On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 20:50:47 -0000 (UTC), TonyOff topic. You idiot.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
By a climate scientist. >>https://www.johnstossel.com/the-fake-climate-consensus/
This may have been posted here before but it is worth repeating.
As is this: >https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/#:~:text=Yes%2C%20the%20vast%20majority%20of,global%20warming%20and%20climate%20change.
By a climate scientist. >https://www.johnstossel.com/the-fake-climate-consensus/
This may have been posted here before but it is worth repeating.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 20:50:47 -0000 (UTC), TonyOff topic. You idiot.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
By a climate scientist. >>>https://www.johnstossel.com/the-fake-climate-consensus/
This may have been posted here before but it is worth repeating.
As is this: >>https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/#:~:text=Yes%2C%20the%20vast%20majority%20of,global%20warming%20and%20climate%20change.
On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 23:47:04 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo Rich! You posted a link to a bullshit report supporting your stupid belief in the UN climate change agenda! Tony posted a link to reports by a climate scientist blowing the whistle on the agenda you claim is a consensus! A claim that is utter bullshit
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:It is exactly on topic. You really are losing it, Tony - all I did was
On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 20:50:47 -0000 (UTC), TonyOff topic. You idiot.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
By a climate scientist. >>>https://www.johnstossel.com/the-fake-climate-consensus/
This may have been posted here before but it is worth repeating.
As is this: >>https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/#:~:text=Yes%2C%20the%20vast%20majority%20of,global%20warming%20and%20climate%20change.
point out that the "climate scientist" you referred to is one of
around 3% of such "scientists" that has denialist views about climate change.
By a climate scientist. https://www.johnstossel.com/the-fake-climate-consensus/
This may have been posted here before but it is worth repeating.
On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 23:47:04 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou are so wrong that you cannote see even simple truths.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 20:50:47 -0000 (UTC), TonyOff topic. You idiot.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
By a climate scientist. >>>>https://www.johnstossel.com/the-fake-climate-consensus/
This may have been posted here before but it is worth repeating.
As is this: >>>https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/#:~:text=Yes%2C%20the%20vast%20majority%20of,global%20warming%20and%20climate%20change.
It is exactly on topic. You really are losing it, Tony - all I did was
point out that the "climate scientist" you referred to is one of
around 3% of such "scientists" that has denialist views about climate
change.
On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 23:47:04 -0000 (UTC), TonyHere have some truth Rich :) https://twitter.com/SandeChin/status/1693040496070033546
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:It is exactly on topic. You really are losing it, Tony - all I did was
On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 20:50:47 -0000 (UTC), TonyOff topic. You idiot.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
By a climate scientist. >>>https://www.johnstossel.com/the-fake-climate-consensus/
This may have been posted here before but it is worth repeating.
As is this: >>https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/#:~:text=Yes%2C%20the%20vast%20majority%20of,global%20warming%20and%20climate%20change.
point out that the "climate scientist" you referred to is one of
around 3% of such "scientists" that has denialist views about climate change.
On Sun, 20 Aug 2023 04:35:33 -0000 (UTC), TonyNope it is not a fact. It is disputed by many cleverer people than you. Are you getting a tad irritated?
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Yes, there is a climate consensus - 97% of scientists support that
On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 23:47:04 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou are so wrong that you cannote see even simple truths.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 20:50:47 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Off topic. You idiot.
By a climate scientist. >>>>>>https://www.johnstossel.com/the-fake-climate-consensus/
This may have been posted here before but it is worth repeating.
As is this: >>>>>https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/#:~:text=Yes%2C%20the%20vast%20majority%20of,global%20warming%20and%20climate%20change.
It is exactly on topic. You really are losing it, Tony - all I did was >>>point out that the "climate scientist" you referred to is one of
around 3% of such "scientists" that has denialist views about climate >>>change.
The topic is about a fake climate concensus.
consensus. It is not fake - it is fact!
There are also a very small minority (about 3% according to the linksThe link is not credible, just like you.
above) that are have beliefs that are not shared by the consensus - to
them their beliefs are not fake
I don't, merely a logical rejoinder to your marxist views.You post is about the opposite and
therefore irrefutably off topic. If you had attempted to address the content >>that would have been another matter but you did not - as usual.
