>97% Of Climate Scientists Agree What did they mean by this?

That if you take 100 climate scientist, 97 of them agree with each other.

>>8947147
Not this, but this at the same time.

>>8947143
>Argumentum ad populum

>>8947143
They polled one scientist, and he was 97% sure.

jews bribed 97%

Science is a democracy, if the majority of scientists agree on something it becomes true. Like with gender being a spectrum that does not depend on your genes or homosexuals not being hyperpromiscuos STD carriers.

>>8947143
Someone made up a fake percentage in order to validate their claim.

>>8947147
/thread

Sage

>>8947143
That self-selecting dogmatists agree on points of dogma.

It's like asking priests if God exists.

>>8947143
97% of the 2% that gave an answer that could be twisted enough to be positive in favor of

>>8947143
97% of the 20% that are decided agree

Even if a majority of scientists agree on climate change, this isn't a proof that it exists.

That said, please use your old CFC driven refrigerators, because there is no anthropogenic ozone depletion (there are 3 1/2 scientists who didn't agree on CFC's destructing effect on the ozone layer, so clearly there aren't such things as CFCs). Fucking morons.

>>8948754
Validity of a proof doesn't depend on what anyone thinks. The evidence either supports a theory or it doesn't. There clearly isn't enough evidence of agw since most scientists that were asked didn't answer. Selection bias.

Kek at all you cucks actually believing that percentage, it's about as viable as that "1 of 5 women are raped" meme

>>8947228
wrong

>>8947880
>Implying IR-absorption in certain molecules isn´t documented

File: 5965084+_90fcd50d77d7c727d8dac42a54112494.jpg (127KB, 600x623px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 600x623px

>>8947143
>By the late 1800s, large cities all around the world were “drowning in horse manure". In order for these cities to function, they were dependent on thousands of horses for the transport of both people and goods....
>This problem came to a head when in 1894, The Times newspaper predicted... “In 50 years, every street in London will be buried under nine feet of manure.”
>This became known as the ‘Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894’.
>The terrible situation was debated in 1898 at the world’s first international urban planning conference in New York, but no solution could be found. It seemed urban civilisation was doomed.

People a 100 years ago were trying to save the world of 50 years in the future. They didn't even know what an atom was. Why should we spend 100 trillion dollars, based not on scientific fact, but a consensus, to try to save the people of 50-100 years in the future. Imagine how much they will laugh at all the dumbasses today pretending to be "saving the world".

>>8949709
Found the American

File: 1495014388283.jpg (37KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 640x480px

They meant they wanted to divide everyone on the issue by saying its people agreeing when it is actually 97% of peer reviewed research is consistent with human caused climate change. But american cucklets follow their retarded politicians and blogposters as their religious leaders and make up phrases like this to suit them.

who benefits from global warming being true?

>>8949719
/Thread

File: 4HgSpk3.jpg (230KB, 598x792px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 598x792px

>>8949717

>>8949732
Solar lobby

It's embarrassing how liberals are shilling for the least effective energy source.

>>8949732
Who benefits from convincing people that it is false?

>>8949736
It's embarrassing they are not shilling for the energy source that has zero carbon emissions, Nuclear.

>>8949752
Yeah cause there is never any radioactive problems with that.

>>8949755
Leaked radiation does not cause global warming dummy.

>>8949761
Did not say that it did, buddy. Pointed out one of the reasons why it isnt a perfect energy source.

>>8949776
No energy source is perfect but it sure as hell beats destroying the planet.

>>8949732

Carbon Taxes

>>8949732
"""Green""" energy sources (which either consume inordinate quantities of other resources to produce, or produce more GHGs in mining than they save while being dramatically less efficient than Coal, Oil, Nuclear)

Scientists who's jobs absolutely rely on the government finding new justifications for them to continue being around.

Interestingly enough people who want to continue destroying third world countries with yet more worthless """aid""" that hamstrings their ability to build an economy of their own.

The government, because it can justify more authoritarian policies and taxation to """""stop""""" climate change, which if AGW evangelists are to be believed should have caused at least two or three apocalypses by now if we didn't funnel billions of dollars into useless programs that haven't had any effect on global climate.

>>8947143
Lets be honest what can be done to stop climate change?

>There are retards that think stopping car emissions will stop climate change.

File: 1479951291359.png (54KB, 737x575px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 737x575px

>>8947143
I'm starting to think the oil lobby actually pays people to post on 4chan. How can these people lack basic common sense?

File: 1489103364401.jpg (9KB, 275x275px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 275x275px

8950045
>shitposting this hard
go home fuckboy
your Somali clown fart solar panels will not get those billions

>>8950057
Mods should just ban this bait. Yes, solar is only really more cost effective than fossil fuels in lower latitudes at the moment, but in about 5 years it will be cheaper than coal in most places before subsidies, and soon after that gas. It's not about the 'solar lobby' reason people are pulling out of their arses it makes basic economic sense. Hell even now in northern europe wind is the cheapest form of power before subsidies, if politicians choose coal plants even after knowing wind is cheaper they are simply in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry just the US has been for the past 50 years. Here in the UK almost all of the new power additions are wind, gas and nuclear, with gas additions being reduced in favour of renewables, coal has also fallen below 5% for the first time since the industrial revolution and is still falling on average.
>http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

The rest of the world is going to reap the rewards and the US will be forced to play catch up, which will hurt it economically in the long run.

The carbon bubble will pop eventually as new technologies mature, and the world will go full nuclear/renewable in time. The only difference between the US and the rest of the world at this point is that the US seems to be the only country which wants to maximise short term profits before it is too late, the only losers in this scenario is US citizens, the rest of the world will be better off by far when the bubble pops.

>>8949735
It's a statement, not an argument. Here's another statement: Go back to your board, /pol/ nigger.

>>8947189
Kek

>>8950131
>The rest of the world is going to reap the rewards
>The West's industry will be crippled paying to hold niggers on life support and the Chinese will laugh their asses off on the way to the bank
Fixed that for you

>>8949732
americans

>>8949732
People who own property several miles from the coast in florida.

>>8947143
It means appeals to expertise continue to be less effective than appeals to emotion or """"common sense"""".

File: DBKZ8x9XkAAbCz-.jpg (101KB, 1140x705px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1140x705px

He meant that he did a comprehensive literature survey and then removed 99% of the non-agreeing scientists. After he removed them 97% of the remainder agreed. Full analysis of his argument here, along with debunking, criticism, and ancillary analysis

>The Truth About Climate Change
>http://vixra.org/abs/1309.0069

>>8947143
"guys I need more funding"
>How do you feel on climate change
"Eh, not too serious"
>No!!!
"I mean I agree on it!"
>Good here is funding

>>8947143
It means that 97% of scientists are funded by government.

>>8950489
That entire paper is based on a false dichotomy where it claims that an abstract has to be either supporting or rejecting of a concept. The point is that not all papers cover the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming, it makes no sense to say that those papers support or reject the theory when those papers did not say anything about the subject nor attempt to. That's why the Cook et al study narrowed it down to abstracts that either support or reject the theory.