Global Warming is over.

[herbivor]

ok here's a serious question
someone post a link to the broad poll that was taken that shows the 97% consensus among scientists

Yea, we've been through that already with you. Did you watch the documentary yet? They indicate where they get the 97%. They also indicate the sources of where you get your disinformation and the reason why there has been a well financed campaign of disinformation against the science.

[gwb72tii]

the giants are on but i have it taped
so you mean, in the end, the 97% comes down to a skewed poll that relies on less than 100 respondents. that poll?

[gwb72tii]

End of the world? What is happening again? I spaced out and stopped listening awhile back.

had to laugh
the sky is falling

[rwh11385]

the giants are on but i have it taped
so you mean, in the end, the 97% comes down to a skewed poll that relies on less than 100 respondents. that poll?

The poll itself actually had 3146 respondents, with a subset of climatologists who are actively publishing on the subject at focus... if you care to be factual, which you usually don't. The overall view was 82% when including non-specialists.

I think you don't give basis for your statements because you have more "flexibility" in describing reality.

[BraveUlysses]

So avoiding the question yet again?

you don't really expect anything different from P&R's preeminent troll do you?

[rwh11385]

you don't really expect anything different from P&R's preeminent troll do you?

Just emphasizing that he reposts what he is told to think on Drudge but cannot actually think critically about anything he repeats. Like a parrot.

[gwb72tii]

The poll itself actually had 3146 respondents, with a subset of climatologists who are actively publishing on the subject at focus... if you care to be factual, which you usually don't. The overall view was 82% when including non-specialists.

I think you don't give basis for your statements because you have more "flexibility" in describing reality.

so do you have a link?

here's one

http://heartland.org/sites/default/files/05-02-12_bast_myth_of_the_98.pdf

[gwb72tii]

you don't really expect anything different from P&R's preeminent troll do you?

listen "brave", which is an interesting name as you tend to hide behind other's posts and add nothing of value. grow a pair and try to post some critical thinking of your own for a change.

[rwh11385]

so do you have a link?

here's one
http://heartland.org/sites/default/f..._of_the_98.pdf

It's in this thread previously. But the numbers I just posted are confirmed in your link, or can you not read?

Trying to ignore/invalidate a poll by incorrectly stating its overall sample size is ridiculous, per usual for you. If I poll 2000 Americans and state a statistic for a particular demographic with a subset size of 50, does that mean that the overall sample in the poll magically is reduced to 50? No. Having you and Fusion trying to attack polls out of absolute ignorance is laughable.

[BraveUlysses]

listen "brave", which is an interesting name as you tend to hide behind other's posts and add nothing of value. grow a pair and try to post some critical thinking of your own for a change.

Irony fucking overload.

[gwb72tii]

It's in this thread previously. But the numbers I just posted are confirmed in your link, or can you not read?

Trying to ignore/invalidate a poll by incorrectly stating its overall sample size is ridiculous, per usual for you. If I poll 2000 Americans and state a statistic for a particular demographic with a subset size of 50, does that mean that the overall sample in the poll magically is reduced to 50? No. Having you and Fusion trying to attack polls out of absolute ignorance is laughable.

no, i'm sorry, the numbers are not confirmed you dolt, if you care to read how the poll was skewed.

it reads, in part, 82% answered "yes" to question 2 about humans influencing climate change. it then reduces the sample size to 79 (admitted climate scientists) to get to the magic 97%.
further, it only polled researchers and scientists who are on the public ticket, universities and government funded, which in and of itself is skewed.

so a sample size of 79 is "proof" of the consensus? that is what you're hanging your hat on? there has been no wide polling of climate scientists about AGW, yet this "poll" is held up as the standard for calling anyone who doubts AGW as deniers.

you cannot make this shit up

[gwb72tii]

Irony fucking overload.

thank you for confirming my criticism

[rwh11385]

no, i'm sorry, the numbers are not confirmed you dolt, if you care to read how the poll was skewed.

it reads, in part, 82% answered "yes" to question 2 about humans influencing climate change. it then reduces the sample size to 79 (admitted climate scientists) to get to the magic 97%.

so a sample size of 79 is "proof" of the consensus? that is what you're hanging your hat on? there has been no wide polling of climate scientists about AGW, yet this "poll" is held up as the standard for calling anyone who doubts AGW as deniers.

you cannot make this shit up

No, you cannot make up how much of an imbecile you are.

The poll itself actually had 3146 respondents, with a subset of climatologists who are actively publishing on the subject at focus... if you care to be factual, which you usually don't. The overall view was 82% when including non-specialists.

I think you don't give basis for your statements because you have more "flexibility" in describing reality.

http://heartland.org/sites/default/files/05-02-12_bast_myth_of_the_98.pdf

generating responses from 3,146 people

Q2. “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean
global temperatures?”
Overall, 90 percent of respondents answered “risen” to question 1 and 82 percent answered
“yes” to question 2.

I know reading is a huge challenge for you but your own source confirmed exactly what I said about the poll's response sample.

Surveys make mention of the values within select demographic subsets all the time, and it's not "proof" of anything except that was the statistic of the responses collected within the subset, as explained in the publication. The fact that you are completely ignorant of statistics does not mean the metric was wrong. What media use as their headline or how people use the data point to justify anything is on the user, not necessarily the methods of the source - which very clearly gave the subset size in the publication.

As usual, you try to build a strawman by implying I said anything besides proving your statement was incorrect because you are clueless. But hey, maybe you could learn something, anything, about statistics before saying ignorant shit based on what a conservative think-tank prints, since Heartland also got paid by PhillipMorris to claim that their 'research' showed second-hand smoke didn't have negative health effects.

[gwb72tii]

good god you're obtuse

the poll question doesn't even ask what your side says the poll proves. it does not ask if climate change is caused by human activity, only if human activity has had an infuence.

that is far different than what you and others would have us skeptics believe.

[rwh11385]

good god you're obtuse

the poll question doesn't even ask what your side says the poll proves. it does not ask if climate change is caused by human activity, only if human activity has had an infuence.

that is far different than what you and others would have us skeptics believe.

How about you tell me more about what I think. (strawman)

And more insult to my care for facts and understanding of what is being criticized, so dull I know. Lying and misleading like you is so much more exciting - heck you get paid for that! So do think-tanks.

Explain to me how human activity has an influence but doesn't cause change.