Over 30,000 scientists say 'Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming' is a complete hoax and science lie

[Munchmasterman]

Who said there were?
The 30,000 weren't described as climate people specifically and they said nothing about directly involved. They referred to them as scientists.

A glaring omission wouldn't you say? And no you wouldn't say that. Because now you are adding parameters the article didn't feel it needed.
Plus much of the research is taking measurements. It's the use of the scientific method that counts, and like most trumpys, you aren't real big on supplying proof to back your statements up.

So blah, blah, blah on your numbers. I used the same criteria they did.

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

there aren't millions of scientists directly involved in climate studies and research. only a few scientific disciples are qualified to do the research. do you think there are millions of physicists, mathematicians and applied science researchers doing this? not a chance.


you might get just under 1 million physicists worldwide total. not all are doing research in climate change. most aren't involved at all. they are doing other types of work completely unrelated.


According to an article from Physics Today[1], there is a range between 372,000 and 964,000 based on national physics society membership from the 34 most populous counties and adjusting for the estimated total world population.

and just because you read Physics Today or belong to a Physics society doesn't mean you have at least a BS in Physics.

so Einstein, how many actual physicists, mathematicians and applied science are doing climate research full or part time world wide?


i doubt there are 150,000 world wide.

[Munchmasterman]

BTW;

I don't read any of those on a regular basis but I know how to use the information when I read it.

Like I said, you missed the fact they gave no description at all, other than some individuals names.

And on top of that Einstein, you don't even know the name of the field of studies.

Physics, math, and applied sciences? Lions, tigers, and bears?

Try climatologists, moron. Try at least reading what the scientific method is

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

there aren't millions of scientists directly involved in climate studies and research. only a few scientific disciples are qualified to do the research. do you think there are millions of physicists, mathematicians and applied science researchers doing this? not a chance.


you might get just under 1 million physicists worldwide total. not all are doing research in climate change. most aren't involved at all. they are doing other types of work completely unrelated.


According to an article from Physics Today[1], there is a range between 372,000 and 964,000 based on national physics society membership from the 34 most populous counties and adjusting for the estimated total world population.

and just because you read Physics Today or belong to a Physics society doesn't mean you have at least a BS in Physics.

so Einstein, how many actual physicists, mathematicians and applied science are doing climate research full or part time world wide?


i doubt there are 150,000 world wide. Of course you do. And you'll never know because it doesn't fit your predetermined "research".

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Who said there were?
The 30,000 weren't described as climate people specifically and they said nothing about directly involved. They referred to them as scientists.

A glaring omission wouldn't you say? And no you wouldn't say that. Because now you are adding parameters the article didn't feel it needed.
Plus much of the research is taking measurements. It's the use of the scientific method that counts, and like most trumpys, you aren't real big on supplying proof to back your statements up.

you shouldn't have brought up measurements, sparky .. if the measurements are wrong, is the data still right???


Systematic Temperature Error in the Climate Change Discussion

https://casf.me/systematic-temperatu...ge-discussion/


Cooling periods in the SST records seen in the 1940s and 1970s of 0.3º C were noted in the data with some concern about collection methods but this period is known to be a AMO1 (and with less influence PDO2) 30 year cooling period. In order to discern these 0.3º C changes in the data, instruments with an accuracy of 0.1º C must be used. The rule of thumb noted that the instrument must have better than three times the accuracy of the targeted resolution. Instrument errors of 0.5 to 1º C were the norm until the 1980s but continued into the 1990s as modern instruments finally replaced all the old ones.


Daniel Turner: Decades ago, the UN promised climate disaster; so why hasn't it arrived?

https://casf.me/wp-content/uploads/2...iel-Turner.pdf


I’m not quite old enough to remember the "global cooling" scare of the 1970s and the media’s drumbeat of the coming ice age that would end mankind.But I have been told many times the end is near by doomsday prophets who have frightened people into green orthodoxy better than any cult leader.

As an 8-year-old kid I was particularly jarred by an episode of the TV show “Diff’rent Strokes” in which acid rain caused Kimberley’s hair to turn green. I lived in New York City just like the TV character, I believed my rain was poison. Throughout high school I was told that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and aerosols were tearing a hole in the ozone layer, and that it could never be repaired. Deadly UV rays would give us all cancer because I used spray deodorant. I switched to roll-on.

Then came the mother of all doomsday scenarios: global warming. It blew away other environmental issues like candles on a cake. Deadly heat and floods. Ice caps melting. Polar bears dying. Alligators and sharks invading. TV shows. Movies. Books.

Former Vice President Al Gore warned we were all going to die from global warming.

Thirty years ago this week, the United Nations issued a global warming report that I distinctly remember. It predicted worldwide disaster.According to the report, the Great Plains of America would return to the Dust Bowl. The oceans would rise by several feet, causing low-lying countries like the Maldive Islands and Bangladesh to be underwater.