I am not losing it you abuse little tosser, you lost it the day you signed on >>for the marxist pledge.
I have not signed any marxist pledge - why do you persist in making
things up?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Yes, there is a climate consensus - 97% of scientists support that
On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 23:47:04 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou are so wrong that you cannote see even simple truths.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 20:50:47 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Off topic. You idiot.
By a climate scientist. >>>>>https://www.johnstossel.com/the-fake-climate-consensus/
This may have been posted here before but it is worth repeating.
As is this: >>>>https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/#:~:text=Yes%2C%20the%20vast%20majority%20of,global%20warming%20and%20climate%20change.
It is exactly on topic. You really are losing it, Tony - all I did was >>point out that the "climate scientist" you referred to is one of
around 3% of such "scientists" that has denialist views about climate >>change.
The topic is about a fake climate concensus.
You post is about the opposite and
therefore irrefutably off topic. If you had attempted to address the content >that would have been another matter but you did not - as usual.
I am not losing it you abuse little tosser, you lost it the day you signed on >for the marxist pledge.
On Sun, 20 Aug 2023 04:35:33 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Yes, there is a climate consensus - 97% of scientists support that consensus. It is not fake - it is fact!
On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 23:47:04 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou are so wrong that you cannote see even simple truths.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 20:50:47 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Off topic. You idiot.
By a climate scientist. >>>>>https://www.johnstossel.com/the-fake-climate-consensus/
This may have been posted here before but it is worth repeating.
As is this: >>>>https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/#:~:text=Yes%2C%20the%20vast%20majority%20of,global%20warming%20and%20climate%20change.
It is exactly on topic. You really are losing it, Tony - all I did was >>point out that the "climate scientist" you referred to is one of
around 3% of such "scientists" that has denialist views about climate >>change.
The topic is about a fake climate concensus.
There are also a very small minority (about 3% according to the links
above) that are have beliefs that are not shared by the consensus - to
them their beliefs are not fake
You post is about the opposite andI have not signed any marxist pledge - why do you persist in making
therefore irrefutably off topic. If you had attempted to address the content
that would have been another matter but you did not - as usual.
I am not losing it you abuse little tosser, you lost it the day you signed on
for the marxist pledge.
things up?
On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 20:50:47 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
By a climate scientist. >>https://www.johnstossel.com/the-fake-climate-consensus/
This may have been posted here before but it is worth repeating.
As is this: >https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/#:~:text=Yes%2C%20the%20vast%20majority%20of,global%20warming%20and%20climate%20change.
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 05:04:58 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:As usual you have gone completely off the topic. This thread is not about climate change. It is about the causes of climate change and you have made no attempt to address that subject.
On Sun, 20 Aug 2023 11:29:28 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 20:50:47 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
By a climate scientist. >>>>https://www.johnstossel.com/the-fake-climate-consensus/
This may have been posted here before but it is worth repeating.
As is this: >>>https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/#:~:text=Yes%2C%20the%20vast%20majority%20of,global%20warming%20and%20climate%20change.
Much is made of "97 percent of climate scientists", mostly by the
media.
"97 percent of scientists say climate change is real and humans are
the cause!"
"What? How dare you disagree with the 97 percent!"
"Hey, I'm swapping my petrol car for an electric car because the 97
percent say...!"
This is typically what you will hear in conversations among people
who's only connection with what is happening in the wider world is via
the newspapers and TV.
So who are they, and where did this 97 percent come from? Who was
polled?
It turns out that a John Cook, who goes by the title "Climate >>Communications Fellow Global Change Institute Australia" claimed that
over 97 percent of PAPERS surveyed endorsed the view that the Earth is >>warming up, and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the MAIN >>CAUSE.
So this was not a survey of scientists, but a survey of papers.
However, only 2 percent of papers actually said that.
So how did Cook come up with 97 percent?
He added papers that said there was man made warming, but didn't say
how much, and that is highly significant. Not only that, but he also
added papers that didn't even mention that there is man made warming,
but he added them anyway, claiming that the warming was "implied". So
much for the "consensus".
