Scientists want global warming skeptics prosecuted

Originally posted by utherpendragon
First , Heres a fact for ya Zahlanzi ,the warming has been 0.8 degrees over the past 150 years, and has tapered off to essentially nothing in the last (roughly) 18 years.

Second, Where do you get this 97% from ?

And what [b] exactly does this 97% agree upon ? That "climate change is real" ?
What does that mean? That climate changes? In ...[text shortened]... e dramatically for the worse."

Tell me, The 97% agree with what Obama and Kerry are saying ?[/b]

"First , Heres a fact for ya Zahlanzi ,the warming has been 0.8 degrees over the past 150 years, and has tapered off to essentially nothing in the last (roughly) 18 years."
perhaps you should have kept reading. that is the global amount, taking into account see level temperatures as well. landmass temperatures are rising more rapidly.

also they haven't "tapered off", that's just you and your buddies being unable to read data. or flat out lying.

"Second, Where do you get this 97% from ? "
just an example
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm


"Is that what the 97% agree upon? Tell me exactly what they agree upon.:"
climate change is real, we are causing it, and if we don't stop the current trends, a future generation will pay the consequences.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"First , Heres a fact for ya Zahlanzi ,the warming has been 0.8 degrees over the past 150 years, and has tapered off to essentially nothing in the last (roughly) 18 years."
perhaps you should have kept reading. that is the global amount, taking into account see level temperatures as well. landmass temperatures are rising more rapidly.

also they hav ...[text shortened]... ing it, and if we don't stop the current trends, a future generation will pay the consequences.

From your link they cite global-warming activist John Cook as the source for this 97%. Well I got news for you Zahlanzi, he is yet ANOTHER fraud to add to the long list.

Cook cooked the data in the Cook study.

"Out of the nearly 12,000 scientific papers Cook’s team evaluated, only 65 endorsed Cook’s alarmist position. That’s less than one percent, not 97 percent

Moreover, the Cook study was flawed from the beginning, using selection parameters designed to weight the outcome in favor of the alarmist position."

The New American reported on additional problems with the Cook study and cited "a large and growing list of eminent climate scientists — including Nobel Prize recipients and scientists who served on the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — who challenge the claim that there is any “scientific consensus” on climate change, or that “the science is settled” in favor of the Al Gore alarmist position."

"Now comes another devastating analysis of Cook's cooked data from a big name in the climate science community: Professor Richard S. J. Tol. Dr. Tol is a professor of the economics of climate change at the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam, Netherlands, and a professor of economics at the University of Sussex, England. He has also served on the UN’s IPCC.

Dr. Tol has statistically deconstructed the 97 percent consensus myth of Cook et al.

Professor Tol utilizes four graphs to demonstrate the biased methods utilized by the Cook team to skew the results of their “research.” One of the major “errors” of the study (whether intentional or the result of incompetence) was the use of the term “global climate change” to search the scientific database for papers that were included in the 12,000 tabulated by Cook and his co-authors.

In his first graph, Dr. Tol points out that by including “global” before “climate change,” Cook et al “dropped 75% of papers and changed disciplinary distribution.”

In his second graph, Dr. Tol demonstrates that by including “global” before “climate change,” the supposedly authoritative Cook study conveniently “dropped many papers by eminent climate researchers.” And Tol lists around 50 of those researchers who were “dropped.” These, of course, represent only a small sampling of the thousands of scientists who have expressed various levels of disagreement with the hysterical climate pronouncements of the IPCC, Al Gore, and John Cook.

Tol’s third graph shows that by including “global” before “climate change” the Cook team “dropped 33 of the 50 most cited papers.”

In his fourth graph, Dr. Tol shows that the Cook team also skewed the results of their findings by the database they chose to draw papers from, using the Web of Science (WoS) rather than SciVerse Scopus. “Choosing exclusive WoS over inclusive Scopus, Cook et al. dropped 35% of papers and changed disciplinary distribution,” Tol observes."

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/15624-cooking-climate-consensus-data-97-of-scientists-affirm-agw-debunked

Another E-mail Scandal Reveals Cook’s "97 Percent" Scam

"Populartechnology.net has posted e-mails from John Cook’s Skeptical Science website concerning what Cook calls “The Consensus Project” or TCP. The e-mails, from early 2012, reveal the huge promotional campaign Cook was rolling out to publicize the consensus study — before he had even done the study. It is also evident from the e-mails that Cook knew he was cooking the data to reach a preconceived conclusion.

In his "Introduction to TCP" e-mail of January 19, 2012, Cook explains to team members:

It's essential that the public understands that there's a scientific consensus on AGW [anthropogenic (man-made) global warming]. So Jim Powell, Dana and I have been working on something over the last few months that we hope will have a game changing impact on the public perception of consensus. Basically, we hope to establish that not only is there a consensus, there is a strengthening consensus. Deniers like to portray the myth that the consensus is crumbling, that the tide is turning.

