We Just Breached the 410 Parts Per Million Threshold

It is a fact that NASA still cites the 97% statistic. But i'll challenge you to the same request which RichT is currently avoiding - if you disagree with the 97%, and you do, what percentage do you believe is correct? What percentage of climatologists agree with the basic tenets of AGW: 1) The Planet is Warming and 2) Humans are a significant (read: non random) factor in that warming?

 

You don't even know where the number comes from.

The planet is warming...oh noes!

Do humans contribute? Sure, now tell everyone exactly how much.

 

I do. You can review the last several posts if you need evidence in support. Hell, you can review the last several times that you and I had this debate (and we have) if you need evidence in support.

Now, answer my question: What percentage of climatologists accept the basic tenets of AGW?

 

I'm not convinced by a "consensus" in this matter, because I don't believe there are any real experts in the line of Planetary Climates as of yet in our advancement as a species.

 

Your question is meaningless. It proves nothing other than a fallback on a logical fallacy. Now tell everyone the exact sensitivity to CO2.

 

Seriously? I don't care if you are convinced by the collective opinions of the experts. I just want you to take a position yourself - what percentage of climatologists accept the basic tenets of AGW?

 

I took a position, which does not change depending on how many scientists follow the political winds.

 

What does your personal viewpoint have to do with the percentage of climatologists which accept the basic tenets of AGW?

 

What does the political consensus have to do with patterns that have happened before man was even around, which I already linked to you. It's a ridiculous question. The consensus at one time was that the Sun orbited our planet...it doesn't and didn't.

 

Meaningless. If you are talking about first principles, 100%. If you are talking about how they work in a non-linear chaotic system where there are still many known unknowns and unknown unknowns then that figure is anything but 97%.

 

What percentage of climatologists accept the basic tenets of AGW?

Just answer the question please.

 

That's your position? Anything but 97%?

 

The question cannot be answered. The political winds present a false number, like the 97%, aimed at driving an agenda. Real scientists who dissent from that don't get the same exposure.

There is no honest way to know how many actually believe it.

 

Of course the question can be answered. You can conduct surveys. You can study literature. The answer may not be correct, but that's why we include statistical devices like margins of error.

Last time. Tell me the percentage of climatologists that you believe accept the basic tenets of AGW.

 

Because 97% is only meaningful for the politicization of science and has nothing to do with science.

 

Your position is that the percentage of climatologists who accept the basic tenets of AGW is "anything but 97% because 97% is only meaningful for the politicization of science and has nothing to do with science?"

Some real solid logic there.

Last time. Tell me the percentage of climatologists that you believe accept the basic tenets of AGW.

 

I see you still don't understand what meaningless means or why it is meaningless who believes what. Science isn't belief. Science isn't determined by belief. Many things in the past are believed by scientist that turn out to be wrong.

 

Oh I get why you don't care about the consensus opinions of the experts. But i'be asked you to set that aside and answer my question, nicely, multiple times. So you are just a troll at this point.

You are not worthy of a response any further.

 

Why answer a useless question?

 

You call the 2nd law a simplistic view,

like any other believers in global warming

you did not know anything about the term “climate”,

I bet you, like any other believers in global warming, have no clue about the process of warming,

but you are telling me that you have a voice to decide who is an expert and who is a charlatan, and does consensus matter or it is just an another deception.

Go away, you have no shame.

Your NASA scientists as well as all 100% of other climate scientists are charlatans.

They have no shame.

Take them with you.

 

He was correct I think. Your question was pointless and further I think he snuffed you pretty well for the entire discussion... Hence you proclaiming he must be a troll. ( forum violation there) His points were well thought out and written clearly..

So I think we all know who the troll is.. who is a tad bit impressed with the import of his own questions however irrelevant I'll go so far as to say.. stupid.

 

Youre back? I wondered what happened to you. I responded to your article about the CO2 concentration and I asked for a response. I would appreciate one if you are still willing.

 

I will because NASA scientists have credibility and credentials. You have neither.

 

I've already told you. The only numbers you are going to see are the politicized figure to push the agenda, which has been shown to be a massaged figure. As to how many I think may believe? Couldn't hazard a guess, but it is not settled science and it is not 97% of them. According to some, the real number could be lower than 1% ...

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09...ven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/

 

Out of 12000 papers evaluated, not 5000. There were only around 4000 that had a position. Your numbers are off.