Who still takes global warming seriously?

Earthling-1 wrote:

Study claiming ’97% of climate scientists agree’ is flawed
-
First I'm going to address a common response to this study. In this post at The Hockey Schtick, it is pointed out that the 97% statistic is based on only 79 climatologists, and that those participating were self-selected. There are two concerns here. The first is sample size. While climate science isn't a massive field, 79 participants is fairly small. To claim definitely that 97% believe this or that you would need to poll significantly more people. The second concern is the fact that the scientists were self-selected by an online survey. This may not have led to a representative sample.
http://climatequotes.com/2011/02/10/study-cla...

There were two questions in the so-called survey:

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

I would have answered yes to both of them.

Steve Case wrote:

<quoted text>
There were two questions in the so-called survey:
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
I would have answered yes to both of them.

I am pleased that you admit that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

Since the temperature is getting warmer, that means that you do indeed believe in AGW.

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
I am pleased that you admit that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.
Since the temperature is getting warmer, that means that you do indeed believe in AGW.

Indeed he does.

However, he believes he would have to become a leftisttist[intentional] then. Poor chap..:(

Earthling-1 wrote:

<quoted text>Is 2% short of 100%.

Very good! Your math is improving!

Earthling-1 wrote:

<quoted text>Patriotism is for lowlife.

Says the British ex-pat from his refuge in Spain.

We know your only loyalty is to yourself.

How come all the "scientists" who deny are somehow affilliated with the oil industry? Follow the oil. Inhofe included.

sundaytrucker wrote:

How come all the "scientists" who deny are somehow affilliated with the oil industry? Follow the oil. Inhofe included.

When did Inhoffer become a scientist?

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
When did Inhoffer become a scientist?

WHEN HE REALIZED the FAKE MATH, FAKE GAS, and F.A.K.E.

T.R.E.E.M.O.M.I.T.U.R.S.

were IN the REALM of LITERARY SCIENCE FICTION and POINTED OUT that

N.O.N.E. of the tenets of A.G.W. are correct.

When PEOPLE TAKING MONEY can't tell FAKE MATH from HOCKEY STICKS SCRAWLS, the best thing to do is simply

I.N.D.I.C.T. and ask questions then.

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
I am pleased that you admit that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.
Since the temperature is getting warmer, that means that you do indeed believe in AGW.

You're PLEASED to FIND OUT that STEVE is a MAGIC GASSER who answered

"YES" TO A QUESTION NEEDING A SPECIFIC A,B,C TYPE ANSWER.

You're G.L.A.D. to have Steve in your camp?

LoLoLoLoLoLoLoLoL!

gcaveman1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Says the British ex-pat from his refuge in Spain.
We know your only loyalty is to yourself.

As a libtard you don't even rate that. Your loyalty is to pleasure.

NEW YORK — America is shoveling coal to the sidelines.

The fuel that powered the U.S. from the industrial revolution into the iPhone era is being pushed aside as utilities switch to cleaner and cheaper alternatives.

The share of U.S. electricity that comes from coal is forecast to fall below 40 percent for the year — the lowest level since the government began collecting this data in 1949. Four years ago, it was 50 percent. By the end of this decade, it is likely to be near 30 percent.

"The peak has passed," says Jone-Lin Wang, head of Global Power for the energy research firm IHS CERA.

Utilities are aggressively ditching coal in favor of natural gas, which has become cheaper as supplies grow. Natural gas has other advantages over coal: It produces far fewer emissions of toxic chemicals and gases that contribute to climate change, key attributes as tougher environmental rules go into effect.

Natural gas will be used to produce 29 percent of the country's electricity this year, up from 20 percent in 2008. Nuclear accounts for 20 percent. Hydroelectric, wind, solar and other renewables make up the rest.

<><><>< ><><><> <><><>< ><><>

Where's our coal guy now? Standing in the unemployment line?

IAmDigitap wrote:

<quoted text>
As a libtard you don't even rate that. Your loyalty is to pleasure.

AND I love it when you wrap you full, wet, soft lips around my male member of the regenerative power! Oh, the PLEASURE!

DumBo wrote:

When did Inhoffer become a scientist?

When did Inhofe change his name?

gcaveman1 wrote:

<quoted text>
HOMO/LIBTARDISM is humiliating but I'm a S.U.C.K.E.R.

You FANTASIZE of SUCKING: well, it

S.U.C.K.S.
to B.E.
Y.O.U.R.

Stupid, libtard A$$.

