Resisting Climate Hysteria

[luutzu]

Luutzu, I am still waiting for your answer....Do you have a number or not?

Is that 90% of all scientist through out the world or 90% of a couple of thousand hand picked by the UN who are sympathetic to the UN's Global Warming cause?

I heard that figure from a few different sources over the years. Will google it for you. Pretty sure it's in the high 90s. What's more, a fair number of scientists believe the current "alarmist" predictions are way way too conservative and that some scientists actually censor themselves in case they're made out to be too extreme.

 

[luutzu]

Luutzu, I am still waiting for your answer....Do you have a number or not?

Is that 90% of all scientist through out the world or 90% of a couple of thousand hand picked by the UN who are sympathetic to the UN's Global Warming cause?

Here we go:

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 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.

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

From same website:

American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)

American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)

 

[noco]

Here we go:

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

From same website:

American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)

American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 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.

What I am trying to establish is that 97% of how many climate scientists agree?...You don't give a number!!!!!!

Is it 97% of 2000 or 2500 or maybe just 18?

 

[luutzu]

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 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.

What I am trying to establish is that 97% of how many climate scientists agree?...You don't give a number!!!!!!

Is it 97% of 2000 or 2500 or maybe just 18?

97% from 11,944 research papers.

Each research would have multiple authors. So it's not a couple of guys at a bar.

Scanned through and it seem a few studies examining this consensus points to high 90s to 100% total agreement on climate change.

Some of the paper define a climate change scientist as one who published at least 20 studies on the subject. So these are not PhD graduate or some noop.. .but are actually expert and likely have been spending their entire career on the subject.

More here: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

 

[qldfrog]

Do not bother Luutzu, in the same way whatever argument, figure, truth or actual experience I have,nothing can change your "belief" about the illegal immigrants/aka refugees invation of europe,
And Noco will never change his "belief".

 

[noco]

97% from 11,944 research papers.

Each research would have multiple authors. So it's not a couple of guys at a bar.

Scanned through and it seem a few studies examining this consensus points to high 90s to 100% total agreement on climate change.

Some of the paper define a climate change scientist as one who published at least 20 studies on the subject. So these are not PhD graduate or some noop.. .but are actually expert and likely have been spending their entire career on the subject.

More here: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

So what do you say about 31,478 scientists who do not agree with your unknown number of scientist who have put out 11,944 research papers.

I believe the scientists you have mentioned are hand picked by the UN and the whole thing is a manipulation of the truth......The UN are not interested in scientists who are skeptics ...The UN don't even want to know them....
they are not allowed to express their opinion...Myself and some others on this Forum are ridiculed by a few naive posters as if we don't have the right to express our opinion even when you are proved wrong.....You and your mates want to dominate this thread as though you own it....You are always right and all others are wrong......perhaps one day we may all be proved wrong......

I have proved to you and some of your supporters about the fallacy of Greenland and in time you will be proved wrong about the exaggeration of the Great Barrier Reef......There is only 2% of complete carol death ...Why do you Greenies try to make out the reef has been totally destroyed when it is not true....It has suffered before on so many occasions over 500,000 years and has always recovered....As I told you I can recall the reef under stress in 1950 when I holidayed on South Molle Island.

The petition signed by 31,478 scientists from around the world was conducted by OISM (Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine) who all agreed Climate change is not caused by CO2 emissions.

www.petitionproject.org

 

[luutzu]

So what do you say about 31,478 scientists who do not agree with your unknown number of scientist who have put out 11,944 research papers.

I believe the scientists you have mentioned are hand picked by the UN and the whole thing is a manipulation of the truth......The UN are not interested in scientists who are skeptics ...The UN don't even want to know them....
they are not allowed to express their opinion...Myself and some others on this Forum are ridiculed by a few naive posters as if we don't have the right to express our opinion even when you are proved wrong.....You and your mates want to dominate this thread as though you own it....You are always right and all others are wrong......perhaps one day we may all be proved wrong......

I have proved to you and some of your supporters about the fallacy of Greenland and in time you will be proved wrong about the exaggeration of the Great Barrier Reef......There is only 2% of complete carol death ...Why do you Greenies try to make out the reef has been totally destroyed when it is not true....It has suffered before on so many occasions over 500,000 years and has always recovered....As I told you I can recall the reef under stress in 1950 when I holidayed on South Molle Island.

The petition signed by 31,478 scientists from around the world was conducted by OISM (Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine) who all agreed Climate change is not caused by CO2 emissions.

www.petitionproject.org

Why do you have to make me agree with qldfrog?

Noco, 97% of research into Climate Change, of research by scientist specialising on the matter; scientists who spent their career studying the thing... 97% of known scientific research concludes that CC is happening and will likely cause devastating damage... and they're all wrong?

