Australian Politics Forum - The Myth of the 97% consensus claim

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #375 - Sep 7^th, 2015 at 1:14pm

Spartacus, the results of the peer-reviewed survey on scientists attitudes to climate change confirmed that very few felt it was largely human-driven (3%) while the big majority said they didn't know and it was way too early to tell.

Now these are actual facts, not the moth-eaten opinions and rants you throw about on here.

So let me ask yet again: do you believe in the Hockey Stick still? go on. Be a man and actually state your opinion.

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #376 - Sep 7^th, 2015 at 1:16pm

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 1:06pm:

mariacostel wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 12:59pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 12:55pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 11:26am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 12:01am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2015 at 11:14pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2015 at 10:04pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2015 at 8:25pm:

[quote author=Jovial_Abbott link=1437466191/321#321 date=1441533277]I got an education, I think you envy those that did, Longy.

There is no longer an argument about the existence of AGW, it is here and hitting the man on the land. We had a very cold winter this year courtesy of Antarctic air that escaped north, easy to extrapolate that Eastern States winters are going to get much colder.

The huge El Nino forming in the Pacific will likely write finis to all the denialist crap around.

There has never been any argument about GW, but AGW is a very different thing.

And most of the multi-generational farmers around here would laugh in your face, if you told them that human-caused climate change had anything to do with the current weather/climate or growing conditions.

And you would disagree with them of course wouldnt you? After all, I believe you told us a week ago that you do not deny global warming but rather you're skeptical about it. Which suggests to me that you don't regard the idea laughable. In fact it suggests that you regard it as plausible even though you are not convinced. Is that an accurate assessment of your position???

No, I wouldn't disagree with them.

And it depends on whether you mean Anthropogenic Global Warming, or that the Global temperatures are rising.
The first I'm skeptical of, or at least skeptical of the AMOUNT caused by human action.
The second, I consider to be a perfectly natural, and undeniable fact. After all, the River Thames no longer freezes hard enough to hold Frost Fairs, and there isn't mass starvation due to cold summers and short growing seasons anymore.

So let me get this right. You believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming but its the amount caused by humans that you take issue with and yet you agree with farmers laughing in people's face for suggesting that "human-caused climate change had anything to do with the current weather/climate or growing conditions".

I mean, given how much you do accept I would have thought that any genuine skeptic would consider our positions to be at least plausible enough not to be laughable. But you, who is not a climate scientists and despite the views of most climate scientists and most of the world's respected scientific bodies, have narrowed it all down so finely that you know that AGW is real but it is laughable that it could actually have anything to do with the current climate or growing conditions.

Personally I don't know anyone who is not expert in a field (let alone a field as complex as climate science) who would reason as stupidly as you just have here. Come follow me says the ignorant man. Hopeless!!!!!!

I believe that the current warming is natural and has nothing to do with Co2, but I accept the possibility that there may be some small human influence on climate change. Once there is some definitive proof either way, then the subject will be settled. However, since the temperature rises are still within historic range and nothing unique has happened, there's no reason to 100% assign the recent (last 50 to 100 years) warming to human action, over natural variation.

And anyone from a field like climate science would/should reason in a similar way that I just did. It's about accepting evidence over theory and being able to adapt to new findings.

Refusing to acknowledge the possibility that you got it wrong is more about ideology than science.

ouder.

You proferred not a single fact, gave not a single reasoned argument and simply blathered. 17 years now and the temperature as not increased.

It is time for you to face some facts.

I don't debate AGW with you because you dont know sh!t about climate science and only care about the implic

You don't debate, period. You rant, rave and abuse, but you never actually debate. I am not a science major but I can debate you under the table. You run away and hide because I can use facts and figures and make and argument while all you can do is run and hide.

Back to top

IP Logged

ImSpartacus2

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6913

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #377 - Sep 7^th, 2015 at 1:29pm

mariacostel wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 1:16pm:

I don't debate AGW with you because you dont know sh!t about climate science and only care about the implic

You don't debate, period. You rant, rave and abuse, but you never actually debate. I am not a science major but I can debate you under the table. You run away and hide because I can use facts and figures and make and argument while all you can do is run and hide.

What, you don't debate. You cut and paste propaganda. You admitted this yourself. Your only interest in this subject is that it threatens your religious ideology. Also from what I can gauge you have no science skills, no useful deductive reasoning skills and no intellectual honesty.

