. Are you arguing that 1.2 degrees over 100 years isn't significant? If so, your quarrel is with NASA, not with me. After all, according to them, an increase of 1 degree over a 100 years which has exactly the same slope as an increase of .20 degrees over 20 years, is significant. 

Are you quarreling with my methodology? If so, you're standing on much firmer ground. The trouble is that methodology - basic subtraction - is yours.

And how did you prove that the results of your method demonstrated that the increase in temperature was insignificant? Did you explain why an increase of .24 degrees over 20 years was insignificant? No. Instead you launched into this:

" Presumably, given the correctly made up parameters and extrapolated values, there is probably a chance that Bangkok was covered in a layer of six meter thick ice last week, but it'll be much easier to check the real data to figure out that wasn't the case. "

You didn't explain why a simple straight linear extrapolation was dubious. And that's because you can't. It's the simplest most basic kind of extrapolation there is. Something self evident to anyone who has ever had the slightest acquaintance with grids. 

I should make it clear that I think that your methodology, such as it is, is useless. You claim all sorts of intimacy with statistics and yet you invoke as a proof, the basic arithmetical operation of subtraction in order to analyze a very complex field of study. Not a very sensible approach.

'

[bristolboy]

On 10/30/2019 at 5:54 PM, Forethat said:

Absolutely. As soon as someone provides hard facts and real arguments these debates tend to go mum...

Absolutely.

[bristolboy]

On 10/22/2019 at 10:06 PM, Forethat said:

Exactly. I have previously provided details regarding the 97%.

 

The first mentioning of the 97% is an old survey performed by University of Illinois 2009 (Doran/Zimmerman, Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, 2009). Two questions were sent by post to 10,257 members of the American Geophysical Union, AGU. 3,146 replied. Every single respondent but 77 (!) was removed for arbitrary reasons, and out of the remaining 77, there were 75 who agreed with the theory. That's 97% of 77, but only 0.07% of the 10,257 who received the question. 

 

 

This is utterly false. No one was removed from the survey. This was a general survey of scientists. Out of all the scientists who responded 77 were climatologists who were active publishers on climate change. So one result out of the many published in the survey determined how many of them subscribed to ACG.  How is that arbitrary? This is one of 2 questions asked in the survey:

"2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"

And here is a graph showing the various responses from the scientific community:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2009EO030002

 

 

 

 

[DrTuner]

29 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

"2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"

How was "significant" defined? 

[bristolboy]

40 minutes ago, DrTuner said:

How was "significant" defined? 

These are scientists being questioned. 

"When a scientist talks about the results of their experiment, they might say their finding was “significant.” That’s not because the result will change science (though it might). In research, statistical significance is a phrase that scientists use when the difference they measure is unlikely to have occurred by chance."

https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/blog/scientists-say/scientists-say-statistical-significance

 

Also, the point I was making is that Forethat obviously got it wrong about the results. No respondents were removed from arbitrary reasons. In fact no respondents were removed at all.

[DrTuner]

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

In research, statistical significance is a phrase that scientists use when the difference they measure is unlikely to have occurred by chance.

Ok, so 0.000000000000000001% of climate change is likely to be attributed to humans, and that results in a yes. Should really be 100% yes then.

 

Now, ask 'em if CO2 is the primary driver of climate change.

[Cryingdick]

Not quite related to Greta but sort of the same topic. Evidently some higher than thou Germans were sailing to Chile and Apec got cancelled after they were 4 weeks into their voyage. LOL They sure saved some carbon there. 

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/31/americas/chile-climate-voyage-canceled-scli-intl/index.html

[samran]

Another bloody politically correct leftist virtue seeking green warrior taking about the myth of climate change:

 

https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/we-knew-ex-oil-boss-says-climate-change-with-us-forevermore-20191101-p536fb.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1572607854

[Forethat]

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

This is utterly false. No one was removed from the survey. This was a general survey of scientists. Out of all the scientists who responded 77 were climatologists who were active publishers on climate change. So one result out of the many published in the survey determined how many of them subscribed to ACG.  How is that arbitrary? This is one of 2 questions asked in the survey:

"2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"

And here is a graph showing the various responses from the scientific community:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2009EO030002

 

 

 

 

Do you even READ what you post on here? 

