Understanding The 97% Consensus

The 97% consensus of scientists, is 99% sure that they can’t reach consensus.

ScreenHunter_2725 Sep. 13 00.53

Climate change: will scientists ever agree on global warming?| News | The Week UK

CO2 is going up super duper fast, but temperatures aren’t. What could we learn from this?

The obvious lesson is that CO2 has affected thermometers, and that they can’t be trusted any more.

Advertisements

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to Understanding The 97% Consensus

  1. au1corsair says:

    President “I campaigned in all 57 states” Obama is the source of that 97% consensus figure?

  2. Password protected says:

    It’s quite possible the only affect CO2 and other compound molecules have, including water/particulate/soot have is to slightly increase atmospheric density. Little consequence to their “absorption wavelengths”.
    A slightly denser gas holds slightly more energy.

  3. John Greenfraud says:

    This brings up the obvious question. Which comes first, the consensus or rising temperatures? Alarmists may be putting the cart before the horse ….. again.

    • Gail Combs says:

      I would say what came first was a knowledge of the 80 – 88 year Wolf-Gleissberg Solar cycle.

      They thought they had about forty years to push their poison. That is why Nopenhagen was so very very important. They KNEW time was running short.

      Remember what Elaine Dewar wrote in Toronto’s Saturday Night magazine about Maurice Strong at the 1972 First Earth Summit

      It is instructive to read Strong’s 1972 Stockholm speech and compare it with the issues of Earth Summit 1992. Strong warned urgently about global warming, the devastation of forests, the loss of biodiversity, polluted oceans, the population time bomb. Then as now, he invited to the conference the brand-new environmental NGOs [non-governmental organizations]: he gave them money to come; they were invited to raise hell at home. After Stockholm, environment issues became part of the administrative framework in Canada, the U.S., Britain, and Europe.
      http://www.afn.org/~govern/strong.html

      • au1corsair says:

        Mustn’t forget to vent over that population time bomb.

        http://ca.figu.org/Population_Time_Bomb.html

        These anti-human rants were around before the Black Plague almost depopulated Europe and Asia–and for a while the elites were short of people: short of serfs and their cheap (free) labor and the entertainment value of public executions, short of the elites themselves because the Black Plague had no respect for station, for social status.

        Never mind that bio-diversity and population levels have positive correlation. Once the human population is “under control,” if there’s any surplus energy, I’ll bet that the elitists will be trying to “control” the cockroach population despite bio-diversity issues. There won’t be anybody around to argue with them.

  4. bit chilly says:

    the arctic sea ice forum loonies are at it again. just when the frivolous one has reigned in his rants ,we have what i thought was a reasonably sensible (for the asi forum 🙂 ) poster wipneus claiming that changing concentration levels in the ess is melting ice (jd allen says its burning up ) yet in the chukchi it is “very mobile” ice causing the increased temperatures.

    do none of these fucking clowns ever look at the actual near surface temperatures in these regions ? hell wipneus even posted an image of the wind that was responsible for decreasing extent but increasing concentration in the ess. alarmist morons indeed.

    • bit chilly says:

      sorry for the typo. should read, yet in the chukchi it is “very mobile” ice causing the increased extent in the region .

      • Gail Combs says:

        given you exasperation, typos would be expected.

        You are just seeing proof that this is a religion and not science. Cue Feynman…

        • mjc says:

          No, Gail, not a religion. Religions do have rules, ethics and logic of their own. Warmunism is a cult…ruled by fear, personalities and whim.

        • mjc says:

          Oh, and most of all…cults have no restraints, whatsoever, so they do not have to have any ties at all to any interpretation of reality. They ‘create’ reality in their own image.

        • Gail Combs says:

          mjc,
          I stand corrected. That makes a lot of sense.

          Thank you.

  5. rah says:

    “Scientists from the organisation have warned that the rise in emissions, produced by burning fossil fuels such as coal and oil, is the biggest driver of global warming.”

    Well there isn’t any “global warming” and that is that. End of story. All that needs to be said in article to make it clear why rational people that don’t have their finger in the pie don’t believe the UN.

  6. SMS says:

    Could someone tell me what the “consensus” agreement is? Are scientists just agreeing that there will be SOME warming or are they agreeing there will be CATASTROPHIC warming? It makes a big difference in how the results of AGW should be viewed.

    I think each scientist should be polled on how much warming will be experienced by the end of the century. Two degrees or less and we don’t worry, two to four degrees we install more electric generation for the added air conditioning needs and over four degrees we increase the height of the sea walls.

  7. geran says:

    CO2 is going up super duper fast, but temperatures aren’t. What could we learn from this?

    The obvious lesson is that CO2 has affected thermometers, and that they can’t be trusted any more.
    >>>>>>
    Goddard humorously answers his own question. But, the reality is that “they” really do NOT trust their own thermometers. That is the reason for all the “adjustments”. (Which our host has caught them doing.) Their science is WRONG. So, after 15-20 years, the data confirms that they are wrong. Yet, they choose to NOT believe their own data.

    Their science was wrong from the veery start. But, atmospheric CO2 increasing for over 20 years, combined with flattening/dropping global temps should be plenty of evidence to debunk the science. Yet, some people still believe CO2 is warming the planet.

  8. Fred Wlech says:

    Your president has written in his book that the best thing in life is huffing good blow. The people you have sent to Washington can affod to smoke some better shit than US ,or we could be in concensus (bed) with them.

  9. B.C. says:

    Lesson Learned #1 should be: “Correlation does NOT equal causation.”

  10. nielszoo says:

    The obvious lesson is that CO2 has affected thermometers, and that they can’t be trusted any more.

    That’s the crux isn’t it. It was only warming when we were still using that evil element mercury in our thermometers. If you look at global temperatures for the last 15 years, as we’ve phased out mercury thermometers and moved to alcohol thermometers and thermocouples, global warming has stopped “cold” as it were. It must be the reaction between mercury and carbon dioxide that is the problem. Grant please.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s