Nooooooooo 97% of 33% who wrote AGW papers are in consensus. The other 66% climate change IPCC authors take no AGW stance.
Surprise U.S.-China climate deal reverberates north and south
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Nooooooooo 97% of 33% who wrote AGW papers are in consensus. The other 66% climate change IPCC authors take no AGW stance.
Enough to support a model that can make an accurate prediction will do it.
Yeah, counting up opinions is science.
Insisting that scientific validity and accuracy is subject to a vote is a good start.
you claimed "all models" have failed to predict (although you didn't qualify the "predict"). That's a bogus claim. I'd ask you to cite it; however, I was met with a big-time flame from member, 'Locutus' in doing this, advising me that "this" has all been discussed previously on this board... that I should start peeling through past threads to "get up to speed". Apparently, one can't challenge "this" because "this" is soooo old news!
Wrong. I never once said "all models." You are a liar.
Disagree? Produce a quote.
No, the bogus claim is the claim that I said "all models." Anyone is free to go back through the thread and check. You are a liar.
Got news for you, son. You make up sh*t, ascribe it to me, then argue against it, you're really just talking to yourself. And you can sit in the corner and do that. No need to contribute to global warming by lying on the internet.
Not my father's or gfathers! Geez are you serious? You're right they aren't.
They are keen to trade because there is money to be made... and the world entertains China's wants and desires... because of their power and there is money to be made!
You said I hate teachers and government employees. You are a liar.
You are a whinny butthurt liar.
The Chinese have used the West's political confusion at the FRAUD of AGW to its advantage. Notice the agreement imposes immediate conditions on the U.S. and none at all on China for 16 years (which means none at all, period).
This gives China an immense price advantage for its exports.. on top its already decicisive advantage in labour cost and scale. In the context of the Free Trade Agreements signed with Asia now.. this will be the death knell for what little remains of U.S. manufacturing.
It seems we are in for a pathetic spectacle in the waning months of the Obama administration as it capitulates on trade, carbon emissions, immigration, and structural integrity.. to leave Barak some kind of half assed 'legacy'. This is a man without vision, conviction or even ideology. He simply floats of the liberal political currents without any sense of responsibility or consequences.
He's part of a litany of disastrous U.S. Presidencies stretching back 45 years.. but seems intent on taking on a particularly amorphous and irresolute quality.
This gives China an immense price advantage for its exports.. on top its already decicisive advantage in labour cost and scale. In the context of the Free Trade Agreements signed with Asia now.. this will be the death knell for what little remains of U.S. manufacturing.
It seems we are in for a pathetic spectacle in the waning months of the Obama administration as it capitulates on trade, carbon emissions, immigration, and structural integrity.. to leave Barak some kind of half assed 'legacy'. This is a man without vision, conviction or even ideology. He simply floats of the liberal political currents without any sense of responsibility or consequences.
He's part of a litany of disastrous U.S. Presidencies stretching back 45 years.. but seems intent on taking on a particularly amorphous and irresolute quality.
Last edited:
They took our land... boo hoo.
A NFL team name hurts my feelings... waaaaaaaaaaa!
for those still intent on purposely conveying an improper statement/suggestion of what the scientific consensus actually is, let me repeat an extract from a prior post:
... for those that actually know what the consensus is and how its been properly presented, conveyed and interpreted, it is:
... the consensus of scientists working in the disciplines that contribute to climate understanding, the consensus that accepts that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.
- inclusive of endorsement expressions of the consensus of scientists working in the disciplines that contribute to climate understanding, as reflects upon a past, current and active research of climate science and a past, current and active publication of climate science related papers. Additionally, an endorsement expression also reflects upon related official position statements taken by world-wide country national science academies/bodies, scientific organizations and academia; positions that state most of the earth's recent global warming can be attributed to human activities.
- inclusive of qualification expressions of the consensus of scientists working in the disciplines that contribute to climate understanding, associated to their peer-reviewed scientific publications almost consistently showing that the scientific research from and related opinions of, the consensus of this expert body of scientists, state that humans are causing global warming and/or that climate change is being caused by human activities.
- inclusive of qualification expressions of the consensus of scientists working in the disciplines that contribute to climate understanding, associated to their peer-reviewed scientific publications almost consistently showing that the scientific research from and related opinions of, the consensus of this expert body of scientists, state that humans are causing global warming and/or that climate change is being caused by human activities.