Back to top

IP Logged

Unforgiven

Gold Member

Offline

I have sinned

Posts: 8879
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #378 - Sep 7^th, 2015 at 1:54pm

Runaway glaciers Antarctica. From NASA:

Temperature rise rate in Alaska greatly exceeds USA mainland rate.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/alaska.html
Quote:

Key Points
Over the past 50 years, Alaska has warmed twice as fast as the national average.
Warming is contributing to the thawing of Alaska's permafrost. By the end of this century, the permafrost boundary is likely to shift northward hundreds of miles, increasing the risk for infrastructure damage.
Warming is contributing to the loss of protective sea ice along Alaska's northwestern coast, leading to increased rates of coastal erosion.
Warming is altering marine and terrestrial ecosystems, causing changes in the extent and location of habitat for fish and wildlife.
Climate change places significant stress on the livelihoods, villages, and cultures al values of Alaska Natives.

ermafrost Impacts on Transportation

Alaska highways susceptible to permafrost. Source: U.S. Arctic Research Commission (2003)
Permafrost thawing and cycles of freezing and thawing can cause extensive damage to highways, railroads, airstrips, and other transportation infrastructure in Alaska.

Photograph of leaning evergreen trees. Some fallen trees are visible at ground-level in the photograph.
Alaska's "drunken forests" — as permafrost thaws, trees lean into the ground. Source: USGCRP (2009) (PDF)
Many of Alaska's highways are built on permafrost. When permafrost thaws, roads buckle. Vehicles are only allowed to drive across certain roads in the tundra when the ground is frozen solid. In the past 30 years, the number of days when travel is allowed on the tundra has decreased from 200 days to 100 days per year.[2]Projected increases in temperatures and permafrost thawing would continue this trend and could further limit access to the tundra. Building infrastructure on thawing permafrost requires additional engineering, and can increase the cost of construction by 10% or more.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Sep 7^th, 2015 at 2:01pm by Unforgiven »

“I’ll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours” Bob Dylan

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #379 - Sep 7^th, 2015 at 5:27pm

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 1:29pm:

mariacostel wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 1:16pm:

I don't debate AGW with you because you dont know sh!t about climate science and only care about the implic

You don't debate, period. You rant, rave and abuse, but you never actually debate. I am not a science major but I can debate you under the table. You run away and hide because I can use facts and figures and make and argument while all you can do is run and hide.

What, you don't debate. You cut and paste propaganda. You admitted this yourself. Your only interest in this subject is that it threatens your religious ideology. Also from what I can gauge you have no science skills, no useful deductive reasoning skills and no intellectual honesty.

Your refusal to debate with facts and figures is what exposes you as an ideologue. I've heard your type all my life. Loud mouths, big egos and very small minds to match. When someone takes them on and demands facts and figures and logic they do exactly as you have just done: blather about how awful the other person is while describing exactly their own behaviour.

You are an intellectual minnow, unwilling to take on the bigger and more informed minds. Your words are as good as a surrender.

Back to top

IP Logged

Unforgiven

Gold Member

Offline

I have sinned

Posts: 8879
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #380 - Sep 7^th, 2015 at 5:38pm

mariacostel wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 5:27pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 1:29pm:

mariacostel wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 1:16pm:

I don't debate AGW with you because you dont know sh!t about climate science and only care about the implic

You don't debate, period. You rant, rave and abuse, but you never actually debate. I am not a science major but I can debate you under the table. You run away and hide because I can use facts and figures and make and argument while all you can do is run and hide.

What, you don't debate. You cut and paste propaganda. You admitted this yourself. Your only interest in this subject is that it threatens your religious ideology. Also from what I can gauge you have no science skills, no useful deductive reasoning skills and no intellectual honesty.

Your refusal to debate with facts and figures is what exposes you as an ideologue. I've heard your type all my life. Loud mouths, big egos and very small minds to match. When someone takes them on and demands facts and figures and logic they do exactly as you have just done: blather about how awful the other person is while describing exactly their own behaviour.

You are an intellectual minnow, unwilling to take on the bigger and more informed minds. Your words are as good as a surrender.

Maria Costel is the persona with no evidence who just makes sweeping unsupported statements which are contrary to the evidence.

Maria Costel, big on insults and short on facts.

