Rod Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 (edited) A manufactured stat to mislead people. Here’s how they did it. They first asked “is the climate changing?” Well the answer to that yes, that’s the obvious. It has been since the last ice age ended. then the 2nd question was “is man having an affect? “ again, since C02 is technically a greenhouse gas, the answer again was yes. But many physicists and climate scientists disagree with the amount of role C02 actually plays in warming. Some very renowned scientists call the affect possibly immeasurable to negligible. And the current rate of warming is the furthest thing from alarming. The doomsday predictions aren’t based on observations and science, but on feelings and flawed models. When pressed, alarmists do admit that the prediction of 5*C in 100 years is not really scientific and very unlikely, but then go on to say “but what if it did happen??” Yeah.. what if... actualy physicists and climate scientists contend that the affects of current warming in the next 100-200 years will be basically indistinguishable from natural warming. So the “97%” stat was very misleading and designed to play on the fears of religious climate hysterians. But in science general contention has never been used as evidence nor should it ever be. For this very reason. It’s highly misleading. Edited May 9, 2019 by DUMPY Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revkevsdi Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 97% would agree that you’re a dumbfuck. But they’d use medical terminology so you wouldn’t understand that either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irv Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 1 hour ago, DUMPY said: A manufactured stat to mislead people. Here’s how they did it. They first asked “is the climate changing?” Well the answer to that yes, that’s the obvious. It has been since the last ice age ended. then the 2nd question was “is man having an affect? “ again, since C02 is technically a greenhouse gas, the answer again was yes. But many physicists and climate scientists disagree with the amount of role C02 actually plays in warming. Some very renowned scientists call the affect possibly immeasurable to negligible. And the current rate of warming is the furthest thing from alarming. The doomsday predictions aren’t based on observations and science, but on feelings and flawed models. When pressed, alarmists do admit that the prediction of 5*C in 100 years is not really scientific and very unlikely, but then go on to say “but what if it did happen??” Yeah.. what if... actualy physicists and climate scientists contend that the affects of current warming in the next 100-200 years will be basically indistinguishable from natural warming. So the “97%” stat was very misleading and designed to play on the fears of religious climate hysterians. But in science general contention has never been used as evidence nor should it ever be. For this very reason. It’s highly misleading. I always wondered, when they said "97% of scientists believe", where that number came from and what 3% didn't believe? This explains it, and just like their mantra of "could's" and "what ifs" and other types of fear mongering jargon, this is how it was manufactured. Makes one wonder why all the lies all the time, why are they trying to fool/trick the people? 97% of scientists explanation. How do we know the 97% agree? To elaborate, how was that proven? Almost no one who refers to the 97% has any idea, but the basic way it works is that a researcher reviews a lot of scholarly papers and classifies them by how many agree with a certain position. Unfortunately, in the case of 97% of climate scientists agreeing that human beings are the main cause of warming, the researchers have engaged in egregious misconduct. One of the main papers behind the 97 percent claim is authored by John Cook, who runs the popular website SkepticalScience.com, a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges. Here is Cook’s summary of his paper: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent. But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming. Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t. The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested: “Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.” —Dr. Richard Tol “That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .” —Dr. Craig Idso “Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.” —Dr. Nir Shaviv “Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .” —Dr. Nicola Scafetta Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate. It’s time to revoke that license. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted May 9, 2019 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted May 9, 2019 41 minutes ago, revkevsdi said: 97% would agree that you’re a dumbfuck. But they’d use medical terminology so you wouldn’t understand that either. I'm gonna burn a huge stack of Amazon boxes in your honor tonight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold Member Kivalo Posted May 9, 2019 Gold Member Share Posted May 9, 2019 If we dont change things by 2030 then we will begin to go extinct or so they say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momorider Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 BarbieHandsAIDsPatient has 97% fewer functional brain cells than the regular global warming alarmist clown 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 4 minutes ago, Highmark said: I'm gonna burn a huge stack of Amazon boxes in your honor tonight. An homage to BetaBarbieHands. Kewl. 2 minutes ago, Kivalo said: If we dont change things by 2030 then we will begin to go extinct or so they say. Whew...I heard 2020! So, we've somehow bought a bit of time then. Thanks for the info! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NaturallyAspirated Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 5 minutes ago, Kivalo said: If we dont change things by 2030 then we will begin to go extinct or so they say. Who says that?? Neal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revkevsdi Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 PT Barnum underestimated the proliferation of suckers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 Just now, revkevsdi said: PT Barnum underestimated the proliferation of suckers. The liberals didn't. They really swelled their ranks of scared, emotional, racist twats during the Obama years! