Where the 97% consensus number comes from

[AURaptor 1,122]

There is no such thing as argument from authority in science, genius.

You've bought into the massive con game that is AGW. We can chase each others tails until the end of the internet, but you won't convince me and I have no interest in depriving you of your cult.

Just stop jacking up my power costs, and trying to tell me it's for my own good. Continue to do so, and I ( and damn near every one else ) may get cross.

You wouldn't like us when we're cross.

[AUDub 11,147]

There is no such thing as argument from authority in science, genius.

I am not a scientist and am not an expert in these fields, but sourcing my arguments is perfectly logical, genius. A logically valid argument from authority grounds a claim in the beliefs of one or more authoritative sources, whose opinions are likely to be true on the relevant issue.

Example. I haven't studied ice losses or gains, but Jinlun Zhang has.

Sourcing his work to support my assertion is perfectly OK.

You've bought into the massive con game that is AGW. We can chase each others tails until the end of the internet, but you won't convince me and I have no interest in depriving you of your cult.

Another lazy argument from assertion. Your stock in trade.

Just stop jacking up my power costs, and trying to tell me it's for my own good. Continue to do so, and I ( and damn near every one else ) may get cross.

You wouldn't like us when we're cross.

Get cross. Don't care. You can be both angry and wrong and it won't mean a hill of beans to me.

[AURaptor 1,122]

Source your views from anywhere the hell you want, but don't claim ' authority' on a topic. That's flat out lazy and wrong, One can cite informed sources, where those who have done the research can speak as to what they've studied, but by no means does that make them The Authority on a topic.

Another lazy argument from assertion.

Ben, you keep using that tired catch phrase over and over again, you might as well make it your signature. Did we learn a new term recently, and can't stop using it ? Good grief.

You see, the difference in our views is that I can live by mine, and not impact anyone adversely. You , on the other hand, with your cult of AGW zealots, can make life for me and millions if not billions across the globe much worse, and for no real benefit.

And FYI, you not agreeing w/ me or liking my views doesn't make ME lazy. It makes you a list of things I'd rather not waste time saying here, but you get the idea.

[homersapien 11,367]

It's Sunday morning, so yeah, I'm lazy.

And it's not " assertion ", but actual facts. Making energy more costly will only hurt developing nations and put billions of people in a lower standard of living.

You want to focus on renewable energy, cutting pollution and toxins in the environment ? Hey, I'm all on board ! Just stop LYING to us about baby polar bears standing on melting ice blocks in the Arctic ocean and trying to shame us back into the stone age with ads and campaigns that end up hurting billions of people and making a very few people into billionaires.

I don't know if you've noticed, but losses in the Arctic are outpacing the models. There's a distinct possibility that we will see an ice free Arctic summer within my lifetime.

I'm 30 by the way.

According to AlGore, the Arctic was suppose to be ice free already, by 2013. Now you're saying " with in your life time " ?

At the current melt rate, the Arctic will be ice free in 17 years. So (if your claim is true) Al Gore missed it by only 19 years.

For someone who is always throwing out geological time scales of millions of years in their arguments regarding climate change, that should be considered pretty accurate.

[AUDub 11,147]

Source your views from anywhere the hell you want, but don't claim ' authority' on a topic. That's flat out lazy and wrong, One can cite informed sources, where those who have done the research can speak as to what they've studied, but by no means does that make them The Authority on a topic.

You still don't get it. It's his process that I trust first, and his conclusion secon. You should read the paper.

Ben, you keep using that tired catch phrase over and over again, you might as well make it your signature. Did we learn a new term recently, and can't stop using it ? Good grief.

You see, the difference in our views is that I can live by mine, and not impact anyone adversely. You , on the other hand, with your cult of AGW zealots, can make life for me and millions if not billions across the globe much worse, and for no real benefit.

And FYI, you not agreeing w/ me or liking my views doesn't make ME lazy. It makes you a list of things I'd rather not waste time saying here, but you get the idea.