25 years ago there was a petition signed by 31,487 scientists (9,029
of them with PhDs) urging the US government to reject the Kyoto
protocol. The petition was launched to demonstrate that no settled
science exists, and that there is no evidence that there is a problem.
Are their views to be dismissed out of hand? Al Gore and his
supporters at the time claimed that there were only a handful of
skeptics who disagreed with him. If you search on line you can find a
list of their names, all 31,487 of them.
If the much vaunted 97% is to be believed, these must be the 3 percent >>"deniers". so let's be having the list of the names of over one
million of the 97% of scientists who disagree with them.
Bill.
Fair comment Bill, although it serves to reinforce the unscientific
nature of the claims about consensus from either side.
There was an investigation into one of the lists of 'anti - climate
change' scientists - it found that the majority were either retired,
or not involved in current research, or had never had anything to do
with studies relevant to climate.
Just recently, there were reports of a sceptic claiming that
temperatures had not increased on average, but not giving evidence -
but with the fires that devastated some areas of the world so soon
afterwards it became clear that either the claim was wrong, or that we
are at least experiencing greater extremes of weather - certainly
those experiencing fires that destroyed their homes in 45 degrees C >temperatures were not worrying about the long term . . .
Being a bit sceptical is healthy, but going down some rabbit holes may
not be healthy for either the person that gets fooled or for others -
one persons views repeated a hundred times and read by thousands does
not indicate a consensus; see for example: >https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/explained/128045158/covid-19-nz-the-strange-story-of-a-man-who-has-found-fame-in-the-antivaccination-ecosystem
On Sun, 20 Aug 2023 11:29:28 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 20:50:47 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
By a climate scientist. >>>https://www.johnstossel.com/the-fake-climate-consensus/
This may have been posted here before but it is worth repeating.
As is this: >>https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/#:~:text=Yes%2C%20the%20vast%20majority%20of,global%20warming%20and%20climate%20change.
Much is made of "97 percent of climate scientists", mostly by the
media.
"97 percent of scientists say climate change is real and humans are
the cause!"
"What? How dare you disagree with the 97 percent!"
"Hey, I'm swapping my petrol car for an electric car because the 97
percent say...!"
This is typically what you will hear in conversations among people
who's only connection with what is happening in the wider world is via
the newspapers and TV.
So who are they, and where did this 97 percent come from? Who was
polled?
It turns out that a John Cook, who goes by the title "Climate
Communications Fellow Global Change Institute Australia" claimed that
over 97 percent of PAPERS surveyed endorsed the view that the Earth is >warming up, and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the MAIN
CAUSE.
So this was not a survey of scientists, but a survey of papers.
However, only 2 percent of papers actually said that.
So how did Cook come up with 97 percent?
He added papers that said there was man made warming, but didn't say
how much, and that is highly significant. Not only that, but he also
added papers that didn't even mention that there is man made warming,
but he added them anyway, claiming that the warming was "implied". So
much for the "consensus".
25 years ago there was a petition signed by 31,487 scientists (9,029
of them with PhDs) urging the US government to reject the Kyoto
protocol. The petition was launched to demonstrate that no settled
science exists, and that there is no evidence that there is a problem.
Are their views to be dismissed out of hand? Al Gore and his
supporters at the time claimed that there were only a handful of
skeptics who disagreed with him. If you search on line you can find a
list of their names, all 31,487 of them.
If the much vaunted 97% is to be believed, these must be the 3 percent >"deniers". so let's be having the list of the names of over one
million of the 97% of scientists who disagree with them.
Bill.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:It is partly about climate change, but it is more about your use of
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 05:04:58 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:As usual you have gone completely off the topic. This thread is not about >climate change. It is about the causes of climate change and you have made no >attempt to address that subject.
On Sun, 20 Aug 2023 11:29:28 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 20:50:47 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
By a climate scientist. >>>>>https://www.johnstossel.com/the-fake-climate-consensus/
This may have been posted here before but it is worth repeating.
As is this: >>>>https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/#:~:text=Yes%2C%20the%20vast%20majority%20of,global%20warming%20and%20climate%20change.
