What a polite way of excusing the White House penchant for lying. However this MIT spokesperson's characterization of Trump's lies is inaccurate as it implies the lies are born of ignorance and are therefore innocent lies.
the consensus was based on 95 of 97 scientists out of a survey of 10,000. it was a joke. and it spoke to man made causes... not co2. We harp on co2 because your team is trying to control carbon production and co2. That is what your team is pushing. If you wish to admit you have not science showing man made co2 is causing warming fine. That is your side argument. I agree greenhouse gases seem to be a big deal. Natural methane and Natural water vapor and clouds may have a lot to do with warming and cooling. Your seth rich argument was what caused the debate. you were misrepresenting what fox claimed. in summary you insisted their only source was wheeler and I told you they said they had a federal law enforcement source 3 times... you kept lying your ass off. Even if fox corrected the story my statement was correct. Fox claimed a federal law enforcement source. But in your binary brainlessness you will now tell us the story was retracted. And I will explain that does not mean my statement was incorrect. in short you are a lying moron for bring up the seth rich argument you lost.
before we get all worked up about fake news. did the MIT study say what Trump said or not. http://news.mit.edu/2017/mit-issues-statement-research-paris-agreement-0602 " According to researchers at MIT, if all member nations met their obligations, the impact on the climate would be negligible. The impacts have been estimated to be likely to reduce global temperature rise by less than 0.2 degrees Celsius in 2100.”
Complete lie "A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus" http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002 More BS, CO2 is the main greenhouse the 'team' is trying to 'control' - that doesn't mean the study is just about that MAN MADE gas. More BS, Trump's EPA site says it's not just natural methane that has increased https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases Here we go with MORE lies. You kept insisting that part of the Fox Story COULD be TRUE because it wasn't debunked directly - and couple of days later Fox pulls out the ENTIRE story and yet here you are continuing to lie that Fox MAYBE was telling the truth. IF there was another federal law enforcement source then why the hell didn't they keep the story up? Why delete it? They could have just retracted the Wheeler part? How can the FBI source be corroborating something that the original source is a lie? And you know how I won that argument? Because your so called source doesn't even exist anymore. FOX DELETED IT. Chew on that. Now peddle some new lies or wait on the Kim Dotcom evidence any minute now. What happened to that LOL
1. hey troll you just cited to a bullshit paper about the consensus of the consensus. I quite correctly explained the the initial consensus argument was based on the survey. We were arguing about here on ET before cook every wrote that paper... you really need to stop lying your ass off. here is a summary of the paper... https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryb...ic-global-warming-consensus-not/#7b33098b3bb3 So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with. Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”. By the way cooks paper if you read it... 2. and 3. Your second argument and 3rd arguments are also mis directions and misrepresentations of my argument.
Hey retard, the paper I cited was from Trump's EPA page - if it's bullshit then what the hell is it doing there. Second, there has been more consensus survey than the one you keep harping about, if you bothered to click the link and READ, you would have found that out More retarded lies. We are talking about CLIMATE SCIENTISTS and NOT ALL scientists - which Trump's EPA page cited, deflection denied Also, the paper I cited (listed on your Dear Leader's EPA page) provides more data for the consensus argument BEYOND the AGU BS on your Forbes article. But thanks for quoting an oil lobbyist as your source for all scientific inquiry. Given Trump's and Pruitt's hatred for the topic and given that you are saying that the paper is cooked - then why are they still citing it on that their site? Or Obama is still in charge there too? Deep EPA conspiracy? Evasion noted
I'm a Scientist. I'm apparently one of the "3%" that thinks CO2 produced by humans is not causing significant global warming.