• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

That 97% number[W:171]

lifeisshort

Banned
Joined
Sep 14, 2014
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
421
Location
the high desert
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
We constantly hear from the true believers that 97% of scientist blah,blah,blah but the truth is....

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

"Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [16]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[17][18][19]
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003)[20]
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University[21]
Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm[22]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[23]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [24]
Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry[25]

Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes





Graph showing the ability with which a global climate model is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record, and the degree to which those temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. It shows the effects of five forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, and volcanic emissions.[26]
Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[27]
Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[28][29]
Tim Ball, professor emeritus of geography at the University of Winnipeg[30]
Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook University[31]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[32]
Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[33]
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[34]
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[35]
William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[36]
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[37]
Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo[38]
Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[39]
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[40]
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[41]
Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri[42]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[43]
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[44][45]
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[46]
Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego[47]
Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University[48]
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[49][50]
Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo[51]
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[52][53][54]
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[55]
Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[56]
Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center[57]
George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University[58]
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[59]

Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown

Scientists in this section have made comments that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[60]
Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[61]
Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[62]
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[63][64]
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[65]
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[66]
Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus of physics at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.[67]
Vincent R. Gray, New Zealander physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes[68]
Keith Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change[69]
Antonino


List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Teller_Card_100dpi.webp

And then of course their is this.

31,487 American scientists have signed this petition.
including 9,029 with PhDs

" This petition is primarily circulated by U. S. Postal Service mailing to scientists. Included in this mailing are the petition card, the letter from Frederick Seitz, the review article, and a return envelope. If a scientist wishes to sign, he fills out the petition and mails it to the project by first class mail.

Additionally, many petition signers obtain petition cards from their colleagues, who request these cards from the project.

A scientist can also obtain a copy of the petition from this Internet website, sign, and mail it. Fewer than 5% of the current signatories obtained their petition in this way.

Petition project volunteers evaluate each signers's credentials, verify signer identities, and, if appropriate, add the signer's name to the petition list.



Global Warming Petition Project
 
But wait, there is even more.



"The survey of AMS members found that while 52 percent of American Meteorological Society members believe climate change is occurring and mostly human-induced, 48 percent of members do not believe in man-made global warming.

Furthermore, the survey found that scientists who professed “liberal political views” were much more likely to believe in the theory of man-made global warming than those who without liberal views.

“Political ideology was the factor next most strongly associated with meteorologists’ views about global warming. This also goes against the idea of scientists’ opinions being entirely based on objective analysis of the evidence, and concurs with previous studies that have shown scientists’ opinions on topics to vary along with their political orientation,” writes survey author Neil Stenhouse of George Mason University.

“The result suggests that members of professional scientific organizations have not been immune to influence by the political polarization on climate change that has affected politicians and the general public,” Stenhouse writes.

Nearly half of meteorologists reject man-made global warming | The Daily Caller
 
And then there is this. I could go on all day but I think you get the point.

"It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.


Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes
 
Ok. You have 30k signatures on a petition, we have Bill Gates. I'm pretty sure that's an instant win in any conversation. In an interview about what is the biggest problem facing Ethiopia and africa food shortage, Bill Gates said that climate change is the one thing that could cripple efforts to increase productivity and growth.

-Hey, I can do 1000 push-ups.
-We have Bill Gates on our side.
*Win*

-Hey, I think climate change isn't real.
-Bill Gates thinks it is.
*Win*

-I think Apple is better than Microsoft.
-Bill Gates doesn't.
*Win*

-I think the xBox is better for gaming than the PC.
-Bill Gates owns both the xBox and the PC (well, he doesn't own the PC, but most people are running microsoft windows)
*double winning*

He wins more than Charlie Sheen.
 
I can't resist one more link.:lol:



"The 10 Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics


The media portrays climate scientists as having delivered a final verdict on global warming.

They haven't.

There remain some holdouts who say this consensus is little more than conformity to a politically correct idea. Perhaps even more surprising is that a few of these global-warming skeptics are actually respected!

No matter where you stand on this debate, you should know who the major skeptics are and what they think.


The 10 Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics - Business Insider
 
Ok. You have 30k signatures on a petition, we have Bill Gates. I'm pretty sure that's an instant win in any conversation. In an interview about what is the biggest problem facing Ethiopia and africa food shortage, Bill Gates said that climate change is the one thing that could cripple efforts to increase productivity and growth.