Much is made of "97 percent of climate scientists", mostly by the
media.
"97 percent of scientists say climate change is real and humans are
the cause!"
"What? How dare you disagree with the 97 percent!"
"Hey, I'm swapping my petrol car for an electric car because the 97 >>>percent say...!"
This is typically what you will hear in conversations among people
who's only connection with what is happening in the wider world is via >>>the newspapers and TV.
So who are they, and where did this 97 percent come from? Who was
polled?
It turns out that a John Cook, who goes by the title "Climate >>>Communications Fellow Global Change Institute Australia" claimed that >>>over 97 percent of PAPERS surveyed endorsed the view that the Earth is >>>warming up, and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the MAIN >>>CAUSE.
So this was not a survey of scientists, but a survey of papers.
However, only 2 percent of papers actually said that.
So how did Cook come up with 97 percent?
He added papers that said there was man made warming, but didn't say
how much, and that is highly significant. Not only that, but he also >>>added papers that didn't even mention that there is man made warming,
but he added them anyway, claiming that the warming was "implied". So >>>much for the "consensus".
25 years ago there was a petition signed by 31,487 scientists (9,029
of them with PhDs) urging the US government to reject the Kyoto
protocol. The petition was launched to demonstrate that no settled >>>science exists, and that there is no evidence that there is a problem. >>>Are their views to be dismissed out of hand? Al Gore and his
supporters at the time claimed that there were only a handful of
skeptics who disagreed with him. If you search on line you can find a >>>list of their names, all 31,487 of them.
If the much vaunted 97% is to be believed, these must be the 3 percent >>>"deniers". so let's be having the list of the names of over one
million of the 97% of scientists who disagree with them.
Bill.
Fair comment Bill, although it serves to reinforce the unscientific
nature of the claims about consensus from either side.
There was an investigation into one of the lists of 'anti - climate
change' scientists - it found that the majority were either retired,
or not involved in current research, or had never had anything to do
with studies relevant to climate.
Just recently, there were reports of a sceptic claiming that
temperatures had not increased on average, but not giving evidence -
but with the fires that devastated some areas of the world so soon >>afterwards it became clear that either the claim was wrong, or that we
are at least experiencing greater extremes of weather - certainly
those experiencing fires that destroyed their homes in 45 degrees C >>temperatures were not worrying about the long term . . .
Being a bit sceptical is healthy, but going down some rabbit holes may
not be healthy for either the person that gets fooled or for others -
one persons views repeated a hundred times and read by thousands does
not indicate a consensus; see for example: >>https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/explained/128045158/covid-19-nz-the-strange-story-of-a-man-who-has-found-fame-in-the-antivaccination-ecosystem
On Sun, 20 Aug 2023 22:09:10 -0000 (UTC), TonyWrong. The thread is about the fake climate consensus. So keep on topic or start your own thread.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:It is partly about climate change, but it is more about your use of
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 05:04:58 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:As usual you have gone completely off the topic. This thread is not about >>climate change. It is about the causes of climate change and you have made no >>attempt to address that subject.
On Sun, 20 Aug 2023 11:29:28 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 20:50:47 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
By a climate scientist. >>>>>>https://www.johnstossel.com/the-fake-climate-consensus/
This may have been posted here before but it is worth repeating.
As is this: >>>>>https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/#:~:text=Yes%2C%20the%20vast%20majority%20of,global%20warming%20and%20climate%20change.
Much is made of "97 percent of climate scientists", mostly by the >>>>media.
"97 percent of scientists say climate change is real and humans are
the cause!"
"What? How dare you disagree with the 97 percent!"
"Hey, I'm swapping my petrol car for an electric car because the 97 >>>>percent say...!"
This is typically what you will hear in conversations among people >>>>who's only connection with what is happening in the wider world is via >>>>the newspapers and TV.
So who are they, and where did this 97 percent come from? Who was >>>>polled?
It turns out that a John Cook, who goes by the title "Climate >>>>Communications Fellow Global Change Institute Australia" claimed that >>>>over 97 percent of PAPERS surveyed endorsed the view that the Earth is >>>>warming up, and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the MAIN >>>>CAUSE.
