Physics to be rewritten

[Rorschach]

Here let me help you get a grip on reality...

that 97% crap you posted is a lie.

Only fools and Greens still repeat it.

[Neferti]

I heard somebody on TV the other day describe "science" or a "scientist" .... it was most interesting ...

Unfortunately, I can't remember the quote, except that it was NOT flattering.

Remember that an Eccentric is just "oddly strange" to some people, but to others Eccentric means a "nut case" that should be avoided at all costs.

Those who seem to be taken in with Global Warming (Monk and Co) seem to be Eccentric in the "oddly strange" category .... those who are 70+, never married, and still live with their Mother.

[Super Nova]

that 97% crap you posted is a lie.

I don't think so. They all add up to support the theory that manmade warming is real.

Ignore at all our perils.

There is a theory and the mounting evidence does support it.

What is your theory beyond stating everything is a lie. Oh, you only have denial of the evidence and the theory.

I am right. The issue is only how fast and what we do about it, if anything.

[Neferti]

that 97% crap you posted is a lie.

I don't think so. They all add up to support the theory that manmade warming is real.

Ignore at all our perils.

There is a theory and the mounting evidence does support it.

What is your theory beyond stating everything is a lie. Oh, you only have denial of the evidence and the theory.

I am right. The issue is only how fast and what we do about it, if anything.

You'll be dead in less than 50 years ... your kids will also be long gone BEFORE the Martians arrive and take over the US of A.

STOP WORRYING .... put your recycle stuff in the proper bin and stop smoking.

[IQS.RLOW]

that 97% crap you posted is a lie.

I don't think...

Yeas, that post just confirmed it.

Good to see you are propagating the propaganda without a clue what it means.
Just like a good little marxist and just the way the frauds who invented it knew you would.

Useful idiot is the appropriate moniker for you.

[Super Nova]

Someone has to worry about this important risk.... I will do it for you.

The minority will worry about what the majority couldn't give a fig about and make it right for everyone. No change there.

The denialists are like straights at the gay Marti grass', no care, pretend it isn't really happening until it is their arse on the line. Then they are not OK with that.

[Rorschach]

that 97% crap you posted is a lie.

I don't think so. They all add up to support the theory that manmade warming is real.

Ignore at all our perils.

There is a theory and the mounting evidence does support it.

What is your theory beyond stating everything is a lie. Oh, you only have denial of the evidence and the theory.

I am right. The issue is only how fast and what we do about it, if anything.

You are NOT right.... you believe in a lie.
I don't appreciate you also lying about what I say and believe.
You do an Aussie by building yourself up to put others down.

[Rorschach]

SN believes in lies and fraud...

Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.

Misleading the public about consensus opinion regarding global warming, of course, is precisely what the Cook paper sought to accomplish. This is a tried and true ruse perfected by global warming alarmists. Global warming alarmists use their own biased, subjective judgment to misclassify published papers according to criteria that is largely irrelevant to the central issues in the global warming debate. Then, by carefully parsing the language of their survey questions and their published results, the alarmists encourage the media and fellow global warming alarmists to cite these biased, subjective, totally irrelevant surveys as conclusive evidence for the lie that nearly all scientists believe humans are creating a global warming crisis.

These biased, misleading, and totally irrelevant “surveys” form the best “evidence” global warming alarmists can muster in the global warming debate. And this truly shows how embarrassingly feeble their alarmist theory really is.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylo ... b4d078485d

If you've ever expressed the least bit of skepticism about environmentalist calls for making the vast majority of fossil fuel use illegal, you've probably heard the smug response: “97% of climate scientists agree with climate change” — which always carries the implication: Who are you to challenge them?

The answer is: you are a thinking, independent individual--and you don’t go by polls, let alone second-hand accounts of polls; you go by facts, logic and explanation.[/quotel]

On his Twitter account, President Obama ... 9e55de3414

The myth of an almost-unanimous climate-change consensus is pervasive. Last May, the White House tweeted: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” A few days later, Secretary of State John Kerry announced, “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists tell us this is urgent.” “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists” say no such thing.

The “97 percent” statistic first appeared prominently in a 2009 study by University of Illinois master’s student Kendall Zimmerman and her adviser, Peter Doran. Based on a two-question online survey, Zimmerman and Doran concluded that “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific bases of long-term climate processes” — even though only 5 percent of respondents, or about 160 scientists, were climate scientists.

In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... ian-tuttle

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/17/ ... oportions/

[b]The 97% "consensus" study, Cook et a ... glia (UEA)

http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/1 ... ensus.html

When 32.6% becomes 97%— the bald-faced lie that changed the western world

Everyone has heard the famous statement that 97% of scientists say global warming is real. Of course, that in itself is a meaningless statement, since no one disputes that the earth has warmed by roughly 0.8 degrees Celsius over the past century or so.

Guess what Cook found? Only 32.6% of the papers endorsed the view of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming. But of that group, 97% said that “recent warming is mostly man-made.”

And so, by a nice sleight-of-hand obfuscation, the great “97% consensus” was born.

Don’t believe me? Check out the actual paper, or the abstract, or the original article. In fact, let’s just say thank goodness that the originals are still posted online. Typically, when someone pulls off a con of such massive, world-wide proportions, they subsequently burn the evidence to cover their tracks.

Still don’t believe me? Here’s the actual, posted statement:

We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

So what do we have 97% concensus on? Hmmmm.....
.

[Black Orchid]

Anyone who doesn't believe the planet is changing and humans are accelerating that change, which would cyclicly (is that a word? lol) occur naturally but to a slower extent, is a moron

[IQS.RLOW]

Anyone who doesn't believe the planet is changing and humans are accelerating that change, which would cyclicly (is that a word? lol) occur naturally but to a slower extent, is a moron

Anyone who presents that as what is being argued against is either a moron or a marxist.

Remember kiddies, not all morons are marxists, but all marxists are morons.