It is not currently hockey season. Perhaps this explains the missing hockey stick.
New survey reconfirms overwhelming scientific consensus on AGW
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
It is not currently hockey season. Perhaps this explains the missing hockey stick.
I get it now... Gosh, climate science has so many moving parts... Damned complicated I say
Nooooo, they (66%) didn't express a stance on AGW. Read what you post sometime.
You really enjoy pushing me to the logical conclusion you should address yourself.
Approximately two-thirds of abstracts did not take a position on the causes of global warming, for various reasons (e.g. the causes were simply not relevant to or a key component of their specific research paper). Thus in order to estimate the consensus on human-caused global warming, it's necessary to focus on the abstracts that actually stated a position on human-caused global warming.
The Cook et al. (2013) 97% consensus result is robust
Sorry to spoil that phony thread with this truthy one.
Climate change conundrum: Did humans cause global warming?
With that being said, Liu and his team don't deny that humans played a huge part on the impact of the climate. Nothing in nature over the last 10,000 years could have created the warming caused by greenhouse gases and the rapid melting of the planet's ice sheets, even though the computer models suggest it could be possible, but unlikely.
Climate change conundrum: Did humans cause global warming? : T-Lounge : Tech Times
Climate change conundrum: Did humans cause global warming?
With that being said, Liu and his team don't deny that humans played a huge part on the impact of the climate. Nothing in nature over the last 10,000 years could have created the warming caused by greenhouse gases and the rapid melting of the planet's ice sheets, even though the computer models suggest it could be possible, but unlikely.
Climate change conundrum: Did humans cause global warming? : T-Lounge : Tech Times
Another rather unnotioced but rather significant change is that the skeptic sites now regularly refer to "catastrophic" anthropogenic global warming (CAGW). This is kind of an implicit acceptance of global warming. The hacks at the sites like Watt's Up With That now say that they never disagreed with AGW theory, they just argued that it wouldn't be "catastrophic."
Let the revisionism begin! ha ha ha.
Let the revisionism begin! ha ha ha.
Well its easy to get a consensus when your job depends on it.
1000 years ago you'd lose your job and/or be burned at the stake for claiming the world was not the centre of the universe, or revolved around the sun.. or wasn't flat. When a a political and philosophical orthodoxy descends on the institutional science of the day.. one dissents at his peril.
Even when the theory has collapsed into pure nonsense... even when all the predictions have been proven wrong and the scientific method has been abandoned as it has with AGW.. the rigid orthodoxy.. increasingly embattled, isolated and lashing out will remain, driven on by blind allegiance.
But basically everyone else in the World knows the AGW Emporer is not wearing any clothes..Many honest scientists have said so.. but you will face the WRATH of the AGW CULT.. and they are true fanatics.
1000 years ago you'd lose your job and/or be burned at the stake for claiming the world was not the centre of the universe, or revolved around the sun.. or wasn't flat. When a a political and philosophical orthodoxy descends on the institutional science of the day.. one dissents at his peril.
Even when the theory has collapsed into pure nonsense... even when all the predictions have been proven wrong and the scientific method has been abandoned as it has with AGW.. the rigid orthodoxy.. increasingly embattled, isolated and lashing out will remain, driven on by blind allegiance.
But basically everyone else in the World knows the AGW Emporer is not wearing any clothes..Many honest scientists have said so.. but you will face the WRATH of the AGW CULT.. and they are true fanatics.
That is way too funny... The sheer audacity that these truthers can state that there have been no significant natural inputs, let alone cataclysmic events in the last 10,000 years is hilarious.
no one has ever stated that there is absolutely no anthropogenic contribution... The reality is that this contribution is not significant enough to cause the Armageddon that the truther crowd so desperately needs to believe.
Hell, snow leopards and spotted owls emit CO2 (aka: greenhouse gases) - should we exterminate all of them as they are dooming the globe to a fiery hell?