So this was not a survey of scientists, but a survey of papers. >>>>However, only 2 percent of papers actually said that.
So how did Cook come up with 97 percent?
He added papers that said there was man made warming, but didn't say >>>>how much, and that is highly significant. Not only that, but he also >>>>added papers that didn't even mention that there is man made warming, >>>>but he added them anyway, claiming that the warming was "implied". So >>>>much for the "consensus".
25 years ago there was a petition signed by 31,487 scientists (9,029
of them with PhDs) urging the US government to reject the Kyoto >>>>protocol. The petition was launched to demonstrate that no settled >>>>science exists, and that there is no evidence that there is a problem. >>>>Are their views to be dismissed out of hand? Al Gore and his
supporters at the time claimed that there were only a handful of >>>>skeptics who disagreed with him. If you search on line you can find a >>>>list of their names, all 31,487 of them.
If the much vaunted 97% is to be believed, these must be the 3 percent >>>>"deniers". so let's be having the list of the names of over one
million of the 97% of scientists who disagree with them.
Bill.
Fair comment Bill, although it serves to reinforce the unscientific >>>nature of the claims about consensus from either side.
There was an investigation into one of the lists of 'anti - climate >>>change' scientists - it found that the majority were either retired,
or not involved in current research, or had never had anything to do
with studies relevant to climate.
Just recently, there were reports of a sceptic claiming that
temperatures had not increased on average, but not giving evidence -
but with the fires that devastated some areas of the world so soon >>>afterwards it became clear that either the claim was wrong, or that we >>>are at least experiencing greater extremes of weather - certainly
those experiencing fires that destroyed their homes in 45 degrees C >>>temperatures were not worrying about the long term . . .
one article, that acknowledges a mistake in one small area as being >indicative of wider problems without showing any evidence of such
wider application. It is the essential dishonesty of much of the
debate about major issues in New Zealand and in the world, where a
small minority attempt to spread false information and dissent based
on false premises.
Your problem Tony is that you believe a lot of that false narrative,What makes me very slightly angry is your repeated lies and abusive sarcasm. That is all you have.
but are not that good at justifying your distorted view of the world
to others, and that makes you angry . . .
Being a bit sceptical is healthy, but going down some rabbit holes may >>>not be healthy for either the person that gets fooled or for others -
one persons views repeated a hundred times and read by thousands does
not indicate a consensus; see for example: >>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/explained/128045158/covid-19-nz-the-strange-story-of-a-man-who-has-found-fame-in-the-antivaccination-ecosystem
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 05:04:58 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2023 11:29:28 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 20:50:47 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
By a climate scientist. >>>>https://www.johnstossel.com/the-fake-climate-consensus/
This may have been posted here before but it is worth repeating.
As is this: >>>https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/#:~:text=Yes%2C%20the%20vast%20majority%20of,global%20warming%20and%20climate%20change.
Much is made of "97 percent of climate scientists", mostly by the
media.
"97 percent of scientists say climate change is real and humans are
the cause!"
"What? How dare you disagree with the 97 percent!"
"Hey, I'm swapping my petrol car for an electric car because the 97
percent say...!"
This is typically what you will hear in conversations among people
who's only connection with what is happening in the wider world is via
the newspapers and TV.
So who are they, and where did this 97 percent come from? Who was
polled?
It turns out that a John Cook, who goes by the title "Climate >>Communications Fellow Global Change Institute Australia" claimed that
over 97 percent of PAPERS surveyed endorsed the view that the Earth is >>warming up, and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the MAIN >>CAUSE.
So this was not a survey of scientists, but a survey of papers.
However, only 2 percent of papers actually said that.
So how did Cook come up with 97 percent?
He added papers that said there was man made warming, but didn't say
how much, and that is highly significant. Not only that, but he also
added papers that didn't even mention that there is man made warming,
but he added them anyway, claiming that the warming was "implied". So
much for the "consensus".
25 years ago there was a petition signed by 31,487 scientists (9,029
of them with PhDs) urging the US government to reject the Kyoto
protocol. The petition was launched to demonstrate that no settled
science exists, and that there is no evidence that there is a problem.