-Hey, I can do 1000 push-ups.
-We have Bill Gates on our side.
*Win*

-Hey, I think climate change isn't real.
-Bill Gates thinks it is.
*Win*

-I think Apple is better than Microsoft.
-Bill Gates doesn't.
*Win*

-I think the xBox is better for gaming than the PC.
-Bill Gates owns both the xBox and the PC (well, he doesn't own the PC, but most people are running microsoft windows)
*double winning*

He wins more than Charlie Sheen.


Laughable reply really. Is that the best you have? Read my other post on this in this thread. The list goes on and on and on
 
Last edited:
Laughable reply really. Is that really the best you have? Read my other post on this in this thread. The list goes on and on and on

Dude, this is not a new discussion. It's been going on for a long, long time, even on this forum. Every week there are some new posts as to why global warming is lie or how it's wrong or w/e. Or that humans aren't in any way responsible or some mitigation sort of discussion.

I am not a climate scientist. I'm a computer programmer. So I delegate the responsibility of searching and looking and doing science stuff about climate to climate scientists and organizations. That's how society works. They do their stuff, I do my stuff, and then I, as a citizen, responsibly listen to what they say about the climate and accept it. Why? Because I'm not about to do 3 years of education into a completely different field + get 10 years of work experience just to understand the science that goes on in determining the reality of climate change so that i can look at all the data they compiled and find out it's real or not.

So I trust that the climate scientists and organization and people in government who are specialists have looked at all the data, drew the correct conclusions and reported their findings.

All the responsible govts in the world, which is basically the western world and the western aligned world, have accepted that climate change is real. Maybe the Abbott govt in Australia doesn't believe in it and I'm pretty sure China and India don't either that's why they're the worlds biggest polluters. But they aren't the countries we should be emulating, but we should lead the way to a better future.

So. While I do agree that there are people, even specialists who disagree with the findings, that's fine, ok, I accept that, I never denied that, but they are the minority. The underwhelming minority. Yes, maybe there are some famous people as you posted that link there, but there are a lot of people of reknown on the other side.
I will agree to 1 thing and 1 thing only. It is true that there is a risk that climate change becomes enshrined in some way, sort of a "new religion" as you would put it. Ok, I can agree that that can happen, but it's not happened yet and it's not the case. And it is especially not the case at govt levels. That's why while there is a push for green energy in the west and a reduction of the carbon footprint and fossil fuel use and all that good stuff, it isn't followed on dogmatically, religiously. It's being done sensibly.
 
We've been over all of this before on this forum, several times.

The Climate is changing, just as it always has been, and any contribution by mankind is trivial compared to natural sources.

The whole thing is driven by the solar cycles and the shift in spectrum into the Blue-UV which occurs when the sun heats up during sun spot activity.

Ironically, the period of time(s) when the sun gets Hotter, the earth actually cools, driven by Rayleigh scattering of Blue+ short wavelength light.

Rayleigh scattering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rayleigh-scattering-picture.jpg.gif 250px-Rayleigh_sunlight_scattering.webp

Any person with a couple of years of college physics can run the equations and show that IR energy trapping by green house effect from CO2 is dwarfed in total energy retention by shifting just slightly further into the Blue-UV by the peak solar radiance.

The whole thing is affected by an atmospheric gas, but that gas is NOT CO2, it is Nitrogen. Nitrogen is what makes the sky blue, and scatters blue light back out into space.

Shift the solar spectrum into the Blue, and more the energy is sent back out.

Shift the solar spectrum into the red, and it gets absorbed.

During solar minimum, the sun is cool, puts out more red light, and the earth heats up.

During solar maximum, the sun is hot, put out more Blue-UV light, and it get scattered back out into space at a much higher rate, and the earth cools.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_maximum

Solar-cycle-data.webp

As I stated earlier, the CO2 numbers do NOT correlate to the temperature numbers ( though we don't have the 200+ years of data needed to make a true scientific analysis), because CO2 is the WRONG GAS!

The true mechanism which is controlling temperature change is NOT CO2 trapping IR light, there by changing the energy retention. It does have a small effect, but it NOT the primary controlling effect.

The true atmospheric gas which creates the primary mechanism for climate change is NITROGEN, not CO2!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth

carbon-dioxide-content.webp

Nitrogen is the gas in our atmosphere responsible for Rayleigh Scattering of Blue-UV light, which carries far more energy per photon than Red light.