And another one. You're on a roll. Try supporting your arguments rather than simply proclaiming you're correct, sport.

[AURaptor 1,122]

You're doing the exact same thing, kiddo. " I"m right because this man says I am ! " , what ever.

[AURaptor 1,122]

At the current melt rate, the Arctic will be ice free in 17 years. So (if you claim is true) Al Gore missed it by only 19 years.

Yeah, at the current rate, which some THINK they have figured out, for now. Might be ammended later on, might not. Who can say ?

But at the current rate, there's no global warming, as there hasn't been for the past 17 years , so ...

Rates don't always stay the same.

For someone who is always throwing out geological time scales of millions of years in their arguments regarding climate change, that should be considered pretty accurate.

It is. But you're just misinterpreting them. Per usual.

[homersapien 11,367]

There is no such thing as argument from authority in science, genius.

You've bought into the massive con game that is AGW. We can chase each others tails until the end of the internet, but you won't convince me and I have no interest in depriving you of your cult.

Just stop jacking up my power costs, and trying to tell me it's for my own good. Continue to do so, and I ( and damn near every one else ) may get cross.

You wouldn't like us when we're cross.

Your posts have become even more humorous than CoolTigger's.

[homersapien 11,367]

Ben, you keep using that tired catch phrase over and over again, you might as well make it your signature. Did we learn a new term recently, and can't stop using it ? Good grief.

You see, the difference in our views is that I can live by mine, and not impact anyone adversely. You , on the other hand, with your cult of AGW zealots, can make life for me and millions if not billions across the globe much worse, and for no real benefit.

And FYI, you not agreeing w/ me or liking my views doesn't make ME lazy. It makes you a list of things I'd rather not waste time saying here, but you get the idea.

And another one. You're on a role. Try supporting your arguments rather than simply proclaiming you're correct, sport.

He obviously doesn't understand what an "argument of authority" means, or more accurately, a "fallacious" argument from authority since he doesn't quote sources and we know damn well sure he's not a scientist.

[homersapien 11,367]

At the current melt rate, the Arctic will be ice free in 17 years. So (if you claim is true) Al Gore missed it by only 19 years.

Yeah, at the current rate, which some THINK they have figured out, for now. Might be ammended later on, might not. Who can say ?

But at the current rate, there's no global warming, as there hasn't been for the past 17 years , so ...

Rates don't always stay the same.

First, they know the current rate by observation.

Secondly the false claim that warming has stopped has been debunked repeatedly. It's been explained to you on this forum several times. Do I really need to go over it again?

Finally, no rates don't always stay the same but since the earth is becoming increasingly warm it's a pretty good bet the rate won't decrease.

[AUDub 11,147]

You're doing the exact same thing, kiddo. " I"m right because this man says I am ! " , what ever.

Nope. Because, as homer pointed out, what an argument from authority even is escapes you.

[AURaptor 1,122]

You're doing the exact same thing, kiddo. " I"m right because this man says I am ! " , what ever.

Nope. Because, as homer pointed out, what an argument from authority even is escapes you.

Still on that, huh ? Thought of you when I saw this.

I'll just leave this right here.

xoxo

On March 3, The New York Times Magazine created a major flap in the climate-change community by running a cover story on the theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson that focused largely on his views of human-induced global warming.

Basically, he doesn’t buy it. The climate models used to forecast what will happen as we continue to pump CO2 into the atmosphere are unreliable, Dyson claims, and so, therefore, are the projections. In an interview with Yale Environment 360, his first since the Times article appeared, Dyson contends that since carbon dioxide is good for plants, a warmer planet could be a very good thing. And if CO2 does get to be a problem, Dyson believes we can just do some genetic engineering to create a new species of super-tree that can suck up the excess.

http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2151

[AURaptor 1,122]

Ben, you keep using that tired catch phrase over and over again, you might as well make it your signature. Did we learn a new term recently, and can't stop using it ? Good grief.