 

Here are some excerpts from the article you refer to:

"An invitation to participate in the survey was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists" Check! That's exactly what I wrote. 10,257 members members of the American Geophysical Union received the invite to the survey

 

"With 3146 individuals completing the survey, the participant response rate for the survey was 30.7%" Check! That's exactly what I wrote: 3,146 replied.

 

"In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2". Check! That's exactly what I wrote: They got 3,146 replies but removed ALL but 77. For arbitrary reasons. 

 

I appreciate that you have NO clue about statistics, so it's more or less wasted time trying to describe what goes on in the survey in question, but the simple explanation is that a response rate of of 35% would be questionable to begin with. But the fact that the creators of the survey removed 97% of the respondents should ring a bell (and HAS rung a bell with the entire scientific community). The question is WHY did they ask the question in the first place? The most logical answer is that the creators of the survey asked a question and got an answer they didn't like or expect. From a scientific perspective, the honest thing would have been to include the value of the removed answers, but they didn't (!). This is what in the scientific community is referred to as scientific misconduct, intentional distortion, in this case falsification. 

 

Funny though, that of all articles written about this you pick the one that supports my view and post it before you've even read it...!? 

In summary: I was absolutely correct, and you failed to read and understand what you post. Again. 

 

As always, Happy to Help!

[Forethat]

6 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Also, the point I was making is that Forethat obviously got it wrong about the results. No respondents were removed from arbitrary reasons. In fact no respondents were removed at all.

Excuse me? The creators of the survey invited 10,257 members of the American Geophysical Union, AGU, to a survey. As few as 3,146 replied. The creators of the survey removed 3069 replies for arbitrary reasons and out of the remaining 77 replies, 75 replied that they thought that global warming was caused by humans. 

 

They invited 10,257 people to the survey. 3,142 accepted by replying. Out of the 3,142 respondents, 3069 respondents were removed for arbitrary reasons.

And this is what the entire global climate alarmists pin their hopes to?

 

I feel for you. Honestly.

[bristolboy]

53 minutes ago, Forethat said:

Excuse me? The creators of the survey invited 10,257 members of the American Geophysical Union, AGU, to a survey. As few as 3,146 replied. The creators of the survey removed 3069 replies for arbitrary reasons and out of the remaining 77 replies, 75 replied that they thought that global warming was caused by humans. 

 

They invited 10,257 people to the survey. 3,142 accepted by replying. Out of the 3,142 respondents, 3069 respondents were removed for arbitrary reasons.

And this is what the entire global climate alarmists pin their hopes to?

 

I feel for you. Honestly.

Did you actually follow the link I supplied in post # 2398, page 160? I'm guessing you didn't even look at it. If you had, you couldn't possibly claim that "3069 were removed for arbitrary reasons." Or for that matter, for any reason. No one was removed from the survey. No one. The results were broken down in various ways. One of the results tallied the answers of climatologists who are active publishers on climate change. Other results were for different kinds of scientists:  Non publishers/non climatologists, climatologists, active publishers-all topics, active publishers - climate change. Here's the definition of arbitrary:

"based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system."

[Forethat]

3 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Did you actually follow the link I supplied in post # 2398, page 160? I'm guessing you didn't even look at it. If you had, you couldn't possibly claim that "3069 were removed for arbitrary reasons." Or for that matter, for any reason. No one was removed from the survey. No one. The results were broken down in various ways. One of the results tallied the answers of climatologists who are active publishers on climate change. Other results were for different kinds of scientists:  Non publishers/non climatologists, climatologists, active publishers-all topics, active publishers - climate change. Here's the definition of arbitrary:

"based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system."

Yes I read the article, but you didn't. 3069 respondents were removed. For arbitrary reasons.

The 97% is 75 out of 77. 

 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/

 

[bristolboy]

48 minutes ago, Forethat said:

Yes I read the article, but you didn't. 3069 respondents were removed. For arbitrary reasons.

The 97% is 75 out of 77. 

 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/

 

Nobody who responded to the survey was removed. Arbitrarily or otherwise. Nobody. What you claim is false. The responses were simply broken down by how familiar the scientists would be with climate science. 