Back to top

“I’ll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours” Bob Dylan

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #381 - Sep 7^th, 2015 at 5:53pm

Unforgiven wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 5:38pm:

mariacostel wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 5:27pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 1:29pm:

mariacostel wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 1:16pm:

I don't debate AGW with you because you dont know sh!t about climate science and only care about the implic

You don't debate, period. You rant, rave and abuse, but you never actually debate. I am not a science major but I can debate you under the table. You run away and hide because I can use facts and figures and make and argument while all you can do is run and hide.

What, you don't debate. You cut and paste propaganda. You admitted this yourself. Your only interest in this subject is that it threatens your religious ideology. Also from what I can gauge you have no science skills, no useful deductive reasoning skills and no intellectual honesty.

Your refusal to debate with facts and figures is what exposes you as an ideologue. I've heard your type all my life. Loud mouths, big egos and very small minds to match. When someone takes them on and demands facts and figures and logic they do exactly as you have just done: blather about how awful the other person is while describing exactly their own behaviour.

You are an intellectual minnow, unwilling to take on the bigger and more informed minds. Your words are as good as a surrender.

Maria Costel is the persona with no evidence who just makes sweeping unsupported statements which are contrary to the evidence.

Maria Costel, big on insults and short on facts.

Can you come up with anything other than insults, Unhinged?

Back to top

IP Logged

Jovial Monk Gold Member Offline Dogs not cats! Posts: 45888 Gender:	Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Reply #382 - Sep 7^th, 2015 at 6:13pm With AGW here and now it takes a special brand of “intelligence” to still be arguing against AGW.
Back to top	Get the vaxx! 💉💉 If you don’t like abortions ignore them like you do school shootings. IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #383 - Sep 7^th, 2015 at 6:22pm

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 6:13pm:

With AGW here and now it takes a special brand of “intelligence” to still be arguing against AGW.

You might make a bit of headway with me if you even bothered to try a few facts, but it is very clear you are a person with little interest in or exposure to, facts.

Back to top

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Online Australian Politics Posts: 17322 Gender:	Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Reply #384 - Sep 7^th, 2015 at 6:54pm Unforgiven wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 1:54pm: Temperature rise rate in Alaska greatly exceeds USA mainland rate. Wow. You have retreated from GLOBAL warming to Regional warming, again.
Back to top	IP Logged

mariacostel Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 7344 Sydney Gender:	Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Reply #385 - Sep 7^th, 2015 at 7:03pm lee wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 6:54pm: Unforgiven wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 1:54pm: Temperature rise rate in Alaska greatly exceeds USA mainland rate. Wow. You have retreated from GLOBAL warming to Regional warming, again. Unhinged doesnt make a lot of sense even at the best of times.
Back to top	IP Logged

ImSpartacus2

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6913

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #386 - Sep 7^th, 2015 at 7:04pm

lee wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 6:54pm:

Unforgiven wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 1:54pm:

Temperature rise rate in Alaska greatly exceeds USA mainland rate.

Wow. You have retreated from GLOBAL warming to Regional warming, again.

Oh look, its Lee the sock. You gonna do some pretty fancy cutting and pasting for us this evening Lee.

Back to top

IP Logged

Jovial Monk

Gold Member

Offline

Dogs not cats!

Posts: 45888
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #387 - Sep 7^th, 2015 at 7:06pm

mariacostel wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 6:22pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 6:13pm:

With AGW here and now it takes a special brand of “intelligence” to still be arguing against AGW.

You might make a bit of headway with me if you even bothered to try a few facts, but it is very clear you are a person with little interest in or exposure to, facts.

I quoted facts about AGW hitting real men on the land. No counterargument was offered.

I wonder why Alaska is warming faster than mainland USA?

Back to top

Get the vaxx! 💉💉

If you don’t like abortions ignore them like you do school shootings.

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Online Australian Politics Posts: 17322 Gender:	Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Reply #388 - Sep 7^th, 2015 at 7:06pm Wow, It's I'mafairy2, with nothing to add to the debate. He can't even recognise I post from warmist sites. How sad is that?
Back to top	IP Logged

lee Gold Member Online Australian Politics Posts: 17322 Gender:	Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Reply #389 - Sep 7^th, 2015 at 7:09pm Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 7:06pm: I quoted facts about AGW hitting real men on the land. No counterargument was offered. You quoted facts (presumably), about Climate Change not AGW. The climate changes, now show AGW.
Back to top	IP Logged