You do know that not all scientists are equal right? There are scientists and then there are "scientist"; there are specialists and there are some guy with a science degree and maybe a postgrad degree in some other science. Then there are sell-outs too. Scientists do like money and a nice job backed by big money.

Anyway, I'm sure that all "us" climate alarmist wish we're wrong. BUt what if we're not wrong? What if the science is right? What if you're wrong? Could your tears or apologies or bad feelings reverse the damage and prevent the deaths then?

Let see...

Prolonged drought will reduce crops, jack up global prices, destroy crops and harvests, poor people starve or die.

Rising sea level floods the deltas, salt fertile land, destroy crops, send poor farmers the world over into further poverty and hunger, they flee to higher grounds and get send back for being economic migrants.

Higher temperature in the ocean, the atmosphere causes larger, more deadly, more frequent hurricane and storm surge; extreme weather.... people die.

But people always die and new ones are born?

anyway, she'll be right. What does scientists know or done anything good with their knowledge and research anyway.

 

[luutzu]

Do not bother Luutzu, in the same way whatever argument, figure, truth or actual experience I have,nothing can change your "belief" about the illegal immigrants/aka refugees invation of europe,
And Noco will never change his "belief".

You know you'd have to do more than channelling Trump and his "truth because I said so" to convince some people right?

Will be heading to Europe soon. Will report back on all the ruins. See what them barbarians have done to the place.

 

[noco]

Why do you have to make me agree with qldfrog?

Noco, 97% of research into Climate Change, of research by scientist specialising on the matter; scientists who spent their career studying the thing... 97% of known scientific research concludes that CC is happening and will likely cause devastating damage... and they're all wrong?

You do know that not all scientists are equal right? There are scientists and then there are "scientist"; there are specialists and there are some guy with a science degree and maybe a postgrad degree in some other science. Then there are sell-outs too. Scientists do like money and a nice job backed by big money.

Anyway, I'm sure that all "us" climate alarmist wish we're wrong. BUt what if we're not wrong? What if the science is right? What if you're wrong? Could your tears or apologies or bad feelings reverse the damage and prevent the deaths then?

Let see...

Prolonged drought will reduce crops, jack up global prices, destroy crops and harvests, poor people starve or die.

Rising sea level floods the deltas, salt fertile land, destroy crops, send poor farmers the world over into further poverty and hunger, they flee to higher grounds and get send back for being economic migrants.

Higher temperature in the ocean, the atmosphere causes larger, more deadly, more frequent hurricane and storm surge; extreme weather.... people die.

But people always die and new ones are born?

anyway, she'll be right. What does scientists know or done anything good with their knowledge and research anyway.

So we should all be terrified to death.......when is all this going happen?...Please tell me?

As I have mentioned before, I have proved the alarmists wrong about Greenland......What is happening now had happened 1000 years ago when the temperature was much warmer than it is today...That subject has some how dropped off your radar and I don't see any comments about it from you or any of the other alarmist on this forum....Have you conceded defeat on this natural occurrence?

1. Is the Petition Project fulfilling expectations?

The project has fulfilled the expectations of its organizers. In PhD scientist signers alone, the project already includes 15-times more scientists than are seriously involved in the United Nations IPCC process. The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that, if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it.

Moreover, the current totals of 31,487 signers, including 9,029 PhDs, are limited only by Petition Project resources. With more funds for printing and postage, these numbers would be much higher.

2. Has the petition project helped to diminish the threat of energy and technology rationing?

The accomplishments of science and engineering have transformed the world. They have markedly increased the quality, quantity, and length of human life and have enabled human beings to make many improvements in the natural environment of the Earth.

Today, scientists are seeing the accomplishments of science demonized and one of the three most important molecular substances that make life possible - atmospheric carbon dioxide (the other two being oxygen and water) - denigrated as an atmospheric "pollutant" in a widely circulated movie. Scientists who have carefully examined the facts know that this movie contains numerous falsehoods. This and many other similar misguided propaganda efforts in the media, naturally repel men and women who know the truth. The search for truth is the essence of science. When science is misrepresented, scientists are naturally incensed.

There is, therefore, a rapidly growing backlash of opposition among American scientists to this egregious misuse of the reputation and procedures of science. The Petition Project is helping to demonstrate this opposition and, therefore, to reduce the chances of misguided political reductions in science-based technology.

 

[SirRumpole]

So we should all be terrified to death.......when is all this going happen?...Please tell me?

Believe what you like mate, you're wrong and everyone knows it except you and your deluded mates

You may get your head out of the sand one day, but I doubt it.

 

[Knobby22]

Watched David Attenboroughs final Barrier Reef episode last night.
Very sad. He expects the reef to be mostly gone in 40 years unless we change our ways. 40% gone already. If you love eating fish then this is particuarly bad. He blames global warming, acidification of the ocean, fertilizer run off and human predation.