You see, the difference in our views is that I can live by mine, and not impact anyone adversely. You , on the other hand, with your cult of AGW zealots, can make life for me and millions if not billions across the globe much worse, and for no real benefit.

And FYI, you not agreeing w/ me or liking my views doesn't make ME lazy. It makes you a list of things I'd rather not waste time saying here, but you get the idea.

And another one. You're on a role. Try supporting your arguments rather than simply proclaiming you're correct, sport.

He obviously doesn't understand what an "argument of authority" means, or more accurately, a "fallacious" argument from authority since he doesn't quote sources and we know damn well sure he's not a scientist.

And never have I damn well claimed to be one.

[AUDub 11,147]

You're doing the exact same thing, kiddo. " I"m right because this man says I am ! " , what ever.

Nope. Because, as homer pointed out, what an argument from authority even is escapes you.

Still on that, huh ? Thought of you when I saw this.

I'll just leave this right here.

xoxo

On March 3, The New York Times Magazine created a major flap in the climate-change community by running a cover story on the theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson that focused largely on his views of human-induced global warming.

Basically, he doesn’t buy it. The climate models used to forecast what will happen as we continue to pump CO2 into the atmosphere are unreliable, Dyson claims, and so, therefore, are the projections. In an interview with Yale Environment 360, his first since the Times article appeared, Dyson contends that since carbon dioxide is good for plants, a warmer planet could be a very good thing. And if CO2 does get to be a problem, Dyson believes we can just do some genetic engineering to create a new species of super-tree that can suck up the excess.

http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2151

Freeman Dyson is not a climate scientist and should not be considered an authority on the matter. If I had a question on QFT or Nuclear Physics, yeah, but he's fishing and flat wrong on climate science. His research in his areas of expertise should have earned him a Nobel, but he has never done any sort of research on climate and should shut his denialist yap.

And this:

"And if CO2 does get to be a problem, Dyson believes we can just do some genetic engineering to create a new species of super-tree that can suck up the excess."

Is a crackpot idea. How silly of him.

As Sagan said, genius is no defense against being flat wrong.

[AFTiger 282]

So only climate scientists should comment on AGW..............unless they question it and then they should be jailed. I love how the left works.

[AUDub 11,147]

So only climate scientists should comment on AGW..............unless they question it and then they should be jailed. I love how the left works.

People who don't work in the field shouldn't make ex cathedra statements like his, especially those that admit their own ignorance on the matter:

"My objections to the global warming propaganda (bens: Dunning-Kruger Effect here) are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much..."

And nobody is proposing jailing anybody.

Climate scientists routinely have there work undermined, their credibility attacked with accusations of fraud, are threatened with criminal investigation by government officials and even their very lives threatened by crazy people all due to a sophisticated disinformation campaign funded in part by entrenched business interests, all in the interest of undermining the science and swaying public opinion. I think a RICO investigation into these matters isn't too much to ask.

What I want investigated is the threat of government power already being used to threaten folks like Michael Mann, and the baseless accusations of fraud and other alleged misdeeds by agents often funded by industry which lead to threats against life and limb, including things like dead animals on doorsteps and direct threats of violence in correspondence.

[AURaptor 1,122]

You're doing the exact same thing, kiddo. " I"m right because this man says I am ! " , what ever.

Nope. Because, as homer pointed out, what an argument from authority even is escapes you.

Still on that, huh ? Thought of you when I saw this.

I'll just leave this right here.

xoxo

On March 3, The New York Times Magazine created a major flap in the climate-change community by running a cover story on the theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson that focused largely on his views of human-induced global warming.