Are their views to be dismissed out of hand? Al Gore and his
supporters at the time claimed that there were only a handful of
skeptics who disagreed with him. If you search on line you can find a
list of their names, all 31,487 of them.
If the much vaunted 97% is to be believed, these must be the 3 percent >>"deniers". so let's be having the list of the names of over one
million of the 97% of scientists who disagree with them.
Bill.
Fair comment Bill, although it serves to reinforce the unscientific
nature of the claims about consensus from either side.
There was an investigation into one of the lists of 'anti - climate
change' scientists - it found that the majority were either retired,
or not involved in current research, or had never had anything to do
with studies relevant to climate.
Just recently, there were reports of a sceptic claiming that
temperatures had not increased on average, but not giving evidence -
but with the fires that devastated some areas of the world so soon
afterwards it became clear that either the claim was wrong, or that we
are at least experiencing greater extremes of weather
those experiencing fires that destroyed their homes in 45 degrees C temperatures were not worrying about the long term . . .
Being a bit sceptical is healthy, but going down some rabbit holes may
not be healthy for either the person that gets fooled or for others -
one persons views repeated a hundred times and read by thousands does
not indicate a consensus; see for example: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/explained/128045158/covid-19-nz-the-strange-story-of-a-man-who-has-found-fame-in-the-antivaccination-ecosystem
On 2023-08-20, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:Yes and that is why Rich's link was nonsense. It proved nothing, a waste of bandwidth.
On Sun, 20 Aug 2023 11:29:28 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 20:50:47 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
By a climate scientist. >>>>https://www.johnstossel.com/the-fake-climate-consensus/
This may have been posted here before but it is worth repeating.
As is this: >>>https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/#:~:text=Yes%2C%20the%20vast%20majority%20of,global%20warming%20and%20climate%20change.
Much is made of "97 percent of climate scientists", mostly by the
media.
"97 percent of scientists say climate change is real and humans are
the cause!"
"What? How dare you disagree with the 97 percent!"
"Hey, I'm swapping my petrol car for an electric car because the 97
percent say...!"
This is typically what you will hear in conversations among people
who's only connection with what is happening in the wider world is via
the newspapers and TV.
So who are they, and where did this 97 percent come from? Who was
polled?
It turns out that a John Cook, who goes by the title "Climate
Communications Fellow Global Change Institute Australia" claimed that
over 97 percent of PAPERS surveyed endorsed the view that the Earth is
warming up, and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the MAIN
CAUSE.
So this was not a survey of scientists, but a survey of papers.
However, only 2 percent of papers actually said that.
So how did Cook come up with 97 percent?
He added papers that said there was man made warming, but didn't say
how much, and that is highly significant. Not only that, but he also
added papers that didn't even mention that there is man made warming,
but he added them anyway, claiming that the warming was "implied". So
much for the "consensus".
25 years ago there was a petition signed by 31,487 scientists (9,029
of them with PhDs) urging the US government to reject the Kyoto
protocol. The petition was launched to demonstrate that no settled
science exists, and that there is no evidence that there is a problem.
Are their views to be dismissed out of hand? Al Gore and his
supporters at the time claimed that there were only a handful of
skeptics who disagreed with him. If you search on line you can find a
list of their names, all 31,487 of them.
If the much vaunted 97% is to be believed, these must be the 3 percent
"deniers". so let's be having the list of the names of over one
million of the 97% of scientists who disagree with them.
This explantion is on YouTube. Basically the 97% figure is worth nothing.
This falls into the logic test, all crows are black, but not black birds are >crows.
97% of the scientists theory may be the same, but the question is, Is the >theory correct?
Bill.
On 2023-08-20, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Yes true but the thread has been taken by Rich way off topic. The original topic was not whether there is climate change (something that nobody is denying), it was about the fake consensus and so far no evidence that it is not fake has been provided here.
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 05:04:58 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2023 11:29:28 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 20:50:47 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
By a climate scientist. >>>>>https://www.johnstossel.com/the-fake-climate-consensus/
This may have been posted here before but it is worth repeating.
As is this: >>>>https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/#:~:text=Yes%2C%20the%20vast%20majority%20of,global%20warming%20and%20climate%20change.
