Where does the 90% figure come from? Please provide evidence.
1 Like
You’ve been lied to about how many believe what.
2 Likes
My bad… it’s actually 97%
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
“Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.”
Take your issue up with the scientific community. Present your counter eveidence
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
By the way, “scientific community” is a denomination of the Science! religion.
Does that not ring any alarm bells to you?
I’d be interested to see how many of those “published scientists” took all of the climate data into consideration when they were purposefully seeking to prove that mankind is causing global warming.
Nope? Why should it?
lol
Actively published CLIMATE scientists is equal to paid shills. They push the desired results for those who pay for their labs, space, students, and meals.
Mann is one, a big dummy that cooked his data.
You idiots frighten the children with a false sense of urgency over nothing.
You can bet they fudged the algorithms to get the results that would get them more funding.
It is all computer model hocus pocus.
When we get accurate weather forecasts more than 24 hours out front, then we MIGHT start to take these models seriously.
All based on the J Cook and Oreskes studies, which were proven bogus years ago. But hey, just keep right on trotting out those stale talking points. Classic. 
I’m not sure which is more disturbing. The fact that the US government actually pays for these bogus studies with their preconceived conclusions or the fact that NASA who was once concerned with Space exploration and discovery, is now focused on “Climate Change” as well.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (USA)
aer·o·nau·tics
/ˌerəˈnôdiks/
plural
- 1.the science or practice of travel through the air.
Can someone explain to me what “Climate Change” has to do with any of that?
Cool, one guy disputes 97% but says above 80% is more accurate. This doesn’t help your argument much.
Do you know what “actively published” means in the scientific community? It’s not like publishing a book. It means publishing a peer reviewed paper. So of all of the scientist that submitted a peer reviewed paper 80-97% (using Wiley’s generous numbers) agree with human effect on climate.
Why? I have a job. I don’t care if you act the fool against an earth you don’t understand and a sun you think you know. I wanted to know. I analyzed your data. I saw the sophomoric numerical analyses you did. I measured the atmosphere with infrared sensors and applied the best known spectroradiometric models of CO2 effects from the earth’s surface to space. I got my answer. It said you are a good and faithful servant to the Al Gores of the world. But you know shit about science. Then I went back to my fellows position and wrote a few more patents in a field where results must be right or people die.
But I want you to continue being the fool. You amuse me.
1 Like
Explain to us how you peer review a MODEL.
3 Likes
Of course they fudge their numbers. A bag of money told them to prove that mankind is causing climate change, and if they don’t pull through, that bag of money will leave.
3 Likes
They borrow the terminology from EXPERIMENTAL science and pretend it fits their MODEL science.
It doesn’t.
2 Likes