The Global Warming Thread

Can you respond directly to any of the points I've made? Do you understand how Ball's chart is dishonest now?

 

I don't think you are reading articles, here are some more....

http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php

http://climatechangedispatch.com/97-articles-refuting-the-97-consensus/

 

Anyone else notice that these arnt scientifically published, peer reviewed papers...

 

That and Avenger seems unable to actually discuss the science at all!

 

Since you guys don't seem to be able to read links, can you post a link that explains how your 97% peer review was created ?.

 

Sure it debunks it (in fact all the mainstream science and graphs online debunk Ball's claims).

And as far as playing games with statistics, it's ludicrous to claim only 3-4% of the world's climate scientists are in agreement about 1) climate change is occurring, 2) it's currently being accelerated by human activity and 3) it will cause global devastation.

Again, to prove your extraordinary claim, you'd have to prove to us that there is a significant amount of relevant scientists who support Ball, or any climate change propagandist for that matter.

You cannot (and you already proved it by not answering my simple requests for peer review).

I read the whole thing, and you're still wrong wrong wrong brother. If you're suggesting CO2 does not contribute to global warming, or that the chart doesn't have any relation to global climate change, you don't know the sources and haven't actually read the climate studies.

Again, please don't post National Review editorials or the articles from non-climate scientists to support your viewpoint, that's the problem with your line of reasoning. You have yet to produce a single piece of valid evidence suggesting that Ball is correct. Meanwhile, I can pull charts from peer-reviewed, scientific work with majority consensus support from actual climate scientists all day long (including these) and never run out of them.

The reason? Hundreds of real studies, vs what you've offered (essentially, internet blogs and op-ed)

You have no evidence to support your claim, so

 

I have.

Oh, and the Robinson, Robinson and Soon 2007 Oregon Petition has been soundly trashed too. Look it up.

 

http://www.news.com.au/entertainmen...s/news-story/b6e11a59cc39b6ea96ea89377da239a7

I belive this to be exceptionally relevant!

professor Brian Cox debating a climate change denyer.

 

Does not prove anything, just another guy trying to secure more grants.
Temperature is still cooler than past, and variations are normal, and way within past temperatures, one degree in hundred years of data is not a long term trend.

Where is the 97% study ??????, does not exist, it was a 3% of total , not 97%.

 

Do you understand that you have presented no data to support that?

 

The charts show that, try looking at the charts and stop repeating garbage propaganda.

I still have not seen the 97% proof report., do you have a link to that.?

 

Just another scientist trying to get funding to do important science. Why should we support them, right? We should let skeptics without evidence like yourself poo-poo funding science? This is probably the most ill-used argument against science, ever. You scientists don't want to research..you just want our money!

Seriously, hope you can read the sarcasm, but honestly, this sort of argument is illogical...you could use this argument to attack every scientist including Einstein

Temperature is thousands of degrees cooler than the formative era of the Earth.

The variations are definitely not normal, according to global climate data.

Two degrees over any number of years is catastrophic to humanity and life in general on a global scale. Do you deny that?

World scientific consensus is still against you, and your sources, no matter what number you choose. Those numbers don't matter, what matters is all the climate science community not only disagrees with you, your sources are actively attempting to thwart their efforts in a very non-scientific ways.

Far more than the majority of climate scientists have gone on the record, internationally no less, in support of both significant man-made influences on the global climate, AND the impending global disasters that will follow the warming of the earth.

Avenger, are you one of those people who believe Bill Nye isn't a scientist? That Mr. Nye is wrong about everything (even though he supports the mainstream consensus of the climate science community), and Mr. Ball is right, because he has a degree in geology and some extremely politically charged opinions?

Not a chance, brother.

 

Ball's chart was erroneous as I've shown. Do you understand how and why it is erroneous?

 

Sources?

And by sources I mean those that are actual sources and not the fluff pieces you have referenced previousky

 

Well Hannibal, he won't give you the actual source, but I will. Just as a reminder to everyone what peer reviewed science actually looks like, unlike Mr. Balls editorial...and this definitely illustrates where the "97%" number comes from, and what it means in a statistical sense. Anyone with a brain who does NOT have a political agenda like Mr. Ball or his proponents can easily see the truth with regards to these numbers (isn't it great to get the source directly and not be fed it via erroneous memes, blog comments, denial op-eds, or generally the opinions of the non-climate scientists of the world? )

(Or the WORST possible source...Climate scientists in the pocket of the energy industry lobby, like David Legates)

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...09527C1F324F4C79D3C.c2.iopscience.cld.iop.org

incoming retort with something that isn't peer reviewed science in 3....2.....1....

 

You have now, brother. And why are you calling peer reviewed scientific research "garbage propaganda"? There's no evidence it's garbage, or propaganda, in fact, if it was, it would be subject to peer review and called out. Unfortunately for Mr. Ball's political agenda, the survey is compelling meta-data about consensus. This survey I've just posted above proves every climate denier wrong, if their goalpost is attempting to sow doubt regarding consensus...this paper clearly proves the 'doubters' are wrong.

Actual recent example of anti-science "propaganda": "just another guy trying to secure more grants".

And before you try to pass off any particular scientists' opinions on the survey, keep in mind it hasn't been challenged by the climate science community. Not at all. In fact the only place you'll find challengers are outside or at the extreme fringe of climate science community, or writing political pieces like Mr. Balls, or people like you who think all scientists ever want is more money/funding. That's not a scientific viewpoint, that's a political opinion.

 

Nope, this is the point in all of his conversations where he calls you a sheep for disagreeing with him and thinking for yourself.

 

Think of all the sheep like Sir Arthur Eddington who believed Einstein, he just wanted more of your grant money to fund his lavish trips to Africa to watch eclipses!

And there's no consensus that relativity exists! It's clearly just a theory and a lie and a fake too!

...take a look at this website which proves it! Says right there "Einsteins theory of relativity is a lie and fake", provided by a trustworthy, totally non-political source who writes...

"The man who created the atomic bomb is the devil’s obedient and a liar. On many lies based science in order to keep people enslaved and propagate covered with evil.....P.S I’m not anti-Semite.I am a Serb who hates lies and people with the help of a misconception, terror, brainwashing achieve their personal goals and goals neocolonialism"

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1645651-relativity-big-lie

 

Here is explanation of 97%, you need to watch all to get description.

https://youtu.be/aLSADmQm4kc

Here another describing .....https://youtu.be/SSrjAXK5pGw

Even that study you quote says that 97% of 32% say humans contribute to warming, which leaves out 100% of 64%, so maybe 32% not 97%, but no concensus of catastrophic alarm from warming.

 

That 32% is not saying that only 32% of the people writing all those papers know that climate change is real. That's saying that of the papers matching the search terms said only 32% explicitly said "climate change is real" while 0.7% said explicitly "it's not real" and 0.3% said explicitly "dunno."

This is a collection of papers which match a certain set of search terms. Some of those are bound to be simply brief mentions of the subject and some will not state explicitly because they imply a certain position. So we take those out because they're more difficult to dissect which leaves us a grand total of 33% of papers which simply match the search terms.

So of papers which didn't simply imply but expressed a position explicitly:
97% → It's real
2% → It's not real
1% → Don't know

That is an overwhelming explicit consensus