The point is that he only one guy. And it's certainly more than 77 scientists that believe in GW. It's virtually the entire science community of the world. Pretty sure that's more than 77.
Well it's hard to argue against this ironclad and irrefutably logical presentation of the science. LOL
1. first of all your chart is a joke why not a real one... say 400 thousand years. it takes abot 10000 - 20000 years to cycle. 2. you are citing stale bullshit... only paid clowns say that now and even many of the paid clowns have jumped ship. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...cientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/ Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis 151 comments, 7 called-out Comment Now Follow Comments It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus. Donât look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem. The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims. According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the âComply with Kyotoâ model. The scientists in this group âexpress the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.â
Jerm. We are really most interested in the last thousand. It was last two hundred we have been adding CO2. The data is most reliable for that far back. Beyond that the confidence factor drops. The only thing that can explain the rise is CO2.
You know that article is bullshit. Why do repeat lies and deception? Is winning an argument more important to you than telling the truth? You're a pathetic fraudster.
So basically you are ignoring the report from one of the most respected international academic institutions and calling it mere lies and deception. Read the truth in the direct survey report. http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full
We already debunked this bit of fraud some time ago. The scientists and engineers surveyed were Canadian only and they were involved with the fossil fuel industry there. Engineers and meteorologists shouldn't even be polled. The are not climate scientists. Like I said. Bullshit, fraud, deception, just like all the other the crap that you guys uncritically spread and believe about AGW. Will you guys ever think about this outside of politics ?
This is not about politics. This is about a large-scale scientific 'climate change' fraud that is offensive to anyone with a scientific or engineering background. The AGW fraud undermines the integrity of the entire profession.
I don't know... How about this... Age of Earth: 4.2 Billion years Temp extremes experienced: -200 degrees to +2 million degrees C Purported GW changes: 1-2 degrees C over the last 40 years Number of datapoints for every 100 years = 42 million Number of datapoints for every 200 years = 21 million Liberal recognition of verifiable temp readings on Earth - 50,000 years (250-500 datapoints) Statistical significance (100 year datapoints) = 500/42,000,000 Statistical significance (200 year datapoints) = 250/21,000,000 Temp change significance = 2 degrees C / 2,200,000 degrees C Conclusion #1 - any person with basic math skills can understand that the GW argument is statistically irrelevant. Conclusion #2 - the argument that GW is "bad" for the planet is patently false. If humans were to disappear tomorrow, in less than 1,000 years, all evidence of our existence would be wiped out. Conclusion #3 - the real concern is that as the human population continues at its current rate, then it stands that at some point, we'll run out of the resources needed for survival - water, food, shelter, ability to withstand/defend against newer, deadlier diseases, etc. The reality is that Homo Sapiens are biological systems subject to the same conditions and challenges as other biological systems. Biological systems are in a constant battle to achieve equilibrium between population and resources. When resources are plentiful, populations increase. When resources become scarce, populations die off. It's safe to say that the human population will greatly contract in the future. Be it from meteorite impacts, volcanic eruptions, disease, or lack of food and/or water. But it certainly won't be due to alleged GW due to fossil fuels.