WHERE'S all your GLOATING and SCOFFING at THE LOST, PALE FEW WHO DIDN'T

BUY
THE
MAGIC
MATH and T.R.E.E.M.O.M.I.T.U.R.S?

You're here to front for BEING an ILLITERATE MARXIST C.L.O.W.N.

gcaveman1 wrote:

NEW YORK — America is shoveling coal to the sidelines.
The fuel that powered the U.S. from the industrial revolution into the iPhone era is being pushed aside as utilities switch to cleaner and cheaper alternatives.
The share of U.S. electricity that comes from coal is forecast to fall below 40 percent for the year — the lowest level since the government began collecting this data in 1949. Four years ago, it was 50 percent. By the end of this decade, it is likely to be near 30 percent.
"The peak has passed," says Jone-Lin Wang, head of Global Power for the energy research firm IHS CERA.
Utilities are aggressively ditching coal in favor of natural gas, which has become cheaper as supplies grow. Natural gas has other advantages over coal: It produces far fewer emissions of toxic chemicals and gases that contribute to climate change, key attributes as tougher environmental rules go into effect.
Natural gas will be used to produce 29 percent of the country's electricity this year, up from 20 percent in 2008. Nuclear accounts for 20 percent. Hydroelectric, wind, solar and other renewables make up the rest.
<><><>< ><><><> <><><>< ><><>
Where's our coal guy now? Standing in the unemployment line?

Maybe those wind and solar guys can give him the benifit of all that expereince in standing in that line. I spent the time to track down your link since you could not be bothered to include it. The funny part is I discovered the person who wrote it Daniel Yergin, has book he pushing. IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates also has a rep of pushing a green agenda.

Of course there is a market for it right now but it is a shrinking market as public interest is shifting awasy from climate to economy. You can claim it isn't but just watch your evening news. Count the number of times they mention the economy vs the climate. Take a look at the campaign ads for the upcoming election. Are they talking about climate or jobs and economy?

You may be in denial about it but the canidites cannot afford to ignore the fact that the average person is no longer interested in climate change.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/10/opinion/sun...

Earthling-1 wrote:

<quoted text>When did Inhofe change his name?

Gee, you noticed!

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe those wind and solar guys can give him the benifit of all that expereince in standing in that line. I spent the time to track down your link since you could not be bothered to include it. The funny part is I discovered the person who wrote it Daniel Yergin, has book he pushing. IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates also has a rep of pushing a green agenda.
Of course there is a market for it right now but it is a shrinking market as public interest is shifting awasy from climate to economy. You can claim it isn't but just watch your evening news. Count the number of times they mention the economy vs the climate. Take a look at the campaign ads for the upcoming election. Are they talking about climate or jobs and economy?
You may be in denial about it but the canidites cannot afford to ignore the fact that the average person is no longer interested in climate change.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/10/opinion/sun...

Sorry, Actually After All Teener, but I give you a research institute's report and you give me a NYT editorial. That's a fail.

I know research scares the hell out of you. Deal with it.

Climate is the elephant in the room. Everyone's trying to ignore it because conservatives have made it so political. But that doesn't matter because, in the long run, the climate is going to insert itself into the dialogue, just as it's been doing with the heat waves, droughts, tornadoes, and hurricanes. Climate can't be ignored much longer, especially as it affects the economy more and more.

After all.

Earthling-1 wrote:

<quoted text>Is 2% short of 100%.

Your English gets worse each day.

gcaveman1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry, Actually After All Teener, but I give you a research institute's report and you give me a NYT editorial. That's a fail.
I know research scares the hell out of you. Deal with it.
Climate is the elephant in the room. Everyone's trying to ignore it because conservatives have made it so political. But that doesn't matter because, in the long run, the climate is going to insert itself into the dialogue, just as it's been doing with the heat waves, droughts, tornadoes, and hurricanes. Climate can't be ignored much longer, especially as it affects the economy more and more.
After all.

Your English gets worse every day. Do you sit there drinking until you're too listing and leaning to sit upright?

You sound like that ghetto you sweat in has definitely rubbed off

Earthling-1 wrote:

<quoted text>You really should check your figures.
98% of a total of 79, not "98 out of 100."
The 98% climate consensus, where did the number come from?
-
"Follow the money. The 98% consensus is just another manipulated number pulled out of the air."
http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2011/09/13/t...

liar. Every major, every major scientific organisation on the planet! Every motherloving one of them jerk off! Look it up. Try to avoid the oil industry backed heatless institute.