Right from the get-go, it is apparent that Cook is planning to cook up a “game changing” study that will prove the “scientific consensus” he wants the public to accept. Typical of Cook and activists of his ilk is their use of “deniers” when referring to their opposition, an attempt to smear scientists who hold different opinions by equating them with Nazi holocaust deniers. It is hardly the mark of professional civility and collegiality one expects from true scientists.

Cook’s “Introduction” admits that “TCP is basically an update and expansion of Naomi Oreskes' survey of the peer-reviewed literature with deeper analysis.”

That is an interesting admission, since the 2004 Oreskes study — which was the original source for the 97 percent claim — was exposed for the same methodological flaws. Dr. Benny Peiser, a social science professor at John Moores University and visiting fellow at the University of Buckingham, eviscerated the Oreskes study, pointing out that Oreskes had falsified the so-called consensus by her faulty selection criteria in choosing papers to include in her survey.

In his "Introduction to TCP," Cook acknowledges that probably only half of the 12,000 papers they’ve selected will either explicitly or implicitly endorse AGW alarmism. But over time, he expects online volunteers to “process” many of the 6,000 non-endorsement papers, “converting” them into endorsements!

Here’s Cook:

I anticipate there will be around 6000 "neutral" papers. So what I was thinking of doing next was a public crowd sourcing project where the public are given the list of neutral papers and links to the full paper — if they find evidence of an endorsement, they submit it to SkS (Skeptical Science)…. Thus over time, we would gradually process the 6000 neutral papers, converting many of them to endorsement papers — and make regular announcements like "hey the consensus just went from 99.75% to 99.8%, here are the latest papers with quotes."

Cook went on to sketch out an entire promotional campaign utilizing press releases, major media programs, booklets, Kindle/iBooks, blogs, etc. “We beat the consensus drum often and regularly and make SkS the home of the perceived strengthening consensus,” Cook advised.

At least one of the members of his team seems to have recognized that Cook had the emphasis all backwards. Ari Jokimäki responded:

I have to say that I find this planning of huge marketing strategies somewhat strange when we don't even have our results in and the research subject is not that revolutionary either (just summarizing existing research). "

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/15624-cooking-climate-consensus-data-97-of-scientists-affirm-agw-debunked

Heres another one for you zahlanzi published in the WSJ.

The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'

What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming?

I wont do another lengthy cut/paste like above but I want to put this out there.
Others can go to the link below to read the rest of the article

Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

Originally posted by utherpendragon
Heres another one for you zahlanzi published in the WSJ.

[b]The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'

What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming?

I wont do another lengthy cut/paste like above but I want to put this out there.
Others can go to the link belo ...[text shortened]... rous problem.[/quote]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136[/b]

http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/#science

Here is a survey comparing views among scientists and the public, saying 87% of AAAS scientists (most of them not climate scientists, presumably the percentage is in fact higher among climate scientists) agree with the statement that "climate change is mostly due to human activity."

Originally posted by utherpendragon
Heres another one for you zahlanzi published in the WSJ.

[b]The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'

What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming?

I wont do another lengthy cut/paste like above but I want to put this out there.
Others can go to the link belo ...[text shortened]... rous problem.[/quote]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136[/b]

wall street journal. sounds like a very reliable science source. i am sure a business journal will be unbiased and post something that hurts business.. they were nice enough to place this article in the "opinion" section though. that's something.

a group of physicists and chemists based in la jolla california. oh? they couldn't find someone from outside la jolla? 31000? the size of a small town? much brain power, wow. CERN, something people have actually heard of, employs 2200 total (not all scientists).how about you explain what it means to be "based in La jolla Califohnia" .

"Others can go to the link below to read the rest of the article"
only if they subscribe

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
wall street journal. sounds like a very reliable science source. i am sure a business journal will be unbiased and post something that hurts business.. they were nice enough to place this article in the "opinion" section though. that's something.

a group of physicists and chemists based in la jolla california. oh? they couldn't find someone from outsid ...[text shortened]... .

"Others can go to the link below to read the rest of the article"
only if they subscribe

Out of the nearly 12,000 scientific papers Cook’s team evaluated, only 65 endorsed Cook’s alarmist position. That’s less than one percent, not 97 percent

Another Fraud exposed

Originally posted by utherpendragon
Out of the nearly 12,000 scientific papers Cook’s team evaluated, only 65 endorsed Cook’s alarmist position. That’s less than one percent, not 97 percent

Another Fraud exposed

are you stupid enough to think that the 97% of the scientist community all degree on everything? that there are many stupid enough to say that?


97%of the scientific community agree that climate change is real, man made and dangerous.
of those 97% of fukin course there are some who believe the world will end tomorrow and some that believe we have time for 3-4 generations until the damage becomes irreversible and all the in between positions.

climate change is real and not up for debate. that has been settled. the only thing up for debate is how bad the situation is and how much must we change and how soon.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
are you stupid enough to think that the 97% of the scientist community all degree on everything? that there are many stupid enough to say that?


