Anybody else notice?

[Spurs Up]

Some reading for anyone who doesn't think the climate is changing:

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

https://www.mfe.govt.nz/climate-change/why-climate-change-matters/evidence-climate-change

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/03102017/infographic-ocean-heat-powerful-climate-change-evidence-global-warming

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/global-warming-real/

Nothing NASA says can be taken for the truth they adjusted the numbers to change the results fact. Any government agency who's sole reason for getting funds is to create a global warming crisis cannot be impartial. One side says the temperature has increased 1.62 degrees in the last hundred years the other side says .01 in hundred years. One side stands to gain monetarily the other does not...who do you believe? The Earth has gone thru warming and cooling cycles since God created the Earth no amount of tax payers dollars will change that. People better wake up this green deal they working on now, the only green will be what they take from your paycheck. The fact that they think the Earth will be destroyed in 12 years unless we throw a bunch of money at the problem,pretty much sums up the mentality of these Climate change doom croakers.

Preach on brother!  Wasn't it NASA that started that whole "round earth" conspiracy?

[GobbleNut]

Some reading for anyone who doesn't think the climate is changing:

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

https://www.mfe.govt.nz/climate-change/why-climate-change-matters/evidence-climate-change

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/03102017/infographic-ocean-heat-powerful-climate-change-evidence-global-warming

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/global-warming-real/

Nothing NASA says can be taken for the truth they adjusted the numbers to change the results fact. Any government agency who's sole reason for getting funds is to create a global warming crisis cannot be impartial. One side says the temperature has increased 1.62 degrees in the last hundred years the other side says .01 in hundred years. One side stands to gain monetarily the other does not...who do you believe? The Earth has gone thru warming and cooling cycles since God created the Earth no amount of tax payers dollars will change that. People better wake up this green deal they working on now, the only green will be what they take from your paycheck. The fact that they think the Earth will be destroyed in 12 years unless we throw a bunch of money at the problem,pretty much sums up the mentality of these Climate change doom croakers.

Preach on brother!  Wasn't it NASA that started that whole "round earth" conspiracy?

I wasn't going to make any comments on this stuff,...but that was just too funny not to give you big thumbs up!  How apropos!!

[LaLongbeard]

Some reading for anyone who doesn't think the climate is changing:

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

https://www.mfe.govt.nz/climate-change/why-climate-change-matters/evidence-climate-change

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/03102017/infographic-ocean-heat-powerful-climate-change-evidence-global-warming

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/global-warming-real/

Nothing NASA says can be taken for the truth they adjusted the numbers to change the results fact. Any government agency who's sole reason for getting funds is to create a global warming crisis cannot be impartial. One side says the temperature has increased 1.62 degrees in the last hundred years the other side says .01 in hundred years. One side stands to gain monetarily the other does not...who do you believe? The Earth has gone thru warming and cooling cycles since God created the Earth no amount of tax payers dollars will change that. People better wake up this green deal they working on now, the only green will be what they take from your paycheck. The fact that they think the Earth will be destroyed in 12 years unless we throw a bunch of money at the problem,pretty much sums up the mentality of these Climate change doom croakers.

Preach on brother!  Wasn't it NASA that started that whole "round earth" conspiracy?

Surely you and Keyboard Comando don't really  think NASA figured out the Earth wasn't flat. If you really believe that you need to seek help. If you know better then that was a really weak attempt at humor to avoid the facts stated.

[Bay1985]

Thankfully the ignore function on this sight works great so I have no idea what KC had to say ....but I'm guessing from previous experience it had zero intelligence or in anyway backed up his opinion of the subject or answered any question asked. Ima add ol Spurs Up to the cull pile he's clearly not capable of an intelligent response either

[LaLongbeard]

Thankfully the ignore function on this sight works great so I have no idea what KC had to say ....but I'm guessing from previous experience it had zero intelligence or in anyway backed up his opinion of the subject or answered any question asked. Ima add ol Spurs Up to the cull pile he's clearly not capable of an intelligent response either

Nailed it on the first guess lol

[idgobble]

Thankfully the ignore function on this sight works great so I have no idea what KC had to say ....but I'm guessing from previous experience it had zero intelligence or in anyway backed up his opinion of the subject or answered any question asked. Ima add ol Spurs Up to the cull pile he's clearly not capable of an intelligent response either

I'd like to read the econlib article you posted but can't find it when I search their archives.  Was it removed? Please supply a link.

[captpete]

I rarely weigh in on debates, but here is my  ...take it for what it's worth....VERY LITTLE.