More of the Solar Flux output of Sol is in the Blue end of the spectrum anyone, as one would expect from the Black Body radiation curve.

Solar_Spectrum.webp

Scattered light is as likely to go back out in to space, as it is to come down to the planets surface, being moderated into longer wavelength light by atmospheric interactions along the way, to be absorbed.

The star, Sol, like any other star, goes through magnetic storm cycles of having sun-spots at the solar Maximum and having next to no spots at the solar minimum.

During periods of Solar Minimum, Sol has a lower overall solar flux, or energy output per steradians, but the black body curve has more of that energy lower in the spectrum, and allot more of the energy gets to the planets surface.

The total effect of a cooler sun, creating more energy deposited on the planet is huge compared to the relatively minor effect of CO2 IR retention!

The CO2-IR-reflection effect only works on the small amount of energy in the IR spectral range. Look at the Black Body energy curve show in the graph.



The Nitrogen-UV-scattering effect works on the much larger amount of energy in the Blue-UV spectral range. That is the area of the Sun's major energy output.

Its kinda like the quote from Babyface Nelson, the depression era criminal, "Why do you rob banks?" Answ. "Because that's were the money is!"

Well, the vast majority of the energy in the solar spectrum is not in the IR, it is in the Blue-UV!

And in what little data we have collected, the correlation between Solar Spectrum and Temperature variance, matches quite nicely!

With what little data we have already collected, and a thorough look at the numbers of the two mechanisms, it can be shown that in all likely-hood,
Nitrogen-scattering is the much more pronounced effect. But it takes TIME, lots of time, to gather the data to support either claim.

We do NOT have enough data to scientifically determine that the Nitrogen-Spectral-Scattering effect is the dominate climate controlling mechanism, but we will in around 200-300 years!
 
Last edited:
Dude, this is not a new discussion. It's been going on for a long, long time, even on this forum. Every week there are some new posts as to why global warming is lie or how it's wrong or w/e. Or that humans aren't in any way responsible or some mitigation sort of discussion.

I am not a climate scientist. I'm a computer programmer. So I delegate the responsibility of searching and looking and doing science stuff about climate to climate scientists and organizations. That's how society works. They do their stuff, I do my stuff, and then I, as a citizen, responsibly listen to what they say about the climate and accept it. Why? Because I'm not about to do 3 years of education into a completely different field + get 10 years of work experience just to understand the science that goes on in determining the reality of climate change so that i can look at all the data they compiled and find out it's real or not.

So I trust that the climate scientists and organization and people in government who are specialists have looked at all the data, drew the correct conclusions and reported their findings.

All the responsible govts in the world, which is basically the western world and the western aligned world, have accepted that climate change is real. Maybe the Abbott govt in Australia doesn't believe in it and I'm pretty sure China and India don't either that's why they're the worlds biggest polluters. But they aren't the countries we should be emulating, but we should lead the way to a better future.

So. While I do agree that there are people, even specialists who disagree with the findings, that's fine, ok, I accept that, I never denied that, but they are the minority. The underwhelming minority. Yes, maybe there are some famous people as you posted that link there, but there are a lot of people of reknown on the other side.
I will agree to 1 thing and 1 thing only. It is true that there is a risk that climate change becomes enshrined in some way, sort of a "new religion" as you would put it. Ok, I can agree that that can happen, but it's not happened yet and it's not the case. And it is especially not the case at govt levels. That's why while there is a push for green energy in the west and a reduction of the carbon footprint and fossil fuel use and all that good stuff, it isn't followed on dogmatically, religiously. It's being done sensibly.

Obviously you did not read my links, the skeptics are not a minority.
 
We've been over all of this before on this forum, several times.

The Climate is changing, just as it always has been, and any contribution by mankind is trivial compared to natural sources.

The whole thing is driven by the solar cycles and the shift in spectrum into the Blue-UV which occurs when the sun heats up during sun spot activity.

Ironically, the period of time(s) when the sun gets Hotter, the earth actually cools, driven by Rayleigh scattering of Blue+ short wavelength light.

Rayleigh scattering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

View attachment 67173436 View attachment 67173437

Any person with a couple of years of college physics can run the equations and show that IR energy trapping by green house effect from CO2 is dwarfed in total energy retention by shifting just slightly further into the Blue-UV by the peak solar radiance.