97%of the scientific community agree that climate change is real, man made and dangerous.
of those 97% of fukin course there are some who believe the world will end tomorrow and some that believe we have time ...[text shortened]... e only thing up for debate is how bad the situation is and how much must we change and how soon.

No Zalanzi .
The fraud has been exposed.
Debunked.
Youre grasping at straws.
Climate has always changed throughout earth’s 4.5 billion years of existence. Its normal. And nothing can be done about it.
There is no danger. Despite your alarmist propaganda.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
No Zalanzi .
The fraud has been exposed.
Debunked.
Youre grasping at straws.
Climate has always changed throughout earth’s 4.5 billion years of existence. Its normal. And nothing can be done about it.
There is no danger. Despite your alarmist propaganda.

4.5 billion years of existence didn't have us.

"There is no danger"
right, dumping co2 and other fun gases into the atmosphere and cutting all the forests is a good thing.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
4.5 billion years of existence didn't have us.

"There is no danger"
right, dumping co2 and other fun gases into the atmosphere and cutting all the forests is a good thing.

You have a problem, though exposed repeatedly as a scam. Do you have a thoughtful solution?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
4.5 billion years of existence didn't have us.

"There is no danger"
right, dumping co2 and other fun gases into the atmosphere and cutting all the forests is a good thing.

I'm glad they cut the forest where my house is

house much more comfortable than tree to live in.

Originally posted by normbenign
You have a problem, though exposed repeatedly as a scam. Do you have a thoughtful solution?

the least one can do is invest in green energy and stop burning coal for energy
offer incentives for industries that operate more efficiently.
ban fuel inefficient cars, one doesn't need a freakin tank to drive ones kids to football practice.
other common sense measures that yes, might mean a financial effort now but will pay off in the long run.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
Heres another one for you zahlanzi published in the WSJ.

[b]The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'

What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming?

I wont do another lengthy cut/paste like above but I want to put this out there.
Others can go to the link belo ...[text shortened]... rous problem.[/quote]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136[/b]

Check your source, sh't for brains

Joseph Blast:
1976-1984: undergraduate, University of Chicago (incomplete degree)
1984-1994: Co-founding executive director of the Heartland Institute
1994-present: President and CEO of the Heartland Institute

Joseph Bast is president and CEO of the Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based think tank that prioritizes campaigns to discredit climate change science, most notably by organizing a series of conferences that reject global warming science. Bast has edited or authored several books casting doubt upon global warming, and leads in publishing anti-climate science newsletters to all state and national elected officials. Bast co-founded the Heartland Institute with the late David Padden, a political ally of the Koch Brothers.

According to Heartland’s 2012 budget, Joseph Bast’s base-level salary will be $155,930, compared to $149,700 in 2009-2010 and $139,720 in 2008. Bast donates $5,000 back to Heartland each year. Diane Bast, Joseph’s wife, has an expected 2012 salary of $96,523 for her work with the Heartland Institute.

Bast claims to have been a “hippie” until 1993. On good leadership at libertarian think tanks such as the Heartland Institute, Joseph Bast explains, "My motto is, you need to find a used car salesman who’s a libertarian—an aggressive, articulate guy who wants to build an organization. Academics are almost uniquely not fit to head a think tank. They don’t have management or financial skills."

[Oh and this: Tobacco Industry Apologist

In prior work for the tobacco industry, Joe Bast "staunchly defended 'Joe Camel'," the mascot for Camel cigarettes. Nature writes, "He is among the last public defenders of smoking and has argued that concerns about second-hand smoke are as bogus as those surrounding greenhouse gases." ]

http://polluterwatch.org/joseph-bast

Climate Misinformer: Roy Spencer

Dr. Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, as well as the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He is known for his work with the satellite-based temperature monitoring for which he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal [Wikipedia].

Dr. Spencer suggests that global warming is mostly due to natural internal variability, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Other professional affiliations: Dr. Spencer is on the board of directors of the George C. Marshall Institute, a right-wing conservative think tank on scientific issues and public policy. He listed as an expert for the Heartland Institute, a libertarian American public policy think tank. Dr. Spencer is also listed as an expert by the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project (ICECAP), a global warming "skeptic" organization

https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm

Originally posted by utherpendragon
Another E-mail Scandal Reveals Cook’s "97 Percent" Scam

"[b]Populartechnology.net has posted e-mails from John Cook’s Skeptical Science website concerning what Cook calls “The Consensus Project” or TCP. The e-mails, from early 2012, reveal the huge promotional campaign Cook was rolling out to publicize the consensus study — before he had eve ...[text shortened]... /tech/environment/item/15624-cooking-climate-consensus-data-97-of-scientists-affirm-agw-debunked

William F. Jasper is an American writer of conspiracy theories denouncing the New World Order and the United Nations.

Is this your best shot?

zzzzz