It doesn’t matter. We’re not dealing with integrity and logic here. It’s well known that these hucksters in research and government are willing to make up data to support their crazy theory. Analyzing how they came up with their phony “proof points” is an exercise in futility. They will simply come up with new fake evidence.
I read that it WAS 97%...of scientists in a particular joined group.
There, I think that's more accurate now.
There is no question that humans change their local climate--for example, cities are known heat-sinks, and golf courses are usually a few degrees cooler than surrounding areas. But whether those local effects contribute to any global climate, or if they blend into the system background is difficult to say. I'm not sure how that can even be tested. As far as I know, there is no hysteria over the fact that humans intentionally change the local environment.
I suspect that if anyone who made money from research grants to study global warming were to recuse them selves from voting, the pool of scientists that believe in global warming would be around zero.
Seeing that the temperature has been trending down for over a decade...
I remember when 100% of scientists agreed there were only 2 genders.
The “97% consensus” is a perfect example of why nothing coming out of the alarmist community can be trusted. The original “study” that made the claim was thoroughly debunked about 5 minutes after it came out, but years later people like Obama and Kerry are not only repeating it, they are now claiming it is now 99%. How can anyone who repeats such an obvious lie be considered credible about anything? It is a strange world that we live in.
That so-called 95% has been debunked more than a Dan Rather broadcast.
Anyone who actually believes that has not read the plethora of articles explaining where it came from.
In any case, math is not a friend of liberals, which is amply proven by the fact that serious errors in data gathering, data analysis, computer modeling, and conclusions occur hourly and are ignored by the science illiterate so-called “educated” elites.
Of course climate scientists agree about climate change, global warming, increased variability or whatever they change their tune to each time their previous theory gets slammed.
As John Coleman, creator of The Weather Channel and outspoken critic of the above group said, when the vast majority of their funding for climate research comes from the government, of course they’re going to come to the government-approved solutions.
Follow the money.
I’d like to see a real study on what percentage of those climate “scientists” that agree are getting a ton of money from the government.
what about the report that back a few year ago, when there was some warming, scientists also reported that nearby planets were also warming, indicating the change was not human caused. From my reading I have always thought that other than the way nature changes climate, the sun plays a significant part. What say ye??
All you need to know about the 97% meme is:
The guy pushing it is John Cook.
He’s an Australian Cartoonist.
He has a website.
He once posted a picture of himself on said website dressed up as a NAZI.
He’s very strange.
He’s not a credible scientific source.
I deny it, absolutely and without question - it is unproven.
In order for AGW to be true, there would have to be a reliable way to distinguish the positive delta since 1800 from ALL OTHER FLUCTUATIONS, positive and negative, that have occurred for millions of years, some of much greater magnitude than the 1800-1997 period.
And, IF AGW were true, then the empirical data from 1997-2017 should follow the theory's predictions, and they do not.
Sick of writers who can’t get to the point.
Not very long ago there was no such thing as a ‘climate scientist.’
97% of Government Funded Scientists Agree to Report Whatever the Government Pays Them Report.
Someday, hopefully soon, we will begin to read this headline: Many Nations Are Starving the Earth’s Ecosystem of Vital Nutrient. CO2 is PLANT FOOD!
In 2006 he said, in as little as ten years it will be too late to stop the consequences of global warming.
(paraphrased)
How many peer reviewed grants for studies disputing accepted conclusions were awarded?