The whole thing is affected by an atmospheric gas, but that gas is NOT CO2, it is Nitrogen. Nitrogen is what makes the sky blue, and scatters blue light back out into space.

Shift the solar spectrum into the Blue, and more the energy is sent back out.

Shift the solar spectrum into the red, and it gets absorbed.

During solar minimum, the sun is cool, puts out more red light, and the earth heats up.

During solar maximum, the sun is hot, put out more Blue-UV light, and it get scattered back out into space at a much higher rate, and the earth cools.

Solar maximum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

View attachment 67173439

As I stated earlier, the CO2 numbers do NOT correlate to the temperature numbers ( though we don't have the 200+ years of data needed to make a true scientific analysis), because CO2 is the WRONG GAS!

The true mechanism which is controlling temperature change is NOT CO2 trapping IR light, there by changing the energy retention. It does have a small effect, but it NOT the primary controlling effect.

The true atmospheric gas which creates the primary mechanism for climate change is NITROGEN, not CO2!

Atmosphere of Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

View attachment 67173438

Nitrogen is the gas in our atmosphere responsible for Rayleigh Scattering of Blue-UV light, which carries far more energy per photon than Red light.

More of the Solar Flux output of Sol is in the Blue end of the spectrum anyone, as one would expect from the Black Body radiation curve.

View attachment 67173435

Scattered light is as likely to go back out in to space, as it is to come down to the planets surface, being moderated into longer wavelength light by atmospheric interactions along the way, to be absorbed.

The star, Sol, like any other star, goes through magnetic storm cycles of having sun-spots at the solar Maximum and having next to no spots at the solar minimum.

During periods of Solar Minimum, Sol has a lower overall solar flux, or energy output per steradians, but the black body curve has more of that energy lower in the spectrum, and allot more of the energy gets to the planets surface.

The total effect of a cooler sun, creating more energy deposited on the planet is huge compared to the relatively minor effect of CO2 IR retention!

The CO2-IR-reflection effect only works on the small amount of energy in the IR spectral range. Look at the Black Body energy curve show in the graph.



The Nitrogen-UV-scattering effect works on the much larger amount of energy in the Blue-UV spectral range. That is the area of the Sun's major energy output.

Its kinda like the quote from Babyface Nelson, the depression era criminal, "Why do you rob banks?" Answ. "Because that's were the money is!"

Well, the vast majority of the energy in the solar spectrum is not in the IR, it is in the Blue-UV!

And in what little data we have collected, the correlation between Solar Spectrum and Temperature variance, matches quite nicely!

With what little data we have already collected, and a thorough look at the numbers of the two mechanisms, it can be shown that in all likely-hood,
Nitrogen-scattering is the much more pronounced effect. But it takes TIME, lots of time, to gather the data to support either claim.

We do NOT have enough data to scientifically determine that the Nitrogen-Spectral-Scattering effect is the dominate climate controlling mechanism, but we will in around 200-300 years!

This thread is about the bogus 97% of scientist number and your attempt to derail it is noted.
 
This thread is about the bogus 97% of scientist number and your attempt to derail it is noted.

READ what I said!

The Nitrogen Scatting link to solar cycle and spectrum is the LEADING scientific explanation of what controls global climate in 2014!

Unless you're a "Climate Scientist" who gets his paycheck from the damn propaganda mill on the defunct CO2 AGW theory, you gave up on the idea that CO2 is the dominant factor long ago.

If you set aside those people who get their paychecks based on being part of the CO2 AGW agenda driven "Climate Science" government research grants...

If you just ask those scientists to are trained in geosciences, but get their paychecks from sources other than "Climate Science", such as Meteorology, Physics, Optics, Astronautics, Satellite design, Astro-Physics, ...

The scientists who don't get paid by the AGW machine, largely tossed out the CO2 driven model years ago, after a brief debate on the much better theory based on Rayleigh Scattering and shift in Solar Spectrum.

I'm not trying to "Derail" the thread, I'm pointing out the major theory held by those who are NOT aboard the CO2 AGW bandwagon.

-
 
READ what I said!

The Nitrogen Scatting link to solar cycle and spectrum is the LEADING scientific explanation of what controls global climate in 2014!

