Jump to content
BANGKOK
snoop1130

'Moral call to rest of the world' on climate from hardest hit countries, Obama says

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

It is, though, a standard SJW tactic to try to lock all opponents into a single cage (and a false one at that). One of the worst pieces of "science" in the whole debate was an attempt to prove that climate skepticism was causally linked to a belief that the moon landings were faked. 

 

To be honest, i am very skeptical on the theory of man-made global warming, and i happen to be slightly skeptical on the moon landings too.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Denialism runs deep. 

 

The trouble with these conflicts is that especially in the USA the issue has become extremely politicized. It shouldn't be. It should be facts based.

 

So if you're not an actual scientist in the field, the most rational thing is to pay attention to the VAST MAJORIY of global scientists that are. The denialists can always find a few outliers but it's much more prudent for the future of the planet to listen to the VAST MAJORITY. Sure there is a small chance they are wrong, but the price to pay for ignoring them is just too high. 

In 2008 Margaret Zimmerman asked two questions of
10,257 Earth Scientists at academic and government institutions. 3146 of them responded.
That survey was the original basis for the famous “97% consensus” claim.

For the calculation of the degree of consensus among experts in the Doran/Zimmerman article,
all but 79 of the respondents were excluded. They wrote:

“In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents
(with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as
their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of
their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change
(79 individuals in total).
Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen”
to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.”

The basis for the “97% consensus” claim is this excerpt:

[of] “the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents
(with regard to climate change)… 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.”

 

 Q1: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures
have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”   
76 of 79 (96.2%) answered “risen.”

 Q2: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor
in changing mean global temperatures?”   75 of 77 (97.4%) answered “yes.”

Q1. When compared with pre-1800's levels, do you think that
mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
1. Risen
2. Fallen
3. Remained relatively constant
4. No opinion/Don't know
 
Q2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in
changing mean global temperatures?  
[This question wasn’t asked if they answered “remained relatively constant” to Q1]
1. Yes
2. No
3. I'm not sure
 
Q3. What do you consider to be the most compelling argument that supports your previous answer
(or, for those who were unsure, why were they unsure)?
[This question wasn’t asked if they answered “remained relatively constant” to Q1]

Q4. Please estimate the percentage of your fellow geoscientists who think
human activity is a contributing factor to global climate change.
 
Q5. Which percentage of your papers published in peer-reviewed journals in
the last 5 years have been on the subject of climate change?
 
Q6. Age
 
Q7. Gender
 
Q8. What is the highest level of education you have attained?
 
Q9. Which category best describes your area of expertise?

 

ps, the way to conduct statistic is to divide total 'yes' answers with total responses, 75/3146

the consensus is 2%.

this brat instead decided to cherry pick among answers

and only used 79, so not only is it uber biased, but also too low participants

to build statistic on.

pseudo science just like all the rest in this farce,

and just the way alarmists like it,

the only thing this statistic show is the bias of the author.

 

 

Edited by brokenbone
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Jingthing said:

It's a she. It's a very small plane. But I take it you're not really interested in what she observed and what it means to the future of our planet, right? 

not in the slightest

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Ah, the humour of deniers...just like their grasp of the dangers we face-it just isn’t funny. 

ah  but it is, its absolutely hilarious.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, brokenbone said:

In 2008 Margaret Zimmerman asked two questions of
10,257 Earth Scientists at academic and government institutions. 3146 of them responded.
That survey was the original basis for the famous “97% consensus” claim.

For the calculation of the degree of consensus among experts in the Doran/Zimmerman article,
all but 79 of the respondents were excluded. They wrote:

“In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents
(with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as
their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of
their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change
(79 individuals in total).
Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen”
to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.”

The basis for the “97% consensus” claim is this excerpt:

[of] “the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents
(with regard to climate change)… 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.”

 

 Q1: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures
have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”   
76 of 79 (96.2%) answered “risen.”

 Q2: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor
in changing mean global temperatures?”   75 of 77 (97.4%) answered “yes.”

Q1. When compared with pre-1800's levels, do you think that
mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
1. Risen
2. Fallen
3. Remained relatively constant
4. No opinion/Don't know
 
Q2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in
changing mean global temperatures?  
[This question wasn’t asked if they answered “remained relatively constant” to Q1]
1. Yes
2. No
3. I'm not sure
 
Q3. What do you consider to be the most compelling argument that supports your previous answer
(or, for those who were unsure, why were they unsure)?
[This question wasn’t asked if they answered “remained relatively constant” to Q1]

Q4. Please estimate the percentage of your fellow geoscientists who think
human activity is a contributing factor to global climate change.
 
Q5. Which percentage of your papers published in peer-reviewed journals in
the last 5 years have been on the subject of climate change?
 
Q6. Age
 
Q7. Gender
 
Q8. What is the highest level of education you have attained?
 
Q9. Which category best describes your area of expertise?

 

ps, the way to conduct statistic is to divide total 'yes' answers with total responses, 75/3146

the consensus is 2%.

this brat instead decided to cherry pick among answers

and only used 79, so not only is it uber biased, but also too low participants

to build statistic on.

pseudo science just like all the rest in this farce,

and just the way alarmists like it,

the only thing this statistic show is the bias of the author.

 

 

So is all of that your original writing? :stoner:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Chazar said:

ah  but it is, its absolutely hilarious.

Can we call that vice signalling?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Chazar said:

ah  but it is, its absolutely hilarious.

Another panto season victim. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Denialism runs deep. 

 

The trouble with these conflicts is that especially in the USA the issue has become extremely politicized. It shouldn't be. It should be facts based.

 

So if you're not an actual scientist in the field, the most rational thing is to pay attention to the VAST MAJORIY of global scientists that are. The denialists can always find a few outliers but it's much more prudent for the future of the planet to listen to the VAST MAJORITY. Sure there is a small chance they are wrong, but the price to pay for ignoring them is just too high. 

Im not listening to majoriy shes a  fool

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Chazar said:

Im not listening to majoriy shes a  fool

So when you need to see a doctor do you go to a bakery?

 

Here's my theory. The denialist brigade would be enthusiastic about the overwhelming consensus of actual experts IF their conclusions pleased them. 

Edited by Jingthing
  • Like 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

So when you need to see a doctor do you go to a bakery?

 

Here's my theory. The denialist brigade would be enthusiastic about the overwhelming consensus of actual experts IF their conclusions pleased them. 

The vast majority of consensus told me about the luminiferous  aether 150 odd  years  ago 

https://www.sify.com/news/top-10-scientific-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-wrong-imagegallery-science-kdrusqeghcisi.html

Edited by Chazar
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/13/2019 at 4:54 PM, snoop1130 said:

the top historic greenhouse gas emitter

I suppose that a more precient statement would be to consider the current day emission percentages of the United States along with the current percentages of everyone else. For intelligent conversation on climate issues see:

 

Judithcurry.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

So is all of that your original writing? :stoner:

you can google it and find this is exactly, by her own words,

how she conducted this 97% agree statistics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

you can google it and find this is exactly, by her own words,

how she conducted this 97% agree statistics

No need to google. It seems you're very good at copying and pasting large chunks of text of writing that isn't your own. Heard of a thing called a LINK?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A very rich man who flies around the world by private jet and owns large houses, is telling me a fairy tale about the weather.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

No need to google. It seems you're very good at copying and pasting large chunks of text of writing that isn't your own. Heard of a thing called a LINK?

ok, for the man who gave me the straight clipper

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2009EO030002

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2009eo030002

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...