" In general, as the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement with the two primary questions (Figure 1). In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2."

That's where the 97.4% figure in this survey came from (not 98%).  Once again here's  definition of arbitrary  "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system."

And here's a graph that makes very clear the breakdown of all 3000+ responses

 

[Forethat]

6 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Nobody who responded to the survey was removed. Arbitrarily or otherwise. Nobody. What you claim is false. The responses were simply broken down by how familiar the scientists would be with climate science. 

" In general, as the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement with the two primary questions (Figure 1). In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2."

That's where the 97.4% figure in this survey came from (not 98%).  Once again here's  definition of arbitrary  "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system."

And here's a graph that makes very clear the breakdown of all 3000+ responses

The 97% claimed consensus refers to 75 out of 77 responses. They removed the remaining 3069 responses when the conclusion was made. There is no 97% consensus, It's a fib. Add the remaining responses and see where you arrive at? You've been had. Sorry. Live with it.

 

 

[bristolboy]

49 minutes ago, Forethat said:

Yes I read the article, but you didn't. 3069 respondents were removed. For arbitrary reasons.

The 97% is 75 out of 77. 

 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/

 

At least we're finally getting to a source of your misinformation. Watts-up-with-that. Let me tell you a little something about Watts up with that. There is a very eminent physicist named Richard Mueller. Back when, he was very skeptical about global warming. He felt that the temperature measurements were biased because of various factors like heat islands. Even though climatologist insisted that they had taken that into account.  So, via Anthony Watts, the publisher of watts up with that, he was given money to assemble a dream team of scientists and statisticians to recheck those measurements.

The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic

"Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html

[Forethat]

Just now, bristolboy said:

At least we're finally getting to a source of your misinformation. Watts-up-with-that. Let me tell you a little something about Watts up with that. There is a very eminent physicist named Richard Mueller. Back when, he was very skeptical about global warming. He felt that the temperature measurements were biased because of various factors like heat islands. Even though climatologist insisted that they had taken that into account.  So, via Anthony Watts, the publisher of watts up with that, he was given money to assemble a dream team of scientists and statisticians to recheck those measurements.

The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic

"Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html

I am not misinformed. They removed 3069 responses to manufacture the view that there is a 97% consensus. There isn't. You've been had. Live with it.

Bye.

[Odysseus123]

29 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Nobody who responded to the survey was removed. Arbitrarily or otherwise. Nobody. What you claim is false. The responses were simply broken down by how familiar the scientists would be with climate science. 

" In general, as the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement with the two primary questions (Figure 1). In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2."

That's where the 97.4% figure in this survey came from (not 98%).  Once again here's  definition of arbitrary  "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system."

And here's a graph that makes very clear the breakdown of all 3000+ responses

 

You are an extraordinaily patient individual Bristolboy.

[grollies]

21 minutes ago, Odysseus123 said:

You are an extraordinaily patient individual Bristolboy.

These two are arguing about a completely meaningless survey.

 

The paper was produced in 2009 by student Maggie Zimmerman and her master’s thesis advisor Peter Doran.

 

Their claim that “97 percent of climate scientists agree” that global temperature has risen since before the 1800s and that humans were the significant contributing cause is totally discredited by the structure of the survey.

 

These two sent a two-minute online survey to 10,257 Earth scientists working for universities and government research agencies. They excluded thousands of scientists most likely to think that the Sun, or planetary movements, might have something to do with the Earth’s climate.

 

They also ignored scientific status of the respondents, instead they only relied on the respondent’s place of work - universities and government research agencies – places in receipt of public money and who have a vested interest in promoting AGW.

 

Indeed, around 1,000 of those surveyed did not have a PhD and some not even a Master’s Degree. Only 5 percent of respondents self-identified as climate scientists.

Ignoring the low response rate, the questions themselves were irrelevant:

 

“Q1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean

global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively

constant?”

 

Well, even the most ardent skeptic wouldn’t argue that the Earth’s temperature has increased from the Little Ice Age to today.

 

“Q2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

 

And neither would anyone reasonably argue that human activities have had some impact on climate temperature, although to what degree human activity has is hotly debated (puns intended).

 

 

Rubbish survey, already discredited in most scientific circles (but still promoted by NASA et al.)