The report said North Africa would bake into wastelands. Rain forests would be gone, as would much animal life. And it was all because of fossil fuels. American greed. Us. Me. Switching deodorant did nothing to stop it.

Tough lessons for a 15-year-old high school sophomore.

And here we are 30 years later, and I look back at that 1989 report, I think only this: What happened?

The predictions in the report were not just a bit “off" –like my calculations in my high school math class, my understanding of Shakespeare, or my failed attempt to high jump. The U.N. report was flat-out wrong. It was 100 percent, complete opposite, 180-degree wrong.

Can I get an explanation, please?

The report claimed “even the most conservative scientists” said there was nothing we could do to stop the Earth from warming three degrees. But Earth didn’t warm that much.

The report claimed we had a 10-year window to fix this or it would be irreversible. It wasn’t.

The report claimed the Soviet Union would have a bumper crop harvest because of shifting weather patterns. The Soviet Union collapsed months later.

I’d be OK if this were a one-time mistake, but the U.N. continues to issue such hyperbolic reports. It’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued the latest one last December, and it, too, triggered a countdown clock.

The phrase “we have 12 years to fix this” is parroted by almost every 2020 Democratic presidential candidate and their party’s de facto leader, Rep.Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York.

On the bright side, we were told we had 10 years in 1989, so at least the prognosis is better this time.

Why issue another report without correcting the first one? That’s not the scientific method. Can we ask for a correction? Here’s a simple question: What did the U.N. report get wrong in 1989?

After all, this is "science," and one is expected to believe in science. So let’s lay out the facts dispassionately and objectively, as any unbiased scientist would. Please identify the error and methodological change or formula or data point that has been corrected. Show your work.

Otherwise, why should we believe you got it right 30 years later?

Surely the IPCC has the means to do an after-action review. Since the report was issued the IPCC has raked in over $150 million.

Looks like there’s a prophet making a profit.

No presidential candidate, and practically no politician, would ever say he or she is skeptical of these U.N. predictions."Climate denier" is an accusation akin to "war criminal," and with a leftist movement that is growing more violent and assaulting and doxing journalists, it’s almost imprudent to voice an alternative view.

But the U.N. has a 30-year track record of being wrong on this issue, so I take its reports on climate change and "we have 12 years left" with a grain of salt the size of the Maldives. In 30 more years, I’ll be 75.


I can’t wait to read the U.N. report.

[Munchmasterman]

Of course I would bring up the measurements. You, as a trumpy, might try to hide them but they are key information.

So according to you, everyone in the world was using the wrong instruments? And no one but the deniers knew it?
What were these miracle machines that appeared between 1980 and 1990? That replaced my chem lab thermometer from 1973 that had a resolution 0.1 degrees C?
Not that it matters. Because accuracy isn't dependent on resolution and is stated as a percentage. That means the possible error is across the entire thermometer range. A +/- .1% could be off .5 degrees at 50 and 1.0 at 100 degrees.
That's why you calibrate. Each and every instrument. More proof your claim bad thermometers is so funny. Cal stickers on every piece (US industry and government-owned) and worldwide they were ignored?
So not only do you not know what you're talking about but you have no clue when someone tells you something you want to hear that is wrong. That's why there are 97%ers and 3%ers.

But don't worry. The sole benefit of being a 3%er is not realizing you are one.
You were born a 3%er and you'll die that way.

Who would go through life the way the moron of your story did?

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

you shouldn't have brought up measurements, sparky .. if the measurements are wrong, is the data still right???


Systematic Temperature Error in the Climate Change Discussion

https://casf.me/systematic-temperatu...ge-discussion/


Cooling periods in the SST records seen in the 1940s and 1970s of 0.3º C were noted in the data with some concern about collection methods but this period is known to be a AMO1 (and with less influence PDO2) 30 year cooling period. In order to discern these 0.3º C changes in the data, instruments with an accuracy of 0.1º C must be used. The rule of thumb noted that the instrument must have better than three times the accuracy of the targeted resolution. Instrument errors of 0.5 to 1º C were the norm until the 1980s but continued into the 1990s as modern instruments finally replaced all the old ones.You'll believe anything


Daniel Turner: Decades ago, the UN promised climate disaster; so why hasn't it arrived?

https://casf.me/wp-content/uploads/2...iel-Turner.pdf


I’m not quite old enough to remember the "global cooling" scare of the 1970s and the media’s drumbeat of the coming ice age that would end mankind.But I have been told many times the end is near by doomsday prophets who have frightened people into green orthodoxy better than any cult leader.

