retep Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 Put "climate change scientific consensus" into your favourite search engine. Or "no scientific consensus on climate change" into yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xt500 Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 The scientific proof was seeing some footage of ice bergs melting,followed by some footage of traffic jams on the news Thats how easy some are sucked in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 I don't need to, just like I don't need prove that the earth isn't flat or that gayness doesn't cause flooding. Only clowns, conspiracy freaks and kippers believe otherwise. Is there any truth in the rumour that one of UKIP's upcoming policies is to make married gay couples tour drought hit countries? It could replace the overseas aid budget I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 Or "no scientific consensus on climate change" into yours. Putting that into a search engine doesn't doesn't demonstrate that there isn't a scientific consensus on climate change. I suggest you go away and learn what "scientific consensus" actually means before arguing about it further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 Putting that into a search engine doesn't doesn't demonstrate that there isn't a scientific consensus on climate change. I suggest you go away and learn what "scientific consensus" actually means before arguing about it further. Ah, you mean like this, "31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs" http://www.petitionproject.org/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 (edited) Ah, you mean like this, "31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs" http://www.petitionproject.org/ It's a well known load of cack - see here. You really do swallow any old guff don't you? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html ---------- Post added 30-12-2014 at 16:32 ---------- "The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science." So said the National Academy of Science. ---------- Post added 30-12-2014 at 16:36 ---------- And from the author of the piece ''Given all this it seems to me that anyone touting this as proof that "global warming is a hoax" completely misunderstands the process of scientific endeavor or has completely exhausted any real argument that rightfully brings into to doubt the reality of climate change.'' Which is it with you, complete misunderstanding of science, or lack of a real argument? Maybe both? Edited December 30, 2014 by Halibut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 Ah, you mean like this, "31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs" http://www.petitionproject.org/ No, like this - Expert credibility in climate change: Abstract Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellco Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 When was that prediction made, I have never seen it but presumably if it was made it would have been made before this government rushed new measures through parliament to slow the flow of immigration into the UK. It also does not change the indisputable fact that immigration is the primary cause of the UK's unsustainable population growth. I read somewhere today that there are now 46,000 Roms and Buls have come since they were given full access rights.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 No, like this - Expert credibility in climate change: William R. L. Anderegg http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.co.uk/2010/06/who-is-william-rl-anderegg.html Things have moved on since 2009 by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 William R. L. Anderegg http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.co.uk/2010/06/who-is-william-rl-anderegg.html Things have moved on since 2009 by the way. You've been thoroughly shown up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now