Much is made of "97 percent of climate scientists", mostly by the
media.
"97 percent of scientists say climate change is real and humans are
the cause!"
"What? How dare you disagree with the 97 percent!"
"Hey, I'm swapping my petrol car for an electric car because the 97 >>>percent say...!"
This is typically what you will hear in conversations among people
who's only connection with what is happening in the wider world is via >>>the newspapers and TV.
So who are they, and where did this 97 percent come from? Who was
polled?
It turns out that a John Cook, who goes by the title "Climate >>>Communications Fellow Global Change Institute Australia" claimed that >>>over 97 percent of PAPERS surveyed endorsed the view that the Earth is >>>warming up, and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the MAIN >>>CAUSE.
So this was not a survey of scientists, but a survey of papers.
However, only 2 percent of papers actually said that.
So how did Cook come up with 97 percent?
He added papers that said there was man made warming, but didn't say
how much, and that is highly significant. Not only that, but he also >>>added papers that didn't even mention that there is man made warming,
but he added them anyway, claiming that the warming was "implied". So >>>much for the "consensus".
25 years ago there was a petition signed by 31,487 scientists (9,029
of them with PhDs) urging the US government to reject the Kyoto
protocol. The petition was launched to demonstrate that no settled >>>science exists, and that there is no evidence that there is a problem. >>>Are their views to be dismissed out of hand? Al Gore and his
supporters at the time claimed that there were only a handful of
skeptics who disagreed with him. If you search on line you can find a >>>list of their names, all 31,487 of them.
If the much vaunted 97% is to be believed, these must be the 3 percent >>>"deniers". so let's be having the list of the names of over one
million of the 97% of scientists who disagree with them.
Bill.
Fair comment Bill, although it serves to reinforce the unscientific
nature of the claims about consensus from either side.
There was an investigation into one of the lists of 'anti - climate
change' scientists - it found that the majority were either retired,
or not involved in current research, or had never had anything to do
with studies relevant to climate.
Just recently, there were reports of a sceptic claiming that
temperatures had not increased on average, but not giving evidence -
but with the fires that devastated some areas of the world so soon
afterwards it became clear that either the claim was wrong, or that we
are at least experiencing greater extremes of weather
Fires do not start without an ignition source.
Hurricane Dora encourgaed the fires on. Now Hilary is about to douse the >dessert. Estimation was a years rain fall in one day.
The wild fires are caused by far too much fuel within the fires grasp.
- certainly
those experiencing fires that destroyed their homes in 45 degrees C
temperatures were not worrying about the long term . . .
Being a bit sceptical is healthy, but going down some rabbit holes may
not be healthy for either the person that gets fooled or for others -
one persons views repeated a hundred times and read by thousands does
not indicate a consensus; see for example:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/explained/128045158/covid-19-nz-the-strange-story-of-a-man-who-has-found-fame-in-the-antivaccination-ecosystem
On Sun, 20 Aug 2023 11:29:28 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 20:50:47 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
By a climate scientist. >>>https://www.johnstossel.com/the-fake-climate-consensus/
This may have been posted here before but it is worth repeating.
As is this: >>https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/#:~:text=Yes%2C%20the%20vast%20majority%20of,global%20warming%20and%20climate%20change.
Much is made of "97 percent of climate scientists", mostly by the
media.
"97 percent of scientists say climate change is real and humans are
the cause!"
"What? How dare you disagree with the 97 percent!"
"Hey, I'm swapping my petrol car for an electric car because the 97
percent say...!"
This is typically what you will hear in conversations among people
who's only connection with what is happening in the wider world is via
the newspapers and TV.
So who are they, and where did this 97 percent come from? Who was
polled?
It turns out that a John Cook, who goes by the title "Climate
Communications Fellow Global Change Institute Australia" claimed that
over 97 percent of PAPERS surveyed endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up, and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the MAIN
CAUSE.
So this was not a survey of scientists, but a survey of papers.
However, only 2 percent of papers actually said that.
So how did Cook come up with 97 percent?
He added papers that said there was man made warming, but didn't say
how much, and that is highly significant. Not only that, but he also
added papers that didn't even mention that there is man made warming,
but he added them anyway, claiming that the warming was "implied". So
much for the "consensus".
