BigMike Loc: yerington nv

The planet functions like a machine. Cycles juxtaposed on cycles. They keep finding this stuff out. I read it every day.

EconomistDon

Rayban, you are clinging to a bogus report that was debunked years ago. This is so old, I can't even quote a source. But here are the details:

Recently, 31,000 scientists signed a document claiming that CO2 emissions are not the cause of global warming. Yet CO2 alarmists continue to claim that 97 percent of scientists believe in man-made global warming. The 97% is bogus. It doesn't even represent scientists, it represents research papers that were hand selected by a team of 12 scientists who blog under the collective name of Skeptical Science. These 12 scientists, led by Sarah Green, a chemistry professor at Michigan Technological University and John Cook, a research fellow at the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland in Australia are convinced that man is causing global warming. They feel that action must be taken by politicians, that a show of support from scientists was needed. Here is an excerpt from Scientific American.

"Cook thinks that politicians are not acting because the public is not pressuring them enough. If people realize that the majority of scientists agree on human-caused climate change, they will absorb that knowledge like empty vessels and become more convinced of the threat, he said. They will then be more amenable to picking up their phones and calling their legislators."

So they set out to prove scientist support. But rather than survey scientists, they decided to research scientific reports. "So, in 2011, Cook decided to do one more consensus study and promote the heck out of it. He collected 11,944 papers from the ISI Web of Science database that contained the words 'global warming' or 'global climate change.' He and 11 Skeptical Science volunteers went through the abstracts and coded the authors' positions on anthropogenic global warming." Of the 11,944 papers, the group selected 4,014 to be in their final report. Of those 4,014 papers, 97.2 percent supported the idea that humans play a role in global warming.

"That statement quickly got boiled down in the popular media to a much simpler message: that 97 percent of scientists believe climate change is caused by humans. President Obama tweeted the 97 percent consensus."

There are two major problems with this approach.
1. The 97 percent represent papers, not scientists.
2. The papers were hand selected by a biased team trying to prove a point.

The "97 percent of scientists" claim is bogus, obtained through a biased research project. The project was successful, in that it achieved Cook's goal of getting people fired up to contact their congressmen. Just look how many posters on this board have suckered for the 97 percent pitch. But it is a hoax.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Raylan Wolfe Loc: earth

Those details can't be found because they were debunked by the source I started this topic with!

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/apr/04/don-beyer/don-beyer-says-97-percent-scientists-believe-human/

Even NASA confirmed that 97% of scientist believe climate change is happening!

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

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Try again.

1. The 97 percent represents papers, not scientists.
2. The papers were hand selected by a biased team trying to prove a point.

Global Warming Petition Project
List of signers by name
Qualifications of signers

Raylan Wolfe Loc: earth

Glade slipper tumbles again! Only 1% of those who signed the petition have a background in climatology!

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html

PeterS

deleted//

PeterS

97% of the papers say man made global warming exists? Well if a consensus of papers written on a subject are in agreement aren't we saying the same thing? Number 2 doesn't make any sense. If 97% of the papers on a subject are in agreement why would it matter if they were hand selected with bias towards that agreement?

RETW Loc: Washington

You ant got nothing on batshit ha skippy. You just believe it all.


Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

RETW Loc: Washington

Speak for your self-bozo.

PeterS

All theories are supported by a consensus. Every scientific field has a unifying theory: for biology, it is evolution; for chemistry, atomic theory; and for physics, quantum mechanics and general relativity. We could replace the word "theory" with "consensus," and the meaning would essentially be the same.

Theories can, and do, fall apart. The Earth isn't at the center of the universe. Maggots don't spontaneously generate on rotting meat.

Observations no longer made sense. Predictions weren't coming true. Hypotheses were shown to be wrong. Only a new consensus could pull it all back together again.

That's how science works. The scientific method produces consensus. But, if enough contradictory evidence arises, the consensus falls apart. Eventually, it crumbles completely and is replaced by a new consensus. That's the basis of scientific method...

RETW Loc: Washington

Again you know nothing. All you are doing is posting someone else's writings. And you're saying it is the truth. When in fact the one you're quoting is Griff White, a known nut job that works out of Germany
for the Washing Post.

Go back to the swill hole you live in.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Scientific disciplines are not isolated pockets of narrow minded professionals. Anyone who has a degree in any scientific field understands the established methods for scientific research are the same across the board. A biologist applies the same scientific methods to research and investigation as does the physicist. The hypotheses, the observations, the experiments, and the resulting conclusions may all apply to a very different subject, but the methods to accomplish this remains the same. And, all scientists apply the pure science of mathematics to their efforts.

So, Glade slipper did not tumble again, Glade slipper studied science. Moreover, Glade slipper does not read the hack jobs at HuffPo and use that as some sort of factual verification of anything.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is not about the climate at all, it is a redistribution of wealth scam perpetrated on a global scale. Even the UN climate chiefs have said as much.

U.N. Climate Chief Christiana Figueres Admits Goal Is Worldwide Redistribution Of Wealth

U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare

U.N. Official Admits Global Warming Agenda Is Really About Destroying Capitalism

Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare

Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.:

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole. We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."

RETW Loc: Washington

That is absolute BS. You ant at the center of any universe. Go back to the home. I'm sure they are looking for you.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Bullshit! The man who established atomic theory, John Dalton, was all alone with his research for 84 years before physicists and nuclear theoretical scientists, including Einstein, began to look into it, and even then they had many conflicts and disagreements. If you dig into the history of scientific discoveries, you will see that being all alone with a theory was the rule rather than the exception.

A reading of the extraordinary and exhaustive history, The Making of the Atom Bomb by Richard Rhodes will demonstrate the enormous conflicts and disagreements among hundreds of scientists on the way toward producing a nuclear weapon, and the incredible difficulties encountered in bringing these "prima donnas" together to work toward a common goal. When they finally got down to business in their isolated labs at Los Alamos, the scientists certainly did not conduct their research and experiments based on consensus. Only General Leslie Groves and the Chief scientist, Robert Oppenheimer, were able to keep the entire project under control. (Note: Rhodes begins the history with a look back to the beginning of atomic theory and brings us forward, step by step. This is one of the most fascinating, often difficult in the technical areas, books on science history I have ever read.)

A scientific consensus is just that, it is a bunch of different opinions from which the common seeds are extracted then synthesized into a "conclusion." This is not how empirical science works and it is most definitely not the basis for applying the Scientific Methods of discovery.