They say that 97% of the science is on their side, that they are 95% certain, and that we are all stupid and ignorant.
Debating ought to be a slam dunk for them. They should be able to put us down in a sentence or two. But for some reason, they invariably refuse to do that. Could it be that their actual certainty level is close to zero, and that they are completely full of shit?
I particularly like the video with Dr Roy Spencer and Gavin Schmidt where Schmidt refuses to even be in the same room as Dr Spencer. So much for transparency and open debate. To me Schmidt looked a complete idiot,and I would have a little respect for him if he at least would try and defend his position. By refusing to debate,he obviously admitted defeat. I say good job.
Recorded forever, a Tom’s Diner building penthouse computer terminal officer earns “his fifteen minutes” of infamy, here condensed to two:
http://tinypic.com/r/1sf5ae/5
Ain’t that the truth. Absolutely pathetic behaviour by anyone older than 7.
I like this one Steve. You’ve nailed it. Bring on the flat-earthers. In a debate I’ll destroy them in 30 seconds with descriptions of Earth’s shadow on the Moon, time zones as we travel, watching my favorite football team playing live at night when it is still daytime at my house, etc.. Why can’t the warmers shut me down with the same ease? Even my liberal friends, with degrees in science, who start to confidently debate me, have to resort to the ‘97%’ argument when I start asking them about the failed predictions: the flooded lands that refuse to flood, the [fill in your choice of disaster] that refused to destroy civilization. They have no answer when confronted with documented stories of scientists, supposedly in the 97%, claiming they their paper was wrongly classified by the Cook study. Plenty of times I’ve heard from my liberal friends “I’m not sure, I’ll look into that and get back to you”, followed by weeks of no phone calls.
+1
Is this post any relation to the michael mann ‘crock of shit’, by Dr. Rob Wilson?
Because we’re too selfish. It’s for the kids or something.
A new study shows that human beings are too selfish to endure present pain to avert future climate change
Read more: http://science.time.com/2013/10/21/why-we-dont-care-about-saving-our-grandchildren-from-climate-change/#ixzz2iRjhtq00
I am 95% certain that they are 97% full of shit – nothing is ever complete.
Indoctrination for all you “non-believers” courtesy of the University of Chicago and promoted by: Smith Mag ( you will finally know what to tell all the “non-believers” of the Goracle’s Climate Change)
http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews/2013/10/want-to-learn-about-climate-change-a-free-introductory-class-starts-today/
ECMWF has most of arctic basin north of 80°N -25°C to -30°C by next week predominately northeast winds on the Atlantic side of the Arctic. Kara Sea should be 80% frozen over by the end of the month and the ice edge in the Barents getting down to Novaya Zemlya.
Good news!:-)
(I wrote the following in response to news media censorship of climate debates):
If investigative journalism still existed, there’d be no talk about “climate change” being a scientific certainty today. A journalist would ask serious questions about the inconsistencies and the rigging of historic climate data to make it appear the weather is turning “extreme” when it isn’t, really. Inconsistencies about sea levels, the Arctic polar ice mass, Greenland, Antarctica, hurricanes, tornados, forest fires, floods — totally ignored by so-called journalists. Instead, all we get is parroting of press releases in editorialized reports.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us in his farewell speech of January, 1961 about how publicly funded scientific research is subject to being rigged in order to manipulate public opinion — create fears — and keep the funding streams coming. This is what’s happening today with climate crystal balls and psychic palm readings (falsely called “science” since real science isn’t about predicting the future). It’s science fiction. Their over 70 computer models have all missed the mark when compared to actual weather readings the last 17 years.
