97% Of Climate Scientists Agree

>97% Of Climate Scientists Agree

What did they mean by this?

Other urls found in this thread:

gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
vixra.org/abs/1309.0069
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

That if you take 100 climate scientist, 97 of them agree with each other.

Not this, but this at the same time.

>Argumentum ad populum

They polled one scientist, and he was 97% sure.

jews bribed 97%

Science is a democracy, if the majority of scientists agree on something it becomes true. Like with gender being a spectrum that does not depend on your genes or homosexuals not being hyperpromiscuos STD carriers.

Someone made up a fake percentage in order to validate their claim.

/thread

Sage

That self-selecting dogmatists agree on points of dogma.

It's like asking priests if God exists.

97% of the 2% that gave an answer that could be twisted enough to be positive in favor of

97% of the 20% that are decided agree

Even if a majority of scientists agree on climate change, this isn't a proof that it exists.

That said, please use your old CFC driven refrigerators, because there is no anthropogenic ozone depletion (there are 3 1/2 scientists who didn't agree on CFC's destructing effect on the ozone layer, so clearly there aren't such things as CFCs). Fucking morons.

Validity of a proof doesn't depend on what anyone thinks. The evidence either supports a theory or it doesn't. There clearly isn't enough evidence of agw since most scientists that were asked didn't answer. Selection bias.

Kek at all you cucks actually believing that percentage, it's about as viable as that "1 of 5 women are raped" meme

wrong

>Implying IR-absorption in certain molecules isn´t documented

>By the late 1800s, large cities all around the world were “drowning in horse manure". In order for these cities to function, they were dependent on thousands of horses for the transport of both people and goods....
>This problem came to a head when in 1894, The Times newspaper predicted... “In 50 years, every street in London will be buried under nine feet of manure.”
>This became known as the ‘Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894’.
>The terrible situation was debated in 1898 at the world’s first international urban planning conference in New York, but no solution could be found. It seemed urban civilisation was doomed.

People a 100 years ago were trying to save the world of 50 years in the future. They didn't even know what an atom was. Why should we spend 100 trillion dollars, based not on scientific fact, but a consensus, to try to save the people of 50-100 years in the future. Imagine how much they will laugh at all the dumbasses today pretending to be "saving the world".

Found the American

They meant they wanted to divide everyone on the issue by saying its people agreeing when it is actually 97% of peer reviewed research is consistent with human caused climate change. But american cucklets follow their retarded politicians and blogposters as their religious leaders and make up phrases like this to suit them.

who benefits from global warming being true?

/Thread

...

Solar lobby

It's embarrassing how liberals are shilling for the least effective energy source.

Who benefits from convincing people that it is false?

It's embarrassing they are not shilling for the energy source that has zero carbon emissions, Nuclear.

Yeah cause there is never any radioactive problems with that.

Leaked radiation does not cause global warming dummy.

Did not say that it did, buddy. Pointed out one of the reasons why it isnt a perfect energy source.

No energy source is perfect but it sure as hell beats destroying the planet.

Carbon Taxes

"""Green""" energy sources (which either consume inordinate quantities of other resources to produce, or produce more GHGs in mining than they save while being dramatically less efficient than Coal, Oil, Nuclear)

Scientists who's jobs absolutely rely on the government finding new justifications for them to continue being around.

Interestingly enough people who want to continue destroying third world countries with yet more worthless """aid""" that hamstrings their ability to build an economy of their own.

The government, because it can justify more authoritarian policies and taxation to """""stop""""" climate change, which if AGW evangelists are to be believed should have caused at least two or three apocalypses by now if we didn't funnel billions of dollars into useless programs that haven't had any effect on global climate.

Lets be honest what can be done to stop climate change?

>There are retards that think stopping car emissions will stop climate change.

I'm starting to think the oil lobby actually pays people to post on Veeky Forums. How can these people lack basic common sense?

8950045
>shitposting this hard
go home fuckboy
your Somali clown fart solar panels will not get those billions

Mods should just ban this bait. Yes, solar is only really more cost effective than fossil fuels in lower latitudes at the moment, but in about 5 years it will be cheaper than coal in most places before subsidies, and soon after that gas. It's not about the 'solar lobby' reason people are pulling out of their arses it makes basic economic sense. Hell even now in northern europe wind is the cheapest form of power before subsidies, if politicians choose coal plants even after knowing wind is cheaper they are simply in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry just the US has been for the past 50 years. Here in the UK almost all of the new power additions are wind, gas and nuclear, with gas additions being reduced in favour of renewables, coal has also fallen below 5% for the first time since the industrial revolution and is still falling on average.
>gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

The rest of the world is going to reap the rewards and the US will be forced to play catch up, which will hurt it economically in the long run.

The carbon bubble will pop eventually as new technologies mature, and the world will go full nuclear/renewable in time. The only difference between the US and the rest of the world at this point is that the US seems to be the only country which wants to maximise short term profits before it is too late, the only losers in this scenario is US citizens, the rest of the world will be better off by far when the bubble pops.

It's a statement, not an argument. Here's another statement: Go back to your board, /pol/ nigger.

Kek

>The rest of the world is going to reap the rewards
>The West's industry will be crippled paying to hold niggers on life support and the Chinese will laugh their asses off on the way to the bank
Fixed that for you

americans

People who own property several miles from the coast in florida.

It means appeals to expertise continue to be less effective than appeals to emotion or """"common sense"""".

He meant that he did a comprehensive literature survey and then removed 99% of the non-agreeing scientists. After he removed them 97% of the remainder agreed. Full analysis of his argument here, along with debunking, criticism, and ancillary analysis

>The Truth About Climate Change
>vixra.org/abs/1309.0069

"guys I need more funding"
>How do you feel on climate change
"Eh, not too serious"
>No!!!
"I mean I agree on it!"
>Good here is funding

It means that 97% of scientists are funded by government.

That entire paper is based on a false dichotomy where it claims that an abstract has to be either supporting or rejecting of a concept. The point is that not all papers cover the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming, it makes no sense to say that those papers support or reject the theory when those papers did not say anything about the subject nor attempt to. That's why the Cook et al study narrowed it down to abstracts that either support or reject the theory.