As an 8-year-old kid I was particularly jarred by an episode of the TV show “Diff’rent Strokes” in which acid rain caused Kimberley’s hair to turn green. I lived in New York City just like the TV character, I believed my rain was poison. Throughout high school I was told that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and aerosols were tearing a hole in the ozone layer, and that it could never be repaired. Deadly UV rays would give us all cancer because I used spray deodorant. I switched to roll-on.

Then came the mother of all doomsday scenarios: global warming. It blew away other environmental issues like candles on a cake. Deadly heat and floods. Ice caps melting. Polar bears dying. Alligators and sharks invading. TV shows. Movies. Books.

Former Vice President Al Gore warned we were all going to die from global warming.

Thirty years ago this week, the United Nations issued a global warming report that I distinctly remember. It predicted worldwide disaster.According to the report, the Great Plains of America would return to the Dust Bowl. The oceans would rise by several feet, causing low-lying countries like the Maldive Islands and Bangladesh to be underwater.

The report said North Africa would bake into wastelands. Rain forests would be gone, as would much animal life. And it was all because of fossil fuels. American greed. Us. Me. Switching deodorant did nothing to stop it.

Tough lessons for a 15-year-old high school sophomore.

And here we are 30 years later, and I look back at that 1989 report, I think only this: What happened?

The predictions in the report were not just a bit “off" –like my calculations in my high school math class, my understanding of Shakespeare, or my failed attempt to high jump. The U.N. report was flat-out wrong. It was 100 percent, complete opposite, 180-degree wrong.

Can I get an explanation, please?

The report claimed “even the most conservative scientists” said there was nothing we could do to stop the Earth from warming three degrees. But Earth didn’t warm that much.

The report claimed we had a 10-year window to fix this or it would be irreversible. It wasn’t.

The report claimed the Soviet Union would have a bumper crop harvest because of shifting weather patterns. The Soviet Union collapsed months later.

I’d be OK if this were a one-time mistake, but the U.N. continues to issue such hyperbolic reports. It’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued the latest one last December, and it, too, triggered a countdown clock.

The phrase “we have 12 years to fix this” is parroted by almost every 2020 Democratic presidential candidate and their party’s de facto leader, Rep.Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York.

On the bright side, we were told we had 10 years in 1989, so at least the prognosis is better this time.

Why issue another report without correcting the first one? That’s not the scientific method. Can we ask for a correction? Here’s a simple question: What did the U.N. report get wrong in 1989?

After all, this is "science," and one is expected to believe in science. So let’s lay out the facts dispassionately and objectively, as any unbiased scientist would. Please identify the error and methodological change or formula or data point that has been corrected. Show your work.

Otherwise, why should we believe you got it right 30 years later?

Surely the IPCC has the means to do an after-action review. Since the report was issued the IPCC has raked in over $150 million.

Looks like there’s a prophet making a profit.

No presidential candidate, and practically no politician, would ever say he or she is skeptical of these U.N. predictions."Climate denier" is an accusation akin to "war criminal," and with a leftist movement that is growing more violent and assaulting and doxing journalists, it’s almost imprudent to voice an alternative view.

But the U.N. has a 30-year track record of being wrong on this issue, so I take its reports on climate change and "we have 12 years left" with a grain of salt the size of the Maldives. In 30 more years, I’ll be 75.


I can’t wait to read the U.N. report.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

I expect AlGore to have some meat on the bone if he intends to fire off his yapper. Besides the fact he has a phatass carbon footprint, he dang sure should have some of those millions of scientists to quote with specificity.


But back to math lessons. 30K out of 1M and then a quick shift to millions as a base?!? So your best case scenario is that the collected work of 970,000 scientists cannot solve a problem. But the math could also be that 1,970,000 scientists can't or even 2,970,000 can't. So you are bagging on the 30,000 that can prove them wrong. Seems like your " millions of scientists" can't find Cincinnati, but you want us to trust them to get us to Mars.



All the meteorologists on the planet can't tell me where or if or how much it will rain today and you want us to believe that the temperature will increase by 3 degrees in 100 years. Face it, it's a scam meant to turn over control of our economy to a nameless, faceless and unaccountable central authority. So hey, how's the EU working out these days?



But back to the topic, no, it is not proven and most numbers proffered are made up codswallop or use bogus math to fear-porn. And to what end really?

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

you expect Gore to have had all the correct calculations to describe the situation accurately on a day by day basis 30 years later.

30,000 out of 1 million is 3%
There are millionS of scientists

[rexdutchman]

Problem really is no science was used , 1 outa 3 tree rings

[The_Waco_Kid]

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by themystic

You prove my point Levi. Lol. I guess me and 60% of Americans have a marble spinning around are heads. We don’t get hats slapped off our heads. Maybe you should leave America. We don’t want your kind here.