Furthermore, one gaping conflict of interest among publicly funded scientific research is the gov’t is less inclined to fund findings that end up proving it was the main culprit in causing sea levels to rise. Nowhere has a “climate science” expert investigated the reason for unequal sea level rates along the Atlantic coast. It’s curious why, when we know what the Army Corps of Engineers have done to the Everglades (and still do with Lake Okechobee today). There’s no other explanation — certainly not carbon emissions, or sea levels would be rising everywhere– than the ACOE’s carving up the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, the causeways from Biscayne Bay in Miami, to the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel in Virginia. Further, no gov’t funded research on how increased rainwater runoff from the urban sprawl of Miami-Dade to the Washington DC-VA-MD metro areas collecting in the Biscayne and the Chesapeake, which in theory would explain the uneven sea level rates. Doing so might blame state and local gov’t planning, and there’s no grant money to prove that.
Ike was right, there’s reason to be suspicious when the same scientists who stand to be funded are also changing historic climate data. Unaltered data showing climate was much more “extreme” when carbon emissions were much lower, from 1850-1940.
But it is clear, like sunshine though clouds over a rolling ocean, just to name 3 things they inadequately model.
Because politicians can debate with other politicians, but not with true scientists or truth seekers that use facts to argue.
They KNOW they’ll lose.
The only thing they have, and we must acknowledge that, is political power and a corrupt academic system on their side that “blesses” with publication any unfounded, pseudo-scientific paper that relates CO2 with climate.
Many, many, so called “peer reviewed”, papers out there with this “blessing”.
That’s probably the reason why they say that they have 97% of scientists on their side, it’d be more correct to say 97% of “peer reviewed” published papers on climate.
I doubt the sincerity of your typical warmist’s true belief in AGW. Once you argue with them for awhile and hammer them they pretty much always fall back to the position that EVEN IF there’s no AGW we would still be doing the beneficial thing for the planet by enacting their climate change schemes. It’s basically a libtard Pascal’s wager.
Nailed it Steve. I am a professional scientist/professor/researcher in chemistry and their behavior sickens me.
Funny buggers, warm-mongers. They were crying because the ice was melting. And now they are crying even more because it is freezing again. Morons.
Steve, maybe here is something we can agree on. Concede that AGW is happeing but that it has no impact on extreme weather and that some warming might even be beneficial. I was intrigued by the suggestion that more water vapor in the air might eventually mitigate the current water shortage in drought prone areas.
Don’t blame climate change for extreme weather
By Bjørn Lomborg, Published: September 13
Bjørn Lomborg, an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School, directs the Copenhagen Consensus Center. He is the author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist,” “Cool It” and, most recently, “How Much Have Global Problems Cost the World? A Scorecard From 1900 to 2050.”
One of the most persistent claims in the climate debate is that global warming leads to more extreme weather. Green groups and even such respectable outlets as Scientific American declare that “extreme weather is a product of climate change.”
And the meme seems irresistible as a political shortcut to action. President Obama has explicitly linked a warming climate to “more extreme droughts, floods, wildfires and hurricanes.” The White House warned this summer of “increasingly frequent and severe extreme weather events that come with climate change.”
Yet this is not supported by science. “General statements about extremes are almost nowhere to be found in the literature but seem to abound in the popular media,” climate scientist Gavin Schmidt of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies said last month. “It’s this popular perception that global warming means all extremes have to increase all the time, even though if anyone thinks about that for 10?seconds they realize that’s nonsense.”
Global warming is real. It is partly man-made. It will make some things worse and some things better. Overall, the long-run impact will be negative. But some of the most prominent examples of extreme weather are misleading, and some weather events are becoming less extreme.
The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) delivered a 600-page reporton extreme weather in 2011. It got little attention — because it is nuanced.
Global warming, in general, will mean higher temperatures. This causes more heat waves — more extreme weather. But it also causes fewer cold waves — less extreme weather. Many more people die from excessive cold than excessive heat, so fewer people will die from cold and heat in the future. By mid-century, researchers estimated in 2006, that means about 1.4?million fewer deaths per year. In the continental United States, heat waves in the past decade exceeded the norm by 10 percent, but the number of cold waves fell 75 percent.
Moreover, global warming will mostly increase temperatures during winter, at night and in cold places, making temperature differences less extreme.
