Couldn't the same statement be accurately made of many of the climate alarmists?
Nah. It just has 10s of thousands of research papers, observations and data across hundreds/thousands of scientists around the world. That is the body of evidence that underlies the current understandings of CC and the effects it is having on our planet.
So it isn't make believe Cynic.
Ohhh! Does this have something to do with that magical 97% number?
You do know that claim to scientific consensus was found to be incorrect, right?
Scientists tried to redo 38 climate change-denying studies and discovered some major flaws
Kelly Dickerson
Sep. 9, 2015, 11:15 AM 11,517 122
About 97% of scientists agree not only that climate change is real, but also that human activity, like driving a fossil fuel-burning car, is making it worse.
That agreement stems from nearly 4,000 studies that suggest humans are culpable, compared to only about 80 that say we have nothing to do with the problem.
Those numbers should leave us pretty confident that humans are indeed fueling climate change. However, you could argue there's a (really) small chance those 2% of studies actually have it right.
So, a team of seven climate scientists and meteorologists decided to give climate contrarians the benefit of the doubt, picked half of their more popular studies, and tried to redo them. (The hallmark of a good scientific paper is that it's reproducible, meaning another scientist can do the same experiment and get the same or similar results.)
What happened? Beyond being unable to replicate most of the results, the team discovered major flaws in the papers. In fact, many papers left out essential data, and some even ignored basic physics.
Dana Nuccitelli, one of the scientists who helped analyze the climate denier papers for the journal Theoretical and Applied Climatology, summed up what his team found in a blog post for The Guardian.
Below are the three biggest, most common problems Nuccitelli and the team found with the small minority of studies that dispute human involvement in climate change.
What Evidence Would Persuade You That Man-Made Climate Change Is Real?
Scientific evidence does not mandate any particular policy.
Ronald Bailey | April 3, 2015
In 2005, I changed my mind about climate change: I concluded that the balance of the scientific evidence showed that man-made global warming could likely pose a significant problem for humanity by the end of this century. My new assessment did not please a number of my friends, some of whom made their disappointment clear.
At the 2007 annual gala dinner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a D.C.-based free-market think tank, the master of ceremonies was former National Review editor John O'Sullivan. To entertain the crowd, O'Sullivan put together a counterfeit tale in which I ostensibly had given a lecture on environmental trends pointing out that most were positive. After my talk, O'Sullivan told the audience, a young woman supposedly approached me to express her displeasure with regard to my change of mind on climate change.
Continuing his fable, O'Sullivan recounted to the hundreds of diners that I had tried to explain why my views had shifted. Eventually realizing that the young woman was having none of it, I then purportedly asked her if it wasn't enough that we two actually agreed on most environmental policy issues. The young woman paused for a moment, said O'Sullivan, and then retorted, "I suppose that Pontius Pilate made some good decisions, too." Being compared, even in jest, to the Roman governor who consented to the crucifixion of Jesus is, to say the least, somewhat disconcerting.
Welcome to the most politicized science of our time.
So what evidence would convince you that man-made climate change is possibly real? Keep in mind that despite what progressive dimwits like Naomi Klein might assert, the scientific evidence does not mandate any particular program.
Cynic do you have any idea of the tens of thousands of papers and research undertaken on CC? You don't appear to accept even the reality of the amount of research.
I can't help you with your denial of the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding CC. That's your decision. But if you want to inject some research into this discussion consider the following article.
http://www.techinsider.io/global-warming-denier-studies-not-replicable-2015-9
If the thousands of papers, by thousands of scientists, of which you claim to be aware, have any value, then surely you should be able to draw on that information and answer some simple questions concerning the scientific basis for your belief?
The Big Picture
Posted on 24 September 2010 by dana1981
Oftentimes we get bogged down discussing one of the many pieces of evidence behind man-made global warming, and in the process we can't see the forest for the trees. It's important to every so often take a step back and see how all of those trees comprise the forest as a whole. Skeptical Science provides an invaluable resource for examining each individual piece of climate evidence, so let's make use of these individual pieces to see how they form the big picture.
