"Consensus" isn't science. If 100% of scientists vote that the earth is flat, it does not make it so. Scientists have been busted three times manipulating the data. Their emails made public with them admitting it among themselves. And no, there is no consensus as claimed. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming And this speaks to why consensus is a big part of the alarmists' rhetoric: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/bandwagn.html
The consensus has been manipulated. Denny and I have posted how repeatedly. I have to assume at this point that those who still believe that the consensus isn't manipulated aren't at all interested in science. The irony of some of those same posters mocking religion is obvious to me.
Global temps have been increasing, there's really no question about that anymore. The amount of Co2 has also been increasing, but would you expect anything else with the amount of fossil fuels we burn? So even though climate is complicated there's still a pretty basic equation there. The temperature rise correlates most strongly to levels of CO2 that we started emitting after the industrial revolution.
"Correlates" Think about that. It's not true, anyhow, but citing correlation as proof is cute in a middle school kind of way, although I may be insulting middle-schoolers.
In the grand scheme of the Carbon cycle, man isn't quite the horse he might like to think. Then when I use one of those FootPrint calculators, there is no where to take credit for planting 700 trees on this place, or the 25000 planted on the ranch. Bottom line is, I sure am glad Liberal Progressive pukes don't really ever get to design anything.
Then look at the way they calculate the "polution". Burning one gallon of gasoline emits 19.4 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere, and one gallon of diesel emits 22.2 pounds (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Geez a gallon of fuel only weighs 7.1 pounds! So they count the weight of the atmosphere that is already there!!. Then the natural process separates the carbon from the atmosphere combined by the engine. The two figures are most interesting. The diesel engine is quite a bit more energy efficient, so it uses more air to burn the 1 gallon of Diesel. So it emits more pollution by that count by counting the weight of the atmosphere passing through the process. Geez that train that moves 1 ton of freight 500 miles using 1 gallon of Diesel has to go immediately. Then I notice, I get counted for burning wood for heat. Wow, I either burn it in the clean up fire outside or in the house or let it rot. It returns the carbon one way or another with or without my guiding the process. Very liberal counters, they count the carbon passing by your nose in one direction only, even when you actually do nothing.
Oh Denny. You should really dig a little deeper instead of grasping at the first thing that supports your preconceptions. Your link above is an article by Richard Tol, who attacks the '97%' consensus number. But let's see what else he has to say on the subject: barfo
I think its great when people who believe the earth is some 3 billion years old is having its global climate changed by a couple of years of human activity.
Right . . . because your experts say so. Just like the the guy you posted the youtube video says scientists manipulates data it must be so. It could never be him manipulating data to prove what he is trying to say. Again it comes down to who you want to believe. Trying to pretend to understand it to the level these people who spend their job studying this stuff do, is silly in my mind.
Or don't put value in the links posted to show there is no consensus . . . Posters on here argue just to argue and will post data and links to prove what they are trying to argue. The times I do take to sometimes clink on a link, often those links are a joke or what the link says is being manipulated by the poster.
Poppycock. He was referring to the technique and results of the flawed surveys. Those surveys do say 97%, the fine print is "97% of a small number of scientists chosen for their bias." http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Tol Originally designated as a lead author for the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Tol said in March 2014 that he had withdrawn from the work with the report in September 2013, citing disagreement with the profile of the report which he considered too alarmist and putting too little emphasis on opportunities to adapt to climate changes.[13]
This all goes back to Further claiming AGW is a "fact." It isn't. If you think it is, then you're not a believer in the scientific method.
Ha ha. Your own consensus denier says: I don't think posting 'poppycock' really washes that away. barfo
He was talking about the survey results, which he also puts to shame. The laugh is on you. 97% of 10 scientists I asked said you should take a long walk on a short pier. Go for it.
This is an example of the good science the American public receives from it's EPA. Wood has 8000 BTUs per pound and 2.59 pounds of CO2 (a neat trick 2.59# from 1#) Fuel Oil has 140000 BTU per gallon and 26.4 pounds of CO2 (another neat trick at 7.1 pounds per gallon) So they charge me with creating 45 pound of pollution when I burn 17.5 pounds(BTUs equal one gallon) of Wood. It seems to me that I should be credited with saving 26.4 pounds of pollution (the equivalent heating oill) since the wood will give up the Carbon no matter what I do, burn it in a clean up fire outside, burn it in the house, or let it rot. The carbon is returned to the environment. I get no credit at all for planting replacement trees to eat this stuff.
This wasn't meant as some sort of insult. It was to offer you a similar proposition your kind offers me. The long walk and short pier are what you are asking in terms of spending and the result. Based upon a vote of very few people. So when does the fire and brimstone start? Or is this one if those moving goalpost things... Or like the 2012 apocalypse theories - the date has come and gone and we are still here.