Global warming will also cause more heavy rain; this is clearly more extreme. But warming will also help alleviate water scarcity — less extreme. About 1.2 billion fewer people are expected to live with water scarcity by the end of the century because of increased precipitation.
Drought is expected to increase in some regions while decreasing in others. Overall, the impact will probably be slightly more extreme. Likewise, sea levels will rise, which will mean more flooding of coastal structures — more extreme weather. The total impact is likely to be less than 0.1 percent of global economic output.
Hurricane wind speeds are likely to increase (more extreme), but the number of hurricanes is likely to decrease or hold steady (less extreme). The number of extra-tropical cyclones is likely to decline (less extreme).
Obama’s examples of more extreme weather from droughts, floods, wildfires and hurricanes are weak examples for the United States. Wildfire may be the only one of these indicators that is increasing in the United States, but to a large degree this is because fire suppression efforts have resulted in more material being available to burn.
The IPCC found that “droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, in central North America.” A scientific overview published in June in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Societyfound that the severe drought of 2012, which at one point covered 39?percent of the United States, was still much less extreme than droughts in the 1930s (which covered 63 percent) and the 1950s (50 percent). And all those droughts pale next to the six-decade mega-drought in what is now the U.S. West in the 12th century.
Damage from flooding in the United States has declined from 0.2 percent of gross domestic product in 1940 to less than 0.05 percent today. And U.S. hurricanes have not increased in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since at least 1900. It has been more than seven years since the United States was hit by a Category 3 or stronger hurricane. That is the longest such hurricane drought since 1900.
A new paper in the journal Nature shows on a crucial measure that there is no increase in extremes. Looking at temperature variability as one kind of extreme weather, the authors document that extreme weather globally has been constant since 1960. Moreover, the researchers found that extreme weather as temperature variability will decline in the future with higher levels of carbon dioxide. They laconically conclude: “Our findings contradict the view that a warming world will automatically be one of more overall climatic variation.”
It is understandable that a lot of well-meaning people, wanting stronger action on global warming, have tried to use the meme of extreme weather to draw attention. But alarmism and panic are rarely the best way to achieve good policies. The argument that global warming generally creates more extreme weather needs to be retired.
I showed you that increasing CO2 has almost no effect, and you responded with a long diatribe which ignores the critical fact.
Ha ha,
this guy is going all over the place that to me indicate that we are dealing with a fanatic who has no idea what is going on around him.He has chosen to believe in it despite that he is profound scientific illiterate on the subject and can’t form a reasoned counterpoint to anything we say to him.
He is too far gone into the warmist delusions.
This long rambling rant shows that you are in the last stage of a conversation where you will now try to cover everything but the kitchen sink while at the same time ignore the counterpoints you have been given for the last day or two that contested your earlier comments.
Soon you will do what 97% of warmists who post here is go crazy with a post that shows your TRUE inner thoughts about us and get slapped around for it.
Will it be today or tomorrow Avery?
We are 100% certain that there has been warming since 1979. That is because 1979 was probably the coldest year of the last 100. Also the end of a 25 year cooling period that lasted from 1955 until 1980.
We admit, that when alarmists use this obvious cherry pick to start their charts, there has been some warming. But it you start the charts at 1930 or 1940 there has been very little, if any warming. It would appear that our climate today fits within the scope of natural variabilty over the last 100, 1,000 or 5,000 years. The case for catastrophic manmade warming is not at all convincing.
All of those claims of doom are based upon failed computer models. Epic fail.
I concur Gator. All religions have required an impending threat of doom to keep the sheeple in line and paying tithes and carbon taxes to their elite. Avery is just another choirboy singing words that he has faith in despite all evidence pointing to the contrary. The excommunication efforts of the MSM and the politicians confirm CAGW is faith based science.
After having their asses handed to them at every debate, the warmists have retired from the arena.
Al Gore gets his ass handed to himself over his many self inflicted errors he openly and stupidly pushed.
“The earth’s core is a million degrees…” – Al Gore
97% of alarmists agree with him.