New Report Just Dropped A Bomb On Key Climate Change Data

Which, of course, has more to do with propaganda and politics and nothing to do with science. In fact it is counter to science.

 

Yes. The 20-30% of the public who still think it is not real or man-made is an outcome of propaganda and politics. Typically from far right news, blog, and tabloid sources that use bogus data that is neither published or reviewed.

"In fact" (actual facts, not just using the word in a sentence to sound smart), the scientific consensus remains intact and unchallenged through over 90% of peer reviewed studies and climate scientists.

It is accepted by nearly all governments, a majority of citizens, nearly all major science organizations, and nearly all scientists of that field. Even most Republicans have changed their tune as more data gets released. This is a losing war mostly fought on internet forums by far right individuals.

I mean you guys can't even use any facts to refute the consensus number or the studies those authors produce, so much for science? It's all just political talking points. Like the professor said, we may as well be debating Gravity.

 

I am not surprised this is all about politics and not science for you.

 

This isn't a political issue. This is a scientific issue. For this to be a scientific debate, you must offer valid counter studies that refutes 90%+ of climate studies and 90-100% of climate scientists.

So far I'm just seeing right wing blog talking points. You know, the actual people who sadly turned this into a political "debate" for America. You can cry about how all of a sudden scientific consensus doesn't matter at all, but you need to offer proof.

 

All you offer is populism, politics, and logical fallacies.

 

And all major studies. I didn't think you were actually going to post a proper study of some type. Too easy.

If you want to change that 90-100% consensus among scientists, and 68% among Americans, you might want to start with..........you know.....some data. I'll be awaiting your ground breaking and world shattering study disproving them all. Maybe Breitbart might fund you!

 

To be fair I see alarmist blog talking points as well. It also doesn't help matters that your Al Gore types and much of the media don't understand the science and constantly cherry pick research, take it out of context, or exaggerate it. So for me, if I'm going to indict AGW psuedo-skeptics then I have to be willing to indict AGW alarmists as well.

 

Another fallacy, thinking that 'all' major studies support the current alarmism. Most don't, the alarmism is created by activists and media and only a very very small handful of publicity seeking scientists.

 

I'm not discussing alarmism.

I'm simply discussing the scientists that have studies showing it is man made. This accounts for over 90% of publishing climate scientists.

There is no fallacies. I'm just stating facts.

 

Actually, you have no studies 'showing' it is man made. That is an hypothesis currently being falsified by observed science. For instance, the warming is supposed to show in the troposphere first according to the hypothesis and temperatures in the troposphere are not following the models based on the hypothesis, in fact they have fallen outside of all model runs. That is a major fail for the hypothesis.

 

"We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies."

"From a broader perspective, it doesn’t matter if the consensus number is 90% or 100%. The level of scientific agreement on AGW is overwhelmingly high because the supporting evidence is overwhelmingly strong."

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002/pdf

 

Why am I not surprised you respond with a logical fallacy?

 

Yeah, I mean they've fallen outside the modeled envelope some, but not by much. The consensus seems to be that the observations are hugging the bottom part of the model envelope. The hypothesis is that the troposphere should warm and the stratosphere should cool. So that hypothesis is supported by the majority of the observational evidence.

 

Why am I not surprised you respond with a logical fallacy?

The troposphere has not shown any statistically significant warming for two decades.

 

Zorro stated the 90% figure was a lie.

I showed that the 90-100% figure is currently valid.

No counter-data has been posted. Nothing more has to be said.

Red-Herring. None of the information you posted refutes what my quotes stated. The current number is 90-100% for scientists and 68% of Americans, for those who believe climate change is caused by man. How many people would actually pay is a completely different subject, and would clearly be a different number.

Posting off-topic data (in response to my post) and a smiley doesn't work. Was that supposed to be some sad attempt at ownage? You're going to have to find relevant information next try.

 

Excellent.

Nobody went so far on this forum yet.

Another question was: in which science climate was defined and described as above?

You are 2 steps away from the truth.

Just answer 2-3 simple questions and the truth will set you free.

 

No thanks.

The only truth I'm looking for is a post spring 2016 study that disproves this one:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002/pdf

Red-herrings won't save you. I want hard data, not forum games.

 

Thank you for letting people know that you are not looking for the truth.

100% of climate scientists are charlatans, they don't even know less understand the definition of climate, in what science it was defined, described and used since what time.

Fake scientists of fake science.

Do you understand the meaning of the words you copy pasted?

Sure you don't and you are not interested.

This is the truth.

 

I was expecting a study of some sort.

Instead I got drama

 

You are projecting.

What drama?

There is no drama in the truth that 100% of climate scientists are charlatans, fake scientists of fake science.

The truth is void of emotions.

Lies are striving on emotions.

Global climate is an example.

 

Your posts. Why not just say you can't provide me any counter data and be done with it?

 

No, it just laughable that folks are willing to spend a whole extra dollar a month to combat "climate change", but not much more. Which means if ya try to slap those folks with higher taxes, fees or add ons to their utility bills, they'll react badly at the voting booth next election. That leaves you with no money to do anything but bloviate about "Global Warming".

 

I am trying to be very simple.

You cannot get even simple sentences.

One more time:

I accept your data without questioning or countering.

I just point to the fact that 100% of climate scientists are fake scientists of fake science and their opinion on Climate and Warming do not matter, at least because they have no clue what Climate or Warming are about, they does not even know what sciences Climate or Warming belong to.

There is no drama in my posts.

All drama is in the religion of saving mother Gia from evil politically incorrect humans.

This is where you find all emotions and no science.