Basically, he doesn't buy it. The climate models used to forecast what will happen as we continue to pump CO2 into the atmosphere are unreliable, Dyson claims, and so, therefore, are the projections. In an interview with Yale Environment 360, his first since the Times article appeared, Dyson contends that since carbon dioxide is good for plants, a warmer planet could be a very good thing. And if CO2 does get to be a problem, Dyson believes we can just do some genetic engineering to create a new species of super-tree that can suck up the excess.

http://e360.yale.edu...ure.msp?id=2151

Freeman Dyson is not a climate scientist and should not be considered an authority on the matter. If I had a question on QFT or Nuclear Physics, yeah, but he's fishing and flat wrong on climate science. His research in his areas of expertise should have earned him a Nobel, but he has never done any sort of research on climate and should shut his denialist yap.

And this:

"And if CO2 does get to be a problem, Dyson believes we can just do some genetic engineering to create a new species of super-tree that can suck up the excess."

Is a crackpot idea. How silly of him.

As Sagan said, genius is no defense against being flat wrong.

I suspect he's saying it tongue in cheek, as if things really really really did get bad. But leave it to NYT magazine to toss that bit in, to make a democrat who went off the reservation into some whack job.

Most of the " 97% " who sided w/ AGW weren't climate scientists either, but NOW it's a problem ? Right.

And Sagan? He should know. He was flat wrong about climate models after the fires of the Gulf war oil fields, among other things. Shocker, huh ?

And careful on the '' no one is proposing jailing anyone " talk. Some actually are.

Torcello says that people are already dying because of global warming. “Nonetheless, climate denial remains a serious deterrent against meaningful political action in the very countries most responsible for the crisis.”

As such, Torcello wants governments to make “the funding of climate denial” a crime.

“The charge of criminal and moral negligence ought to extend to all activities of the climate deniers who receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public’s understanding of scientific consensus.”

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/03/18/college-professor-jail-climate-change-deniers/

THERE is your crack pot idea.

[AURaptor 1,122]

Michael Mann is a fraud,and SHOULD be investigated.

[AUDub 11,147]

I suspect he's saying it tongue in cheek, as if things really really really did get bad. But leave it to NYT magazine to toss that bit in, to make a democrat who went off the reservation into some whack job.

Most of the " 97% " who sided w/ AGW weren't climate scientists either, but NOW it's a problem ? Right.

And Sagan? He should know. He was flat wrong about climate models after the fires of the Gulf war oil fields, among other things. Shocker, huh ?

And careful on the '' no one is proposing jailing anyone " talk. Some actually are. THERE is your crack pot idea.

Dyson characterizes it as no big deal. He's flat wrong.

Oh, and FFS, the 97% percent number comes directly from either surveys of climate scientists practicing in the field and their work. Have you even bothered to read any of the studies you criticize constantly?

Sagan actually did admit he was wrong, though. Ever read his book, The Demon Haunted World?

Name the ones proposing jailing skeptics. I'll show you e-mails where scientists were threatened with murder, dismemberment etc.

[AUDub 11,147]

Michael Mann is a fraud,and SHOULD be investigated.

Exactly what I'm talking about. Crazy people with baseless accusations of fraud.

[AURaptor 1,122]

Michael Mann is a fraud,and SHOULD be investigated.

Exactly what I'm talking about. Crazy people with baseless accusations of fraud.

He is, isn't he ?

[AUDub 11,147]

Michael Mann is a fraud,and SHOULD be investigated.

Exactly what I'm talking about. Crazy people with baseless accusations of fraud.

He is, isn't he ?

No. He's not. He's been investigated multiple times thanks to crackpots like you, but the fraud accusation is baseless and the result of these investigations bear that out.

[AUDub 11,147]

As usual, you're simply parroting some right wing site. Read Torcello's article.

[AURaptor 1,122]

As usual, you're simply parroting some right wing site. Read Torcello's article.

There's no 'right wing site' I'm parroting. Good grief, just give it up.

[AUDub 11,147]

You are. I googled, with quotes, the statement "Torcello says that people are already dying because of global warming."

Plagiarism is not becoming of you, Raptor.