Posted on 05/21/2016 6:39:09 AM PDT by rktman
But the “97 percent of scientists believe in global warming” mantra became gospel on May 16, 2013, when President Obama tweeted “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made, and dangerous.”
What the president was referring to was a 2013 paper by the University of Queensland’s John Cook. In his research, Cook studied 11,994 papers published between 1991 and 2011 that mentioned the search words “global warming” and “global climate change.”
Guess what Cook actually found? Only 32.6 percent of the papers endorsed the view of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming. But of that group, 97 percent said that “recent warming is mostly man-made.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Actually, he’s not very good at all. Not believable in the least.
That chart shows a lovely repeating pattern... The only sane conclusion is that cooling/heating is likely be related to our interaction with the sun and long term solar output patterns.
How much are you willing to spend EXTRA to make a change? How much are you willing to be taxed EXTRA? How far do you want to change your way of life for this 'cause'? Are you willing to condemn the impoverished to continuing poverty in the name of this cause?
Are you aware that if all the proposals from the Paris Accord of 2015 were carried out in full, the participants THEMSELVES project a decrease in the temperature growth of 1 degrees by the year 2100 (+4.5 to +3.5)? This after a cost of Trillions of $?
It will be a cold day in hell when we really have global warming. Or something like that. ;-) It’s all a big con.
This is the coldest May we’ve had in a long time in my western PA area. We even had light snow flurries last Sunday.
Or, just have them answer the following:
1. Define the “correct” temperature range for the planet.
2. Define the “correct” humidity range for the planet.
3. Define the “correct” mean sea level for the planet.
4. Define the “correct” amount of precipitation for the planet.
5. Define the “correct” makeup of the atmosphere.
6. Define the “correct” amount of sea ice at the N/S poles.
7. Define/explain past glaciation and subsequent warming without any input from humans.
Their answer-————All of that is irrelevant to what humans have done.
Clearly, you have a three-digit IQ to notice that.
Not to mention all of the thermometer-based temps from before around 1900 are totally wild-ass guesses, because there was no way to regulate thermometers from one location to another.
Cook’s methodology has never been taken seriously by anyone who is not an activist. It was intended to be propaganda from the time it was first conceived. Are you seriously arguing that it has any actual merit?
The dirty little secret is that these "adjustments" and "corrections" for these things are actually larger than the temperature trends their models identify. That's right sports fans, their fudge-factors are bigger than the "discoveries" about warming. Apply different guesses at fudge factors, you predict global cooling (eg. as they did in the 1970s). Different set of fudge factors and reference years, global warming.
What made Cook's study important was that the deniers chose it as a hill to fight on, and only because the Oregon petition had been shot down and they wanted to "get even".
The underlying problem for the deniers is that it ends up in the hands Rick Santorum and notso Brightbart.
I honestly had no idea we had any rabid alarmists on the forum here. I thought you were kidding. So you have actually bought into this nonsense? Amazing! You do realize that even the vast majority of those caught up in the “climategate” scandle repudiated Cook?
If I understand this correctly,
97.1% of 32.6% concur with the AGW position. That is 31.65%.
So 31.65% = 97% That sound like common core math.
.
The methodology is what’s REALLY important. The actual ‘con’clusion, not so much. Ergo, everybody gets a trophy.
Funny that, when I read and reference scientific papers, I throw any that even mention climate change or global warming into the trash can. Makes it easy to filter out the fraudsters.
Actually, I had 31 hours of college chemistry, a career in in industrial chemicals, and know a lot about pollution and the processes.
I get my clues in different places. A phrase such as "rabid alarmist" is a clue because it has nothing to do with the issue and is merely a way of calling people names.
People like you, the freepers, Lord Monckton, Rick Santorum don't have much influence.
OTOH, when the insurance companies told those on the Jersey Coast they had to rebuild on stilts, that was significant. Or when the insurance companies abandoned the Heartland Institute in 2012. Or in 2007 when SCOTUS ruled that CO2 was a pollutant. Or when the GOP said they were going to shut down the earth observing satellites. They damn sure don't want the IceSat 2 to launch in 2017.
Maybe you can explain to us all why computer models based on the disproven theory that CO2 is a major driver of global temperatures have all had a predictive value less than random chance. What you believe in is a religion not a scientific theory. For a theory to be scientific it must be disprovable by observational data.
It is unfortunate that you seem to have missed the basics of science during all those hours you spent in school and beyond.
Sure, I'll be glad to explain.
You have already lost the argument, that you keep trying to argue. The US has already begun to lower emissions, and will continue to lower emissions. We are burning a lot less coal and replacing it with nat gas and renewables. CAFE stds have risen and will continue to rise. Gasoline consumption in the US peaked in 2007.
One of the big future reductions in CO2 will come from the Ryan budget aka the GOP budget enacted last Dec which extended the renewable energy tax credits for 5 more years.
97% of Big Foot researchers believe that Big Foot is real.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.