Unless you're a "Climate Scientist" who gets his paycheck from the damn propaganda mill on the defunct CO2 AGW theory, you gave up on the idea that CO2 is the dominant factor long ago.

If you set aside those people who get their paychecks based on being part of the CO2 AGW agenda driven "Climate Science" government research grants...

If you just ask those scientists to are trained in geosciences, but get their paychecks from sources other than "Climate Science", such as Meteorology, Physics, Optics, Astronautics, Satellite design, Astro-Physics, ...

The scientists who don't get paid by the AGW machine, largely tossed out the CO2 driven model years ago, after a brief debate on the much better theory based on Rayleigh Scattering and shift in Solar Spectrum.

I'm not trying to "Derail" the thread, I'm pointing out the major theory held by those who are NOT aboard the CO2 AGW bandwagon.

-

I found list after list of scientist who are skeptics and thousands of names. Can you show me a source for the millions of scientist that make the 97 percent number a reality ?
 
Are you at least willing to admit the 99 percent number is extremely inflated?
I'm going to assume u wanted to say 97 not 99.

Did u click on the links to NASA? What did it say there?
Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree

And then below, a list of all the groups that agree with the study. I say what NASA says.
Are we done here?
 
I'm going to assume u wanted to say 97 not 99.

Did u click on the links to NASA? What did it say there?


And then below, a list of all the groups that agree with the study. I say what NASA says.
Are we done here?
Dodging the question I see
 
Couple the "consensus" numbers with the fact "climatologists" had to create their own branch of what they call science, in order to achieve their 52% "consensus." Climatology students graduate relative dummies, requiring very little mathematics and little science to complete their degrees. While real scientists require advanced calculus, advanced physics and chemistry, climatology requires only the basics in all these fields. Essentially AP high-school knowledge for their PhD's. Even with that basic and crude knowledge, 48% recognize global-warming is a hoax.

This while climatologists have a vested financial interest in global-warming. Those climatologists working in the field depend on their very livelihoods for global-warming funding. With the food on their tables at stake 48% are still willing to admit, the whole thing is a hoax.

Collect polls from real branches of science and the numbers are quite different. Poll those scientists without a conflict of financial interest and the consensus is that global-warming is a hoax. Poll highly educated non-climatiologist scientists with real degrees and advanced training in the highest levels of math and physics and global-warming is rejected.
 
I found list after list of scientist who are skeptics and thousands of names. Can you show me a source for the millions of scientist that make the 97 percent number a reality ?

Dude, THINK through what I have stated!

I am making an argument that the OP is correct, that there are NOT 97% of scientists who support AGW!

Good Gods, you're defeating your own debate by refusing to READ what I have written!

-
 
Couple the "consensus" numbers with the fact "climatologists" had to create their own branch of what they call science, in order to achieve their 52% "consensus." Climatology students graduate relative dummies, requiring very little mathematics and little science to complete their degrees. While real scientists require advanced calculus, advanced physics and chemistry, climatology requires only the basics in all these fields. Essentially AP high-school knowledge for their PhD's. Even with that basic and crude knowledge, 48% recognize global-warming is a hoax.

This while climatologists have a vested financial interest in global-warming. Those climatologists working in the field depend on their very livelihoods for global-warming funding. With the food on their tables at stake 48% are still willing to admit, the whole thing is a hoax.

Collect polls from real branches of science and the numbers are quite different. Poll those scientists without a conflict of financial interest and the consensus is that global-warming is a hoax. Poll highly educated non-climatiologist scientists with real degrees and advanced training in the highest levels of math and physics and global-warming is rejected.

This is exactly the point I was making on this thread with my explanation of the Solar Spectrum Rayleigh Scattering model of climate influence.

Nobody outside of those who are PAID to proclaim AGW, agree with the CO2 dominant model anymore.

-
 
So after the 1000s of scientist names I presented you choose to hide behind a web site and evade the question. That pretty much says it all. Talk about a denier.

Yes, I hide behind a website.

Because NASA's website is just another website.
 
Dude, THINK through what I have stated!

I am making an argument that the OP is correct, that there are NOT 97% of scientists who support AGW!

Good Gods, you're defeating your own debate by refusing to READ what I have written!

-

Sorry, I confused my posters here.I am multi tasking and apparently doing a poor job of Ito
 
Back
Top Bottom