I think it's more than 60% and all of them are all talk and no action. That's why they keep talking about Global Warming/Climate Change. If all of you would shut the hell up the the hysteria over climate would solve itself.

[themystic]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

I think it's more than 60% and all of them are all talk and no action. That's why they keep talking about Global Warming/Climate Change. If all of you would shut the hell up the the hysteria over climate would solve itself.

Fact of the matter is I don't deny the stats. Global warming / climate change is real. What I don't know is weather,(pun intended) it is man induced. But it doesn't hurt to find out. The far left is as fucked up as the far right

[Redhot1960]

0dimmicrates are gullible retards by choice... fuckem

[Ducbutter]

Originally Posted by themystic

Fact of the matter is I don't deny the stats. Global warming / climate change is real. What I don't know is weather,(pun intended) it is man induced. But it doesn't hurt to find out. The far left is as fucked up as the far right

Sweet Jesus' tears, what kind of fresh hell is this? Did you just make a reasonable and seemingly sincere statement in this forum?
Congratulations Mystic! No doubt you'll revert to type in response.
Better bend over and kiss your asses goodbye boys. Surely the world is coming to an end.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by themystic

Fact of the matter is I don't deny the stats. Global warming / climate change is real. What I don't know is weather,(pun intended) it is man induced. But it doesn't hurt to find out. The far left is as fucked up as the far right

I don't think there has been any question that climate changes. The argument has always been man's involvement. The main culprit has been use of Fossil fuels, mainly coal. So the use of coal warms the earth, how? There is only three ways to warm a surface, and only three. Conduction, Convection and Thermal Radiation. What method does the use of Fossil Fuels by man warm the surface of the earth to facilitate Global Warming or affect Climate?

[Munchmasterman]

Look at your post. You want everything dumbed down for you.
Maybe you need to retake 7th-grade science but that doesn't mean the rest of us have to.
You not understanding the subject or methodology is fine with me.
And you certainly don't bother the experts. I think you're worthy of every bit of respect your position is shown by the 97%ers.
You're a 3%er. Deal with it.
It doesn't bother wc to be a 3%er so why would it bother you?
Why aren't you on a scientific forum telling the experts they are wrong? And then proving it?

Because you can't.

Go check out Post #75 (though you don't seem to be a denier as much as a Dunning-Kruger effect example).
It's obvious why you only show the back of your head. Bask in your ignorance while you can. You're "trump winning".

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

I expect AlGore to have some meat on the bone if he intends to fire off his yapper. Besides the fact he has a phatass carbon footprint, he dang sure should have some of those millions of scientists to quote with specificity.


But back to math lessons. 30K out of 1M and then a quick shift to millions as a base?!? So your best case scenario is that the collected work of 970,000 scientists cannot solve a problem. But the math could also be that 1,970,000 scientists can't or even 2,970,000 can't. So you are bagging on the 30,000 that can prove them wrong. Seems like your " millions of scientists" can't find Cincinnati, but you want us to trust them to get us to Mars.



All the meteorologists on the planet can't tell me where or if or how much it will rain today and you want us to believe that the temperature will increase by 3 degrees in 100 years. Face it, it's a scam meant to turn over control of our economy to a nameless, faceless and unaccountable central authority. So hey, how's the EU working out these days?



But back to the topic, no, it is not proven and most numbers proffered are made up codswallop or use bogus math to fear-porn. And to what end really?

[themystic]

Originally Posted by Ducbutter

Sweet Jesus' tears, what kind of fresh hell is this? Did you just make a reasonable and seemingly sincere statement in this forum?
Congratulations Mystic! No doubt you'll revert to type in response.
Better bend over and kiss your asses goodbye boys. Surely the world is coming to an end.

Lol Duc. I had a Road to Damascus experience. Except for Paul the Apostle those only last about 3 days. In the name of the father, and Son and Holy Ghost, Amen

[Munchmasterman]

I guess you you've missed all the references to greenhouse gasses. And that they trap SOLAR radiation that normally is reflected back into....no, fuck it.
Quick nutshell and that's it. You aren't worthy of more of my time.
When fossil fuels burn, they give off greenhouse gasses (called that because they trap solar radiation like a greenhouse does). Plants (let's say tropical plants) can't sit in the open, in sunlight in December in Wisconsin. They will freeze. Put them in a glass box, a "greenhouse", and they will not freeze. Because greenhouses trap solar radiation. Which heats things up.
Take it or leave it. That's the way it is.

Originally Posted by Levianon17

I don't think there has been any question that climate changes. The argument has always been man's involvement. The main culprit has been use of Fossil fuels, mainly coal. So the use of coal warms the earth, how? There is only three ways to warm a surface, and only three. Conduction, Convection and Thermal Radiation. What method does the use of Fossil Fuels by man warm the surface of the earth to facilitate Global Warming or affect Climate?