* I'll go further to say that in my opinion the Hansen Hypothesis has been proven to be wrong. I am also 100 % in favor of the Paris Accord. The truth is, and should anyone care to investigate they will easily prove this to be true, we are a long, long way from a consensus among meteorologists, climatologists, and atmospheric physicists. The ninety seven percent figure you keep seeing may be true if you include not just cosmologists but also cosmetologists in your survey. I know ya'll are sick and tired of hearing this, but the media is no place to decide scientific questions. Physicist James Hansen could not get a consensus among his fellow scientists. Hansen resorted to hawking his hypothesis in the media and among politicians. If your eyebrows aren't raised by this, mine certainly are. Yes, he got lots of money for modeling studies. And yes, as long as a positive feedback mechanism is assumed, those early models can be programmed to predict rising temperatures if CO2 rises. Unfortunately all the early models have been shown to be hugely defective. Furthermore there is now a mountain of evidence contradicting the Hansen hypothesis, i.e., "the Hansen guess". Probably Murray Salby, the well known atmospheric physicist, is correct, and it is temperature that is the independent variable and CO2 and likely methane too, are dependent variables. Water in its three physical states dominate all other substances when it comes to moderating the Earths surface temperature. The main sources of atmospheric heat are solar, geothermal and release of stored solar energy via combustion. It is possible that man's activities are affecting atmospheric heat, but it is not via CO2 emission which plays an extremely minor role. Carbon dioxide's major role is as a carbon source for plants. I do not know if physicist, and former NASA Scientist, Ferenc Miskolczi's work has a fatal flaw. I'm not able to tell, but I admire his greatly simplified approach based on energy balance. NASA suppressed Miskolczi's paper because Miskolczi showed that feedback in the atmospheric temperature mechanism must be negative; not positive. This happens to be in agreement with my own view that I have stated here on ET, and of course retired MIT physicist-meteorologist Richard Lindzen** is of the same opinion. All positive feedback systems are inherently unstable. Why did NASA suppress the publication of Miskolczi's paper under the NASA name? If it is wrong, let the reviewers be the judge, rather than a NASA administrator. In any case, the paper has now been peer reviewed and published. It is being subjected to fair and honest criticism. (There are not that many scientists capable of understanding Miskolczi's paper in fine detail. Papers like this typically take many months if not a few years to be thoroughly critiqued.) To study something extremely complex and chaotic, such as the Earth's atmosphere, it might pay to take a step back, and rethink the entire problem. That's exactly what the brilliant John Maynard Keynes did when he was confronted with trying to understand the economy of a nation. He invented macroeconomics! This new approach to economics lifted the field out of the hopeless morass of microeconomics that Friedrich Hayek had found himself mired in. Perhaps Miskolczi is now leading us out of the global warming morass. _____________________ *Please do not read anything other than what I have written. I am not stating a position on whether or not there is global warming caused by man's activity, or whether we are in a warming cycle or not. **Last Febuary Lindzen sent a letter supported by a couple hundred scientist colleagues urging Trump to pull the U.S. out of the UN Climate Change Program. This got reported in the media as urging Trump to withdraw from the Paris Accord -- not exactly the same thing! I don't know Lindzen's view on the Accord. I know my view is we should support it fully. When it comes to politics scientists don't agree. When it comes to science they also don't agree. But there they have an infallible referee to decide whose right: Mother Nature!
Who's side are you on anyways? ok I'll bite, what was it or is it about the Paris deal that you approve of? If it has anything to do with wealth distribution that doesn't count. It was supposed to be about global warming or climate change catastrophe. As I understand it, the thinking is developing nations need a lot of dirty energy and developed countries must shift towards cleaner energy. Am I close? or no cigar. I almost never respect your opinion but I do respect your thinking. Enlighten me on the benefits of Paris.
The science behind "climate change" is in a state of confusion. It is quite clear that the Hansen hypothesis is wrong. But I don't care whether the rationale for the Accord is correct, I'd rather it be of course, but regardless, the goals are admirable. We need to be moving worldwide toward alternatives to fossil fuels. There are huge benefits to be obtained. I am a scientist, so I don't see only in black and white. I see nuance as well. And won't it be nice to have more competition for our energy dollars?
Aren't our energy dollars going to go to the best for the price energy regardless of what anybody does as long as they don't interfere with a free market? I like competition but not if I have to compete against a taxpayer funded government. If anything, government will probably eliminate what may have been a viable energy to support something that is more politically advantageous which is just a polite way to say bribe. To me it just looks like somebody is trying to sell a lot of natural gas. Another topic you are quite knowledgeable on, would the same principals in the Paris Accord apply to healthcare? Because if there is anything which promotes more alternatives I am all for it. But I agree, the goals are always admirable. (save your breath, I already know America has never seen a free market in energy since Henry Ford drove Tin Lizzy out of the garage. Let's just start with the Paris Accord.)