The 97% consensus of scientists, is 99% sure that they can’t reach consensus.
Climate change: will scientists ever agree on global warming?| News | The Week UK
CO2 is going up super duper fast, but temperatures aren’t. What could we learn from this?
The obvious lesson is that CO2 has affected thermometers, and that they can’t be trusted any more.
President “I campaigned in all 57 states” Obama is the source of that 97% consensus figure?
Reminds me of Senator Obama’s “57 states” campaign and fictional Senator Iselin’s “57 card carrying communists” (The Manchurian Candidate, 1962)–was a bottle of steak sauce more memorable than history taught in an elite Hawaiian high school. Hawaii, state number 50? What did happen to Barack Obama in college, anyway?
Could he have been born-again during college?
Choom in high school and college makes it very difficult to learn…
Maybe, but it can help literary agencies with biographical fact checking.
For example, a budding author can say: “Remember, I’m the one with choom, not the one with many wives.”
It’s quite possible the only affect CO2 and other compound molecules have, including water/particulate/soot have is to slightly increase atmospheric density. Little consequence to their “absorption wavelengths”.
A slightly denser gas holds slightly more energy.
Amen!
This brings up the obvious question. Which comes first, the consensus or rising temperatures? Alarmists may be putting the cart before the horse ….. again.
I would say what came first was a knowledge of the 80 – 88 year Wolf-Gleissberg Solar cycle.
They thought they had about forty years to push their poison. That is why Nopenhagen was so very very important. They KNEW time was running short.
Remember what Elaine Dewar wrote in Toronto’s Saturday Night magazine about Maurice Strong at the 1972 First Earth Summit
Mustn’t forget to vent over that population time bomb.
http://ca.figu.org/Population_Time_Bomb.html
These anti-human rants were around before the Black Plague almost depopulated Europe and Asia–and for a while the elites were short of people: short of serfs and their cheap (free) labor and the entertainment value of public executions, short of the elites themselves because the Black Plague had no respect for station, for social status.
Never mind that bio-diversity and population levels have positive correlation. Once the human population is “under control,” if there’s any surplus energy, I’ll bet that the elitists will be trying to “control” the cockroach population despite bio-diversity issues. There won’t be anybody around to argue with them.
Oh I didn’t forget the Population Bomb. Club of Rome/CAGW comment
the arctic sea ice forum loonies are at it again. just when the frivolous one has reigned in his rants ,we have what i thought was a reasonably sensible (for the asi forum 🙂 ) poster wipneus claiming that changing concentration levels in the ess is melting ice (jd allen says its burning up ) yet in the chukchi it is “very mobile” ice causing the increased temperatures.
do none of these fucking clowns ever look at the actual near surface temperatures in these regions ? hell wipneus even posted an image of the wind that was responsible for decreasing extent but increasing concentration in the ess. alarmist morons indeed.
sorry for the typo. should read, yet in the chukchi it is “very mobile” ice causing the increased extent in the region .
given you exasperation, typos would be expected.
You are just seeing proof that this is a religion and not science. Cue Feynman…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw
No, Gail, not a religion. Religions do have rules, ethics and logic of their own. Warmunism is a cult…ruled by fear, personalities and whim.
Oh, and most of all…cults have no restraints, whatsoever, so they do not have to have any ties at all to any interpretation of reality. They ‘create’ reality in their own image.
mjc,
I stand corrected. That makes a lot of sense.
Thank you.
“Scientists from the organisation have warned that the rise in emissions, produced by burning fossil fuels such as coal and oil, is the biggest driver of global warming.”
Well there isn’t any “global warming” and that is that. End of story. All that needs to be said in article to make it clear why rational people that don’t have their finger in the pie don’t believe the UN.
The biggest driver of global warming are ’emissions’ from the US Treasury.
+100
Could someone tell me what the “consensus” agreement is? Are scientists just agreeing that there will be SOME warming or are they agreeing there will be CATASTROPHIC warming? It makes a big difference in how the results of AGW should be viewed.
I think each scientist should be polled on how much warming will be experienced by the end of the century. Two degrees or less and we don’t worry, two to four degrees we install more electric generation for the added air conditioning needs and over four degrees we increase the height of the sea walls.
To answer your question, 97% of Skeptical Science pee reviewed papers about global warming had abstracts that mention global warming. There is no consensus about anything.
Typo or Freudian Slip?
Neither, just fact.
CO2 is going up super duper fast, but temperatures aren’t. What could we learn from this?
The obvious lesson is that CO2 has affected thermometers, and that they can’t be trusted any more.
>>>>>>
Goddard humorously answers his own question. But, the reality is that “they” really do NOT trust their own thermometers. That is the reason for all the “adjustments”. (Which our host has caught them doing.) Their science is WRONG. So, after 15-20 years, the data confirms that they are wrong. Yet, they choose to NOT believe their own data.
Their science was wrong from the veery start. But, atmospheric CO2 increasing for over 20 years, combined with flattening/dropping global temps should be plenty of evidence to debunk the science. Yet, some people still believe CO2 is warming the planet.
Your president has written in his book that the best thing in life is huffing good blow. The people you have sent to Washington can affod to smoke some better shit than US ,or we could be in concensus (bed) with them.
Lesson Learned #1 should be: “Correlation does NOT equal causation.”
Sure it does…correlation CAUSES grant funding to increase.
That’s the crux isn’t it. It was only warming when we were still using that evil element mercury in our thermometers. If you look at global temperatures for the last 15 years, as we’ve phased out mercury thermometers and moved to alcohol thermometers and thermocouples, global warming has stopped “cold” as it were. It must be the reaction between mercury and carbon dioxide that is the problem. Grant please.