 

[noco]

Believe what you like mate, you're wrong and everyone knows it except you and your deluded mates

You may get your head out of the sand one day, but I doubt it.

Well Ruimpy, that is a typical response from you and it was one I fully expected.....You are continuing to lower standard of reasonable argument....You only know one way.....ridicule. intimidation and character assassination...It does not become you but I guess you know no other way.

Why don't you make some remark on Greenland?....Has that become all too hard for you and your Greenie mates since I have proved you all wrong?......You will also be proved wrong in time about the Great Barrier Reef.

You say I am always wrong so does that include the 31,438 scientist who signed a petition condemning this Global Warming scam.?

 

[noco]

Watched David Attenboroughs final Barrier Reef episode last night.
Very sad. He expects the reef to be mostly gone in 40 years unless we change our ways. 40% gone already. If you love eating fish then this is particuarly bad. He blames global warming, acidification of the ocean, fertilizer run off and human predation.

The main part of the reef that has been affected is north of Port Douglas to Thursday Island where there no fertilizer run off.

I also watched David Attenborough episode and he has only been to one reef...How could he possibly generalize on 2500 km of the reef...Please be reasonable.

Human Predation??????Do you mean depredation or predatory?..I am not familiar with your term predation.

 

[explod]

Agree, particularly the supposed melt of Greenland 1000 years ago. Prevously fixed perma frost/ice millions of years old now slipping into the sea.

You have not noco, could not even get your link up, told you so and no response.

If you actually read some of the science papers and how the physical evidence is examined and tested there is no doubt.

Have you bothered to read "The Sixth Extinction" yet. This must be about the fifth time I have asked.

 

[Knobby22]

The main part of the reef that has been affected is north of Port Douglas to Thursday Island where there no fertilizer run off.

Yes I know. Which makes it worse. Effects of warm water.
Human predation means we are eating some sorts of fish that have thrown the ecosystem off balance. e.g. Crown of Thorns star fish infestation.

 

[SirRumpole]

Why don't you make some remark on Greenland??

Read the attached. There is a cold "blob" around Greenland, but the rest of the world is warmer than average.

This article explains why.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...bout-a-cold-blob-in-the-north-atlantic-ocean/

 

[noco]

You have not noco, could not even get your link up, told you so and no response.

If you actually read some of the science papers and how the physical evidence is examined and tested there is no doubt.

Have you bothered to read "The Sixth Extinction" yet. This must be about the fifth time I have asked.

Plod, here it is again for your information.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Greenland

Green·land′ic (-lăn′dĭk) adj.
Word History: How did a glacier-covered island get the name Greenland? In Icelandic sagas written in the 12th century and later, it is told that Eric the Red explored the southeast and southwest coasts of Greenland in ad 983-986. He thought his fellow Icelanders would be more likely to go there if it had an attractive name, and he therefore called it Grænland, Icelandic for "Greenland." This was not exactly a case of false advertising. Greenland was warmer in the 10th century than it is now. There were many islands teeming with birds off its western coast, the sea was excellent for fishing, and the coast of Greenland itself had many fjords where anchorage was good. Moreover, at the head of the fjords there were enormous meadows full of grass, willows, junipers, birch, and wild berries. Icelanders set up colonies in Greenland that thrived for much of the next three hundred years. In the middle of the 14th century, however, the North Atlantic area began to cool significantly. The colonies began to die out, and they finally disappeared at the very beginning of the 15th century. Only the Inuit continued to live on the island as the climate grew progressively colder and the formerly green valleys of Greenland were covered by ice.

If you want further information on what happened in Greenland 1000 years ago just go to Google.

 

[noco]

Read the attached. There is a cold "blob" around Greenland, but the rest of the world is warmer than average.

This article explains why.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...bout-a-cold-blob-in-the-north-atlantic-ocean/

Thanks Rumpy...A very interesting article with a lot of "MAYBES" and with some uncertainties....I read the hold post and looked at all 27 photos of Greenland and #9 attracted my attention.

July 30, 2013 Icebergs float by the home of potato and sheep farmer Otto Nielsen in Qaqortoq. Nielsen said that even though this summer has not been as warm as last year, the climate change has extended the crop growing season. Joe Raedle/Getty Images

But that article does not detract from the fact that it all happened 1000 years ago and it may be happening again now.....CLIMATE CHANGE ????????...YES...man made NO.

So why can't you and other alarmists accept my POV?.....Is that an embarrassment for you?

 

[SirRumpole]

So why can't you and other alarmists accept my POV?

If you were a scientist I might.

 

[noco]

If you were a scientist I might.

Don't be smart Rumpy...You know what my POV is without me having to go over it all again.