Here's a better idea: repeat an extract from a post where I said "all models," liar.
After what the Ravens did to you in the AFC Championship, I'm not surprised the name Ravens hurts your feelings.
BRING ON BRADY - LIVE! Baltimore Ravens Fan Video. - YouTube
Without a working oceanographic model, atmospheric models are useless.
over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013).* The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming
over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013).* The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming
I guess I'm as serious... as you agreeing with me.
obviously... and there are agreements made by countries to apply sanctions, to refuse to trade, etc.. See a significant world government response to Russia's actions in Crimea and the Ukraine. In that same vein, I don't expect China wants to build up negative world perception (or more negative than some already hold of it). You can choose to declare China's actions as those of internal self-interest... but again, why would they go through the motions of this latest U.S.-China agreement? Perhaps they're wily and know the U.S. won't ratify it internally... then who looks like the 'bad guy' to a world looking in? Yes? As if the U.S. needs any help in that regard!
97% of the 66% of dentist who recommend chewing trident disagree with you?
A lot of the naysayers living in their manicured suburbs and climate controlled environments don't know jack****. I've been to the cities where you can see dog**** on a sidewalk untouched by flies or sit at an outdoor bistro with no mosquitoes and all because the air is too toxic for insects to fly in.
For just me.......I can't keep bees alive in a biodynamic environment and there are virtually no feral pollinators left in my neck of the woods and I can see the difference in the loss of biodiversity just in my lifetime. For others connected to the earth who influence me it's the dying forests they once trapped in that are increasingly becoming "sterile" or the fact that for farmers the 6" of prairie topsoil at the turn of last century is now sitting just under 3" and they work the land harder. For a maritimer I sometimes communicate with it is the loss of fish stocks. For the elders from every tribe across Canada it is well documented that 100% conclude things are amiss like never before.
But what sums it up simply for me is from Grist.org and I agree 100% with my red highlights for extra emphasis:
If you like cool weather and not having to club your neighbors as you battle for scarce resources, now’s the time to move to Canada, because the story of the 21st century is almost written, reports Reuters. Global warming is close to being irreversible, and in some cases that ship has already sailed.
Scientists have been saying for a while that we have until between 2015 and 2020 to start radically reducing our carbon emissions, and what do you know: That deadline’s almost past! Crazy how these things sneak up on you while you’re squabbling about whether global warming is a religion. Also, our science got better in the meantime, so now we know that no matter what we do, we can say adios to the planet’s ice caps.
For ice sheets — huge refrigerators that slow down the warming of the planet — the tipping point has probably already been passed, Steffen said. The West Antarctic ice sheet has shrunk over the last decade and the Greenland ice sheet has lost around 200 cubic km (48 cubic miles) a year since the 1990s.
Here’s what happens next: Natural climate feedbacks will take over and, on top of our prodigious human-caused carbon emissions, send us over an irreversible tipping point. By 2100, the planet will be hotter than it’s been since the time of the dinosaurs, and everyone who lives in red states will pretty much get the apocalypse they’ve been hoping for. The subtropics will expand northward, the bottom half of the U.S. will turn into an inhospitable desert, and everyone who lives there will be drinking recycled pee and struggling to salvage something from an economy wrecked by the destruction of agriculture, industry, and electrical power production.
Water shortages, rapidly rising seas, superstorms swamping hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of infrastructure: It’s all a-coming, and anyone who is aware of the political realities knows that the odds are slim that our government will move in time to do anything to avert the biggest and most avoidable disaster short of all-out nuclear war.
Even if our government did act, we can’t control the emissions of the developing world. China is now the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases on the planet and its inherently unstable autocratic political system demands growth at all costs. That means coal.
Meanwhile, engineers and petroleum geologists are hoping to solve the energy crisis by harvesting and burning the nearly limitless supplies of natural gas frozen in methane hydrates at the bottom of the ocean, a source of atmospheric carbon previously considered so exotic that it didn’t even enter into existing climate models.
So, welcome to the 21st century. Hope you packed your survival instinct.
great post... much to think about. I'm off for lunch but will try to respond more on it later tonight/tomorrow.
I can't believe some people still believe the 97% fallicy. We really are doomed if it's that easy to confuse an alarmist.
Tecumseh, I am assuming you agree that humans are the main driver of climate change but you disagree with the scope or degree of damage that is purported to be caused by us.
Is this a fair assumption of where you stand right now?
Is this a fair assumption of where you stand right now?