You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: 1000 Scientists Declare Man Made Global Warming Climate Change a Complete Fraud / Hoax

in #science6 years ago (edited)

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."
Source: NASA (

97%!!! You found the remaining 3%, congrats..


97%? I checked your reference and found no statistical evidence indicating a majority of the sample is falling for the global warming hoax. Your analysis wouldn't even pass a high school research project.

When you don't have any arguments, just play dumb: "The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming."


Science is factual, a consensus is a bunch of people that agree they like having power and grant money.
Tell me this. What is the "correct" temperature of the earth?

Consensus isn't science, and the 97% claim is bogus.

What were the factors for Climate Variability in all Earths' history? Now find any text on Global Warming or Climate Change and use the "find" tool to look for keywords like "Solar Cycles", "Grand Solar Minimums/Maximums", geoMagnetic Reversals", "cosmic/galactic radiations", "cloud coverage", "cloud nucleation", "volcanism'', ''Milankowitch Cycles'', "etc".. you will find nothing.. now how can "97% of climatologists and scientists determine that Human Activity, namely CO2, is the main cause of Global Warming (lately replaced with Climate Change)",, while completely ignoring all other factors?? What kind of "science" is that? Furthermore, find any computer model for Climate Change and see if you find those parameters above.. nothing.. how can these models "predict" the climate without those parameters (that completely dwarf CO2 by the way)? How can policy be made based on such flawed "models"?? Oh and you know what? In all those computer models, the "Solar Radiation" parameter is a Constant,, not a Variable.. again, what kind of "science" is that? Political science?55c0eacf-920c-44d3-af5a-cda142ed7aa3.jpg

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.18
TRX 0.08
JST 0.023
BTC 26573.17
ETH 1591.21
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.18