We Just Breached the 410 Parts Per Million Threshold

Not a harbour, transport and distribution infrastructure which includes harbours but so much more and they are almost all located on the coast. Its a bigger problem because it will impact the functioning of the entire economic system. It is more than a matter of replication, the concentration of effort is so immense and the time required to build capacity so long that whole-scale replacement is simply not viable. A breakdown in these global trading networks means you and I don't get food.
There will be nowhere for starving people to flee to.

 

Still clinging to Cooks debunked 97%? You are aware that some of the very people included in this "cooked up" figure have disputed how they were classified right?

Couple examples in this article, not that you'll want to see them.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamest...ing-97-percent-consensus-claims/#1381c8fb485d

 

You are not going to convince me to change my opinion regarding the 97% claim. I have read all of the papers (there are 3 others besides Cook), I have read the criticisms (including the criticism that some authors allege that they were misclassified), and I have read the responses.

NASA still stands by the 97% claim. I still stand by the 97% claim.

 

If the actual people counted in that consensus dispute being included...well that makes it a fraudulent number. Stand by debunked info all you want, your credibility

 

I'm just not sure what that meant. Maybe your point needs to be described in complete sentences. Or, you could cite something.

 

Have you bothered to read Cook's response to those authors? In some instances, he agreed and reclassified their papers. It did not significantly impact the results of the study. In other instances, he corrected the authors by noting that he did not classify their papers improperly because he either classified them into the camp of non-position, neutral position, or dissenting opinion.

Consider this Rich, is it possible that Cook, or the members of his team, may have accidentally misclassified some papers the other way? That is to say, are there are a few authors who would argue that their paper should be classified as agreeing with Climate Change, but Cook did not include them?

And what about the fact that Cook's study included a volunteer survey where authors could personally vouch for their agreement with the AGW? Do you know that 98% of the authors actually responded in the affirmative?

Have you read any of the other studies that also found the 97% claim?

 

Or you could read the prior post, and the supplied link. Combine that with your "educated" leftwing brain, and I'm sure you'll glean the meaning.

 

Sounds like the perfect little brown shirt......

 

Do you realize just how stupid this argument is? The 97% figure represent roughly 35% of all climate research study. So, the statistic doesn't mean more than about a third of some scientists were in agreement. That isn't either a consensus, or a preponderance of the evidence. But, it's nice to know just how superficial the insistence level creates legitimacy for you.

 

It shows the dishonesty at large with this new religion. A post ago you also mentioned that Nasa sticks by it, so you would too. You are aware that NASA uses Cooks study as one of their sources right?

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

 

Yes, I still stand by the Cook study as well. You have not convinced me to dismiss the study just as it is extremely unlikely that you will succeed in convincing me to dismiss the Cook study or the 97% claim.

Now feel free to respond to any of the points that I raised in the post you quoted.

 

I know I wont convince you of anything. If you still believe the 97% number, years after it was shown to be bunk, then nothings going to change your faith.


And as to your other point. is it possible Cook made mistakes going the other way as well? Of course anything is possible, but until some of them start talking (like they did when he claimed them as affirmatives) that's pure speculation.

 

Similar to your point, believing that the study is bunk simply because a few authors, out of the 5,000 papers evaluated, claim their paper was misclassified is also pure speculation.

But let's try something different - what do you think is the correct percentage? How many climatologists do you believe agree with the basic tenets of AGW: 1) That the planet is warming and 2) Humans are playing a significant (read: non-random) role in that warming?

 

The planet warming in and of itself doesn't mean there's a problem at all. IMO, That's the problem. Trying to make what might be completely normal into a problem which needs taxation and wealth transfer.

The planet has warmed and cooled many times already if we believe Science, and without man involved at all...yet people would love to tax you for breathing.

 

We were discussing the scientific consensus. Please stick with my question.

 

You're giving YOUR opinion as if that means more than the consensus of scientists the world over.

You need to go back and actually answer the questions you were asked.

As for your tax comment, the taxation based directions don't necessarily involve increasing the tax you pay. For example, if your income tax went down and your energy tax (such as fuel and electricity) went up by essentially the same amount, you would be in more of a position to control how much tax you pay. If you were interested in reducing your total tax bill you could be more conservative of energy uses - a tradeoff people in other countries have available.

 

While you want to focus on this consensus, it simply doesn't change things like this:

http://www.livescience.com/39819-ancient-forest-thaws.html

Warming..Cooling...seems like a normal part of our world.

 

Stick to my question please: What percentage of climatologists agree with the basic tenets of AGW?

 

I'm not getting grant moneys which form my opinion.

Well, if that was to happen maybe people wouldn't complain...except that never happens. New taxes just pile on the old ones.

 

You tell me, what percentage and why does it matter in relation to what I showed you already?

 

No. You can not look at one event like this and then suggest that what is going on is "normal". You don't know what the pattern was 1,000 years ago. Your "discovery" doesn't indicate speed or cause of change. You provide no info on issues of locality. etc.

You're trying to play junior scientist as a way of disqualifying what a world of fully qualified real scientists are stating.

 

I've already told you the percentage that I accept. I want you to voluntarily support your own position and tell me a percentage.

 

No scientist is getting rich from grant money.

That money is going into studies that result in an understanding of what is actually going on.

And, the understanding we need can only be supplied by those who are actually studying this problem.

That is to say, you are getting paid the right amount for your opinion.

 

Exactly. And you cannot do the reverse either, which is take a snapshot of temperature and claim it is abnormal. So, heres the million dollar question Will, what is "normal" for our planet?

Do we know?

If we don't, we really cant claim there is a problem right?

 

Ah, you wish to stick with a meme instead of facts.