President Obama says that the overwhelming judgment of science agrees with his mindless BS about the climate. The Arctic disagrees.
COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- COP29 Preview
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- A Giant Eyesore
- CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- “False Claims” And Outright Lies”
- Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Spoiled Children
- Great Lakes Storm Of November 11, 1835
- Harris To Win Iowa
- Angry Democrats
- November 9, 1913 Storm
- Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
- Obliterating Bill Gates
- Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- The End Of Everything
Recent Comments
- Gordon Vigurs on “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- Disillusioned on “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- Disillusioned on “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Francis Barnett on “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- dm on “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- arn on “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- Tel on “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- Gamecock on “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- conrad ziefle on “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- conrad ziefle on “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
LMFAO
http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-climate-change-skeptics-could-reach-catastr,36521/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview%3A1%3ADefault
It reads just like a NYT article. Alarmist rhetoric has become so ridiculous, that not even The Onion can top it.
Tony, I posted the same thing at WUWT….if I had seen this first, I would have given you credit….you beat me to it!
The funny part is not the joke, but the irony. I had to check if it was the onion only because you had mentioned “LMFAO”, otherwise, it’s indistinguishable from an AGW alarmist article.
So who are you gonna believe?
Obama?
Or Planet Earth?
Because they can’t both be right.
It appears planet earth doesn’t vote Democrat.
Maybe the Arctic ice has gone rotten and the way of WalMart ice cream sandwiches: http://www.weather.com/video/ice-cream-sandwiches-dont-melt-51610?
“Hide the decline” now gives way to “disguise the rise”.
No headlines about the recovered Arctic Ice or freezing cold winter/Spring in the USA as it relates to failure of the Global Warming Theory…
It’s all about the CA Drought and nonexistent wildfires which are at very low levels nationwide…
Theory implies the pinnacle of human knowledge as in “Scientific Theory”, whereas AGW is simply a “Working Hypothesis” and has zero chance of ever becoming scientific theory!
Clever one, Mr. Top Flite. I’m going to start using that phrase.
That 97% figure has been debunked… still… time and time again folks on the Alarmist side cite this number. .. and the ‘consensus’ as proof!!
Perhaps people on our side need to do the same… I read about a study of Meteorologists where 70% polled agrees that CO2 based Global Warming Theory is grossly exaggerated or nonexistent. .. In addition we have the Oregon Paper where 30,000+ people with advanced degrees say the same…
The one thing that I haven’t seen in all the 97% hoopla is exactly how many individual people that number supposedly represents.
Number of Papers does NOT represent any given number of individuals, unless you add up all the authors of each and every paper…and then remove them from the count of every other paper in the sample.
So, not only does it NOT represent an actual consensus at 97% of Papers, due to all sorts of semantic trickery. It represents an even lower percentage of real, individual people, simply due to the fact that most papers do not have a single author.
You don’t get published if you don’t promote Global Warming…
Basically it was anecdotal evidence gathered from within those who already believe… excluding those who dont.
What I’m getting at is if you authored 10 papers and were co-author on 15 others, you get 25 ‘votes’ for warming, not 1. Which means that when translating a consensus of papers into the number of people you end up way over counting, inflating the so called consensus.
There are TWO 97% Consensus lies floating around. The “97% Consensus” is a small subset of the actual number.
COOKS:
So the REAL NUMBER IS “32.6 per cent endorsed AGW”!!!!
The earlier study is just as bad:
What else did the ‘97% of scientists’ say? is well worth the read for the belly laughs and good ammo.
100% of scientists agree with each-other on a lot of issues, Climate isn’t one of these.. the 97% meme is just another propaganda failure.
Sparks, getting physicists to agree on anything is like herding cats …
The Gore Effect.