Every scientist understands that humans influence the climate. Cities are well known to be much warmer than surrounding countryside. Chopping down forests changes the climate. Greenhouse gases obviously influence the climate. The most common greenhouse gas is water vapor, and everyone understands that humid climates are different from dry climates.
So the 97% of scientists who believe in man-made global warming is actually closer to 100%. The problem is that Democrats claim that 97% of scientists believe global warming is imminent and dangerous. The repeated that over and over again this week, yet there is no evidence to back up their claim.
As far as I know, there has never been any survey done asking a broad group of scientists if global warming is dangerous. That certainly isn’t a word which comes up very often in scientific literature.
In 1999, NASA’s James Hansen (the worlds best known climate alarmist) wrote:
Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought
A few months ago, the American Meteorological Society took a poll of its members and found that only 52% believe global warming is primarily caused by man. Among professional forecasters, the number was even lower.
journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1
Barely half of atmospheric scientists believe global warming is primarily due to man, much less imminent and dangerous.
The Democratic claims of scientific support for their position – are 97% propaganda, and it forms the cornerstone of their argument.
Steve from the The 97% Is Really 100% post down to the Suarez Assist post is spot on and should be IMHO combined into one post. Each category of weather events to which is claimed will become more dangerous due to global warming as been proven false of the claims made. If this Atlantic Hurricane season ends up a bust like last year and the streak of non U.S. Major Hurricane strike continues to 9 years they simply will not have LEFT and leg to stand on. Remember last year prior to the start they wanted to name storms by names of politicians who are so called deniers mainly republicans. Keep up the great work !!!!!
The explanation is simple. Democrats are anti-science.
When the law is on your side, argue the law
When the facts are on your side, argue the facts.
When the science is on your side, argue the science.
When the science is not on your side, argue like there is no tomorrow.
– MadeItUp
.
When the science is not on your side, claim the debate to be over and accuse everyone else of being a denier.
You can tell CAGW is a religion when they start saying they must get the “catechism” right. Perhaps the next global climate conference should be at Nicea, where the climate experts can decide what bible we should all follow. Baa baa.
http://m.cjr.org/164386/show/002fed05b79d5b855f5d9dfcda4f0ae9/?
Jadee Schmidt, brace for cognitive dissonance …
This is the heart of the argument. All would probably agree that a few bands on the CO2 spectrum not covered by water vapor could cause some minor warming. But few would agree that those same spectral bands would cause CATASTROPHIC warming.
The media is continually posting about AGW, not CAGW. Our uninformed citizens buy off on the AGW scare without understanding that CAGW is impossible.
Steve writes:
As far as I know, there has never been any survey done asking a broad group of scientists if global warming is dangerous.
I think the OISM Petition came close:
They are saying that CO2 is harmless, and that it is beneficial to the biosphere.
More than 31,000 scientists and engineers — all with degrees in the hard sciences, including more than 9,000 PhD’s — co-signed that statement. They couldn’t email it in, they had to sign a hard copy and mail it. That says a lot. They went out of their way to take a skeptical position.
Compare that 31,000+ number with the “97%”. If I recall correctly, that was only 79 respondents. The alarmist clique has never come close to getting thousands of signatures asserting that CO2 is a problem. Thus, the true ‘consensus’, for whatever that’s worth, is clearly on the side of CAGW skeptics.
Quote from dbstealey (above) “…all with degrees in the hard sciences…”
>>>>>>
That is why they know CO2 is NOT a problem. CO2 is NOT “warming the planet”.
It’s just that so few folks understand the science. They think the “safe” thing, since they don’t know, is to just go along. They think that maybe, kinda, half-way, semi, we should do something about burning carbon. But, the reality is restricting carbon dioxide will do nothing but starve plants and trees.
+1
It used to be acknowledged even by the alarmists that CO2 couldn’t cause anything catastrophic by itself, that it required feedback loops to get out of control. Now that there’s nothing to “feed back”, they’re just claiming the sky is falling. Truly signs of desperation.
97% of those paid to say there is dangerous warming say there is dangeous warming. The other 3% are now unemployed.
100% of those who do not understand science believe the goal is THE FINAL ANSWER that everyone can endorse as consensus science members in good standing.
Real scientists appreciate science as a path of continuous discovery and the philosophical wisdom of the ages:
“To know that you do not know is best. To pretend to know what you do not know is a disease !”
Steven, there was 100% consensus at the recent Congressional hearing on the EPA-FABULOUS!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nsNY4uKXXL8
My favorite local forecaster has taken it upon himself to correct his hyperventilating coworkers when hey wax hysterical about weather. It awesome to watch!
global warming is imminent and dangerous
So we got 18 years of no warming, flatlining, even cooling. So global warming certainly hasn’t been happening, so we’re waiting for that imminent warming, for just a little bit of warming, for just a tiny bit .. a teensy weensy bit .. of catastrophic warming. Um, no, not going to happen.
… When THEY wax hysterical…