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revkevsdi Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 3 minutes ago, Zambroski said: The liberals didn't. They really swelled their ranks of scared, emotional, racist twats during the Obama years! The ranks of scared emotional idiots did swell during the Obama years. “He’s a secret Muslim “ ”Dey gonna take our guns” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irv Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 4 minutes ago, Kivalo said: If we dont change things by 2030 then we will begin to go extinct or so they say. They say a lot of things and have been for years. Again, what is the end game for all this? Why all the lies, misinformation and fear mongering? Chatting with a guy on FB, he wasn't aware of the Medieval Warming period and other such things of the past. He is young and was never taught about climate/weather history, only what is spewed to him now. Never knew, through decades of research, that evidence of palm trees and other exoctic animals were found in core samples in the antarctic. Wasn't aware that some rain forests use to be deserts, etc. Why isn't this information/history talked about now? The alarmist movement doesn't want young people to know about weather history, and why is that? Why are they trying to remove that from the history books? There is an underlying reason for this and it isn't about saving the planet. Is it all about a new generation of making money? Is all about a new era of gov't control? I really don't know but I know something is up/behind this movement and saving the planet is the least of their concerns. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 2 minutes ago, revkevsdi said: The ranks of scared emotional idiots did swell during the Obama years. “He’s a secret Muslim “ ”Dey gonna take our guns” Nobody was scared at all about that. Emotional? Yes. Which scares the fuck out of you. It’s not fear based emotion. It’s anger based.....by gun owners. Ahahahha....Poor BarbieHands. Hey, can those tiny hands even wrap around a gun grip? Or are you limited to just paddle handles? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 3 minutes ago, irv said: They say a lot of things and have been for years. Again, what is the end game for all this? Why all the lies, misinformation and fear mongering? Chatting with a guy on FB, he wasn't aware of the Medieval Warming period and other such things of the past. He is young and was never taught about climate/weather history, only what is spewed to him now. Never knew, through decades of research, that evidence of palm trees and other exoctic animals were found in core samples in the antarctic. Wasn't aware that some rain forests use to be deserts, etc. Why isn't this information/history talked about now? The alarmist movement doesn't want young people to know about weather history, and why is that? Why are they trying to remove that from the history books? There is an underlying reason for this and it isn't about saving the planet. Is it all about a new generation of making money? Is all about a new era of gov't control? I really don't know but I know something is up/behind this movement and saving the planet is the least of their concerns. Pic says it all. Well, except the part about tax fleecing everyone to pay for the “saving”. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revkevsdi Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 6 minutes ago, Zambroski said: Nobody was scared at all about that. Emotional? Yes. Which scares the fuck out of you. It’s not fear based emotion. It’s anger based.....by gun owners. Ahahahha....Poor BarbieHands. Hey, can those tiny hands even wrap around a gun grip? Or are you limited to just paddle handles? Cool story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 1 minute ago, revkevsdi said: Cool story. Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revkevsdi Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Zambroski said: Thanks! NP. I occasionally like laughing at you. Edited May 9, 2019 by revkevsdi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 Just now, revkevsdi said: NP. I occasionally like laughing at you. I’m here for you! ....and there is nothing you can do about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XCR1250 Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 56 minutes ago, NaturallyAspirated said: Who says that?? Neal Actually many do, here's just 1 example: https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/2016/11/humans-dont-have-10-years-left-thanks-to-climate-change---scientist.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted May 9, 2019 Author Share Posted May 9, 2019 2 hours ago, revkevsdi said: 97% would agree that you’re a dumbfuck. But they’d use medical terminology so you wouldn’t understand that either. I’m not the one that bought into the 97% narrative like an over emotional faggot! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted May 9, 2019 Author Share Posted May 9, 2019 22 minutes ago, XCR1250 said: Actually many do, here's just 1 example: https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/2016/11/humans-dont-have-10-years-left-thanks-to-climate-change---scientist.html Yes there’s a huge narrative out there now saying we have roughly 10 years left to save the planet. That’s just religious nonsense Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NaturallyAspirated Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 3 hours ago, XCR1250 said: Actually many do, here's just 1 example: https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/2016/11/humans-dont-have-10-years-left-thanks-to-climate-change---scientist.html That's one, and he has been called a kook professionally. Neal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XCR1250 Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 4 minutes ago, NaturallyAspirated said: That's one, and he has been called a kook professionally. Neal There are many more. At times Einstein was also called a "kook" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 The Cult of Climate Change. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted May 9, 2019 Author Share Posted May 9, 2019 38 minutes ago, Snake said: The Cult of Climate Change. It’s been referred to as that by several top scientists Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.