Several years ago I saw part of a video about climate change. I didn't get to watch the whole thing and never got back to watching the rest of it. The video was made by some professor. Here is what I took from what I watched:  Millions of years ago the whole earth was a very warm climate. A long came a massive volcanic explosion that spewed vast amounts of ash and smoke into the sky blocking the sun, causing the Ice Age. The earth's surface was completely covered in ice. Since that time the earth has slowly been returning to it's original temputure. Have we humans help to speed up the temputure recovery? It's very possible. Are there things we can to do slow it down? Again possibly.

[Rapscallion Vermilion]

There are fluctuations in temperatures across the country now and since the beginning of time. The problem is trying to convince the sheep it's caused by man and we can somehow fix it with tax payer dollars. There is no consensus to any theory on Climate Change. It is clear there are  some government appointed agency's who's whole existence is predicated on keeping the man made Climate Change scam going. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You say,"There is no consensus to any theory on Climate Change."       Please explain why the following is not a consensus.  --"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources."

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

And while you're at it please explain why the organizations listed in the link are not credible and you have more knowledge of the issue than they do. 

As for the 97% claim :  " Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it's somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists."

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-basic.htm

You obviously did not look up the link I provided it explains in detail that the real percentage is 1.6% of scientists not 97% you notice you don't hear them throwing the 97% around anymore? It was proven false just like there fake temperatures.

I did look at the article you put up a link for
https://www.econlib.org/archives/2014/03/16_not_97_agree.html
and here are the numbers referred to; with the re-analyzed numbers from Bahner as quoted in that link.

1,Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+% : 64
2,Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimize: 922
3,Implicitly endorses AGW without minimizing it: 2910
4,No Position: 7970
5,Implicitly minimizes/rejects AGW: 54
6,Explicitly minimizes/rejects AGW but does not quantify: 15
7,Explicitly minimizes/rejects AGW as less than 50%: 9

Here is the pertinent Abstract text from the Cook paper in question:
"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research."

I've put the two sentences in bold for emphasis.  Both statements are consistent with the numbers quoted in the article you link.  However, what has clearly happened is that the "Among abstracts expressing a position" qualifier has not been conveyed in the press. There are a multitude of reasons why a particular Abstract might not make a mention of AGW one way or another. Here's an example of one of the papers in Cook's data base that took no position in its abstract:

1991,Effects Of Climate On Reproduction In The European Wild Rabbit (oryctolagus-cuniculus),Journal Of Zoology,Bell

I do think it is a far reach to imagine that this paper took no position on AGW. However, the final sentence of the Cook abstract (in bold above) is consistent with the article you quote.

[Sir-diealot]

Just wondering, what does NASA have to say about ghosts?

[idgobble]

Rapscallion, Wow!  Thank you for clarifying that.  Thank you for the link, too. Interesting comments at the end.   Contrary to what Bay1985 is trying to convince us, there does seem to be overwhelming consensus among scientists that global warming/climate change is, at least, partly human caused. As NASA says, "The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia."

[silvestris]

"Soylent Green is people."

[Bay1985]

You may want to check the batteries in your calculator because your numbers are wrong again. There  is not and never has been 97% agreement on climate change. The 97% number was thrown around for awhile and a lot of people assumed that was 97% of scientists. No the 97% was Cooks failed math of about 12000 studies and the actual math the real working calculator math is 1.6% agreed with Cook not 97% and that's 1.6% of 12000 not every scientist. His numbers were proven wrong and he retracted the statement. While your looking for new batteries for the calculator check the dictionary for the word consensus.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bay1985]

If all you have for an answer is to re quote the same failed Cook "study" I'll leave you with this




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rapscallion Vermilion]

Hmmm, I haven't taken a position one way or another in anything I've said.  I'm just trying to take a fair look at the numbers you quote.  If I take category 1 and divide by the number of abstracts that had an identifiable position (3974), that is your 1.6%.  But equally and fairly so, if I take category 7, I get 0.23%.  Those are the opposing extremes.  If I take 1+2+3, I get 98%.  If I take the opposing views, 5+6+7, I get 2%. Now I happen to believe 98% is a whole lot bigger than 2%, but you are welcome to argue, maybe even quote another cartoon.

[Bay1985]

So to be clear you now have no position on the subject. No answer or proof to refute the Climate models that the whole entire man made Global warming scam is based on have been proven wrong more than once. No chance of denying that both NASA and the NOAA were caught manipulating the data to fit there theory because it is a fact. So the percentages don't confuse people let's look at the actual numbers 11944 studies with 64 agree in AGW and only 3896 even agree it is a real thing. This is turning into another one of your "because I think so but don't know why and can't prove it " attempts. Exactly like your I don't know why a Gould's turkey is the exact same bird as a barnyard turkey lol.