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, Forethat said:

I am not misinformed. They removed 3069 responses to manufacture the view that there is a 97% consensus. There isn't. You've been had. Live with it.

Bye.

You are dead wrong. Nowhere in this article was it claimed that there was a 97% consensus of all scientists. It specifically states that the consensus is among actively publishing climatalogists who have published at least 50 percent of their work on climate change. Did you miss that part? 

 The graph gives a very detailed breakdown of the responses of different groups.  As I recall, in this very thread, you claimed that translating data into images is useful because it makes things clearer. Have you since changed your mind that score?

AS for your claims that it's arbitrary, even though the authors explicity gave the reason why they categorized the responses the way they did, here once again is a definition of "arbitrary"

"based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system."

 

 

 

 

 

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, grollies said:

Their claim that “97 percent of climate scientists agree” that global temperature has risen since before the 1800s and that humans were the significant contributing cause is totally discredited by the structure of the survey.

 

Except they never claimed that.

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, grollies said:

Indeed, around 1,000 of those surveyed did not have a PhD and some not even a Master’s Degree. Only 5 percent of respondents self-identified as climate scientists.

I don't know about the percentage of those surveyed, but of those who replied to the survey over 90% had Phd's and 7% had master's degrees.

[grollies]

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Except they never claimed that.

No, they summarised the article thus:

 

" It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes." (My emphasis).

 

So they took the 79 'secialists' responses, stated 96.2% answered 'risen' to Q1 and 97.4% answered 'yes' to Q2 and used those results to summarise as above and use the phrase "largely nonexistent" (sic).

[Forethat]

Just now, grollies said:

These two are arguing about a completely meaningless survey.

 

 

 

The paper was produced in 2009 by student Maggie Zimmerman and her master’s thesis advisor Peter Doran.

 

 

 

Their claim that “97 percent of climate scientists agree” that global temperature has risen since before the 1800s and that humans were the significant contributing cause is totally discredited by the structure of the survey.

 

 

 

These two sent a two-minute online survey to 10,257 Earth scientists working for universities and government research agencies. They excluded thousands of scientists most likely to think that the Sun, or planetary movements, might have something to do with the Earth’s climate.

 

 

 

They also ignored scientific status of the respondents, instead they only relied on the respondent’s place of work - universities and government research agencies – places in receipt of public money and who have a vested interest in promoting AGW.

 

 

 

Indeed, around 1,000 of those surveyed did not have a PhD and some not even a Master’s Degree. Only 5 percent of respondents self-identified as climate scientists.

 

 

Ignoring the low response rate, the questions themselves were irrelevant:

 

 

 

“Q1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean

 

global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively

 

constant?”

 

 

 

Well, even the most ardent skeptic wouldn’t argue that the Earth’s temperature has increased from the Little Ice Age to today.

 

 

 

“Q2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

 

 

 

And neither would anyone reasonably argue that human activities have had some impact on climate temperature, although to what degree human activity has is hotly debated (puns intended).

 

 

 

 

 

Rubbish survey, already discredited in most scientific circles (but still promoted by NASA et al.)

 

Just to point out, I brought this paper up for discussion because several posters referred to it in reference to the 97% consensus. 

 

WHat the climate alarmists have done is to build up a series of papers that make incorrect statistical conclusions. The second one refers to the second one, the third one refers to the second and so on. Finally IPCC refers to ALL of them and claims that there are several papers making the same conclusion - that there is a 97% consensus. There isn't. it's a fib, just as you point out.

 

First post

 

Second post

 

Third post

 

 

Forth post

 

 

That someone can argue against this is pretty explanatory for the debate - people simply refuse to admit that they are wrong.  

[Forethat]

Is there a 97% consensus?

Here is a great report on the subject written by SINTEF, parented by the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. 

 

Quote

This report outlines the main positions and debates surrounding the literally hot topic of man-made global warming. Inspired by social studies of science and technology, the goal of the report is to document, describe and take stock of this potent scientific and public “battlefield” that plays out arguably some of the more pressing issues of our time.

https://www.sintef.no/globalassets/upload/teknologi_og_samfunn/teknologiledelse/sintef-report-a24071-consensus-and-controversy.pdf