Nah. It just has 10s of thousands of research papers, observations and data across hundreds/thousands of scientists around the world. That is the body of evidence that underlies the current understandings of CC and the effects it is having on our planet.
So it isn't make believe Cynic.
Do you want to find my carefully explained reasons for accepting the validity of the current scientific consensus on CC ? Just have a look at my contributions on this forum. I have to have written /quoted hundreds of comments.
...
Basilio
Must we belabour the point that there is broad agreement that the globe has been warming since the little ice age. And let's not use the word consensus, that in an anethema to science.
There is also broad agreement that anthropogenic emissions have played some role in more recent warming.
Thete are also natural factors at play, as much the worst of the alarmists live in denial of that.
Where there is less confidence, iare the roles of each and their feefback mechanisms.
There is actually much less consensus than you think bas. As Ive said before, I have a few CSIRO scientists as clients; in private, they will tell you a different story the official line they must toe. Their employment is contingent upon them having a particular view which they might not necessarily agree with.
Arr well, about time to close this thread. The hysteria, so called, is gone. The majority of progressive people are converting to clean alternatives at an increasing rate. Even our right wing former sceptical Government is pushing in the right dirsctions.
I think the hundred year events happenning every few weeks around the world has put the final nail into it all. Huge fires and floods in just the last week. Cold and snow in WA confirming the imballances and volatility of it. Trouble is it is past the point of return in our lifetimes and our Grandchildren will curse our inaction. Margaret Thatcher saw and recognised it many years ago with the formation of the IPCC but the oil and coal lobbies soon distorted that. But the money now recognises that it must get on board the new technology or miss out. Interesting times.
Noah's Ark story is a 'fact' that disproves climate change, says Irish MP
'There were some centuries when the country was very hot and warm and then there were different centuries with so much rain and cold'
Ian Johnston Environment Correspondent
An Irish MP has claimed the Biblical story about Noah’s Ark supports his view that climate change is not being caused by humans because “God above is in charge of the weather”.
Danny Healy-Rae, an independent, told music-and-politics magazine Hot Press said he was basing his views on “facts” and “history”.
Climate scientists were getting “more vehement” about the issue, he claimed, because they were “getting a lot of finance”.
Mr Healy-Rae, a publican in Kilgarvan, Kerry, told a debate in the Irish parliament earlier this year that “God above is in charge of the weather and we here can’t do anything about it”.
And, following a backlash about his remarks, he told Hot Press: “Everyone is entitled to their view. I’m basing my views on facts. The facts are there and history proves it.
“We had the Ice Age. We had Noah’s Ark. We had all those stories. We’ve proof of the Famine in 1740, which was caused by two years of incessant rain.
Always interesting to see different points of view re CC from outside Oz..
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...p-danny-healy-rae-bible-science-a7198711.html
View attachment 67808
Ah yes, and Obama et al are gonna stop warming at 2 °. :bowdown::bowdown::bowdown:
Of course they're not. This is one of those times when they'll jump to it once the water reaches their gated mansions.
Though they'll send hope and prayers, and Tweets about heart breaks and stuff.
You will never live to see your supposition come to reality and neither will those born today.....
It is all a UN scam and it is a shame that so many people are falling for it.
That 97.5 % of those 77 scientists have been well paid to present their "PEER REVIEWED" nonsense which is far from the true facts.....You know that 97.5% of all climate change scientists you so often talked about, well that number has all finally been revealed....But don't forget there are 31,470 scientist who are sceptics and who are well versed on the scam that is taking place on a daily basis.
Rubbish. Where does the money come for climate scientists to lie? It comes from the oil and coal lobby to distort as you do so well noco. There is no money needed to prove CC because its well proven and it is here now.
You will never live to see your supposition come to reality and neither will those born today.....
It is all a UN scam and it is a shame that so many people are falling for it.
That 97.5 % of those 77 scientists have been well paid to present their "PEER REVIEWED" nonsense which is far from the true facts.....You know that 97.5% of all climate change scientists you so often talked about, well that number has all finally been revealed....But don't forget there are 31,470 scientist who are sceptics and who are well versed on the scam that is taking place on a daily basis.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?