25 years ago there was a petition signed by 31,487 scientists (9,029
of them with PhDs) urging the US government to reject the Kyoto
protocol. The petition was launched to demonstrate that no settled
science exists, and that there is no evidence that there is a problem.
Are their views to be dismissed out of hand? Al Gore and his
supporters at the time claimed that there were only a handful of
skeptics who disagreed with him. If you search on line you can find a
list of their names, all 31,487 of them.
If the much vaunted 97% is to be believed, these must be the 3 percent "deniers". so let's be having the list of the names of over one
million of the 97% of scientists who disagree with them.
Bill.
On 2023-08-20, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Going by recent reports many of the fires have been started by climate activists. Guess like Rich they're prepared to do anything to make sure their stupid predictions come true...
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 05:04:58 +1200, BR <bl...@blah.blah> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2023 11:29:28 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 20:50:47 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
By a climate scientist. >>>>https://www.johnstossel.com/the-fake-climate-consensus/
This may have been posted here before but it is worth repeating.
As is this: >>>https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/#:~:text=Yes%2C%20the%20vast%20majority%20of,global%20warming%20and%20climate%20change.
Much is made of "97 percent of climate scientists", mostly by the
media.
"97 percent of scientists say climate change is real and humans are
the cause!"
"What? How dare you disagree with the 97 percent!"
"Hey, I'm swapping my petrol car for an electric car because the 97 >>percent say...!"
This is typically what you will hear in conversations among people
who's only connection with what is happening in the wider world is via >>the newspapers and TV.
So who are they, and where did this 97 percent come from? Who was >>polled?
It turns out that a John Cook, who goes by the title "Climate >>Communications Fellow Global Change Institute Australia" claimed that >>over 97 percent of PAPERS surveyed endorsed the view that the Earth is >>warming up, and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the MAIN >>CAUSE.
So this was not a survey of scientists, but a survey of papers.
However, only 2 percent of papers actually said that.
So how did Cook come up with 97 percent?
He added papers that said there was man made warming, but didn't say
how much, and that is highly significant. Not only that, but he also >>added papers that didn't even mention that there is man made warming, >>but he added them anyway, claiming that the warming was "implied". So >>much for the "consensus".
25 years ago there was a petition signed by 31,487 scientists (9,029
of them with PhDs) urging the US government to reject the Kyoto >>protocol. The petition was launched to demonstrate that no settled >>science exists, and that there is no evidence that there is a problem. >>Are their views to be dismissed out of hand? Al Gore and his
supporters at the time claimed that there were only a handful of >>skeptics who disagreed with him. If you search on line you can find a >>list of their names, all 31,487 of them.
If the much vaunted 97% is to be believed, these must be the 3 percent >>"deniers". so let's be having the list of the names of over one
million of the 97% of scientists who disagree with them.
Bill.
Fair comment Bill, although it serves to reinforce the unscientific
nature of the claims about consensus from either side.
There was an investigation into one of the lists of 'anti - climate change' scientists - it found that the majority were either retired,
or not involved in current research, or had never had anything to do
with studies relevant to climate.
Just recently, there were reports of a sceptic claiming thatFires do not start without an ignition source.
temperatures had not increased on average, but not giving evidence -
but with the fires that devastated some areas of the world so soon afterwards it became clear that either the claim was wrong, or that we
are at least experiencing greater extremes of weather
Hurricane Dora encourgaed the fires on. Now Hilary is about to douse the dessert. Estimation was a years rain fall in one day.
The wild fires are caused by far too much fuel within the fires grasp.
- certainly
those experiencing fires that destroyed their homes in 45 degrees C temperatures were not worrying about the long term . . .
Being a bit sceptical is healthy, but going down some rabbit holes may
not be healthy for either the person that gets fooled or for others -
one persons views repeated a hundred times and read by thousands does
not indicate a consensus; see for example: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/explained/128045158/covid-19-nz-the-strange-story-of-a-man-who-has-found-fame-in-the-antivaccination-ecosystem
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 126:17:30 |
| Calls: | 6,663 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,334,955 |