DELINGPOLE: ‘Global Warming’ Is a Myth, Say 58 Scientific Papers in 2017

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Come on people, those "wolves in sheeps clothing" that started the crusades (and the inquisition) were nothing but terrorists themselves, trying to enforce their beliefs on others through acts of terror and violence. All the crusades ever did was cause a billion muslims to hate Christians........

And muslims and Jews once got along just fine, the muslims even came over on the Sabbath to cook for the Jews. That ended when Britain withdrew its control of Israel (When it was Britian's territory) and coerced the muslims into attacking them.

Of course it didn't help that Britian wouldn't let the Israelites arm themselves until the withdraw was complete, yet Israel whooped the Arab nations in 3 days anyway when they attacked.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Heissonear

Geochemist and Stratigrapher
Supporter
Dec 21, 2011
4,962
982
Lake Conroe
✟156,642.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
How do we know that those scientists weren't bribed by the oil companies to write that stuff?

As the guy who fired me for asking for a small raise said:
"People do weird things when money is involved!"
Rad, be an Earth Scientist and go by evidence and proof by experimentation. No following the crowd, predictions, .............

We look at Mother Earth and need proof before acceptance.

Understanding the "Paris Accord result/effect to future climate" would be best done through one's independent inspection ........................
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,390
11,318
✟433,509.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I agree that there are people posting on CF , I would say many not just a few, who think their emotionally or ideologically arrived at conclusions come first and evidence then should be found to reinforce those conclusions while facts that do not align with those conclusions are simply to be ignored. I have even seen this from people claiming to believe in science and logic. This is not contained to the subject of climate change and has not only been present on one side of an argument.

The 97% claim seems to be considered somewhat untrustworthy by many people. If you can substantiate that claim then doing so would carry much more weight than hand waving away the skepticism. There have been accusations of cherry picking of data both in coming to the figure of 97% and in other areas. Proving the 97% was a legitimate figure would be a nice touch. I would like to see where that figure came from and how it was arrived at. I have a completely open mind on the subject as I have seen no evidence to either prove or disprove exactly what and is happening to the climate and why it is happening. There is plenty evidence to accept climate change as occurring but the why seems to me to be less certain and the predictive accuracy of the models used seems to be quite faulty as most, if not all, of the short term predictions have failed to be correct. That being the case, it would be seriously illogical to trust the long term ones.

The 97% consensus on global warming

It seems there have been several studies done to determine just how much consensus there is amongst climate scientists. Depending upon which study you're referring to...it could be as low as 93% of climate scientists agreeing that man made climate change is happening. The 97% figure however, seems to be the most common result from these studies. In my opinion, whether we're talking about 93% or 97%...it's a rather overwhelming majority that agree on what is happening.
 
Upvote 0

Gene2memE

Newbie
Oct 22, 2013
4,094
6,290
✟272,415.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
“Global warming” is a myth — so say 80 graphs from 58 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in 2017.

In other words, the so-called “Consensus” on global warming is a massive lie. And Donald Trump was quite right to quit the Paris agreement which pretended that the massive lie was true.

DELINGPOLE: 'Global Warming' Is a Myth, Say 58 Scientific Papers in 2017 - Breitbart

Aaaannnnnd, punctured and debunked by Snopes, climatefeedback.org and others.

I especially like this part from Snopes:

What all these papers argue in their different ways is that the alarmist version of global warming — aka Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) — is a fake artefact.​

This is false. We reached out to many of the authors of the studies included on this list via email to see if they agreed with Breitbart and No Tricks Zone’s analysis. While not everyone we reached out to responded, not a single researcher that we spoke to agreed with Breitbart’s assessment, and most were shocked when we told them that their work was presented as evidence for that claim.

A representative response came from Paul Mayewski, author of one of the studies included on the No Tricks Zone list and director of the University of Maine’s Climate Change Institute:

They are absolutely incorrect!!!! Quite the opposite, the paper deals with the impacts of greenhouse gas warming and Antarctic ozone depletion — both human caused — and describes future scenarios. Yet another example of downright lies.

Looking at what some of the other authors of these studies have said about this:

...my paper has nothing to do with global warming or human activities

This article has misunderstood my findings and in no way supports my view on climate change.

The blog post maliciously tampered with figures from my paper,

The data were taken out of context

It’s sad that the blogger did not understand what this study is about, but rather took a sentence without context.

I do not argue that “global warming… is a fake artefact [sic]”. The overwhelming scientific evidence is that the climate is currently changing and that human influences.

The blog post and Breitbart article are both misleading and inaccurate, on several levels.

[I would like the author of the No Tricks Zone post to] remove my name from the blog since it is not reflecting our research conclusion.

The caption for this figure clearly states that the data shown have been detrended using a simple linear function in order to highlight the high-frequency (sub-centennial) mean annual sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies. This means we have statistically removed the long-term trend, i.e., the 20th century warming

The Breitbart article uses a classic and flawed argument with respect to my paper, namely that “since it was warmer before (cherry-picking Norway in the mid-Holocene, around 6000 years ago), the warming we’re seeing now must be a natural phenomenon”. To infer that humans can’t be behind recent climate warming because climate changed before humans is flawed reasoning.

The article on Breibart.com is so bad that the author did not even realize that the figure extracted from my paper is not my new data record

The Breitbart article, and the source it draws from, do not accurately reflect the subject matter or conclusions of our peer-reviewed, published research.
Essentially, Delingpole has grossly mis-interpreted the graphs he cherry picked. Of the 59 papers represented, so far 37 authors have come out and said so. Presumably, Delingpole's credibility is already so low, the others couldn't be bothered.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gene Parmesan

Well-Known Member
Apr 4, 2017
695
547
Earth
✟36,853.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I think @777Sloan should update the original post in light of all the evidence that his source article is blatantly dishonest. At the very least it would be admirable to admit that many of the authors the article cherry-picked from dispute the content of the article.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Look people, no one is arguing that 97.1% of 32.6% of scientists came to a consensus. So we all agree that 31.6% of all scientist believe in manmade global warming.

But some would have you believe that in a poll, those that express no opinion aren't counted, yet in every poll on any other subject the yeas, nays and no opinions are all counted. So that if 100 people are polled and 30 answer yes, 7 no, and 63 no comment, the 30 never equals 97%. Those that believe it does are deluding themselves.

The only problem with the belief of manmade global warming is that it's happened every 125,000 years without man doing anything before and will continue to rise and fall every 125,000 years without man doing anything. Only thing man has done is prolonged the warm spell before the drop into the next ice age, so you should be thankful for greenhouse gasses or you would be wearing your long johns in the middle of summer instead of your shorts.

But in 15 to 20 years you better have those long johns handy.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

grasping the after wind

That's grasping after the wind
Jan 18, 2010
19,458
6,354
Clarence Center NY USA
✟237,637.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The 97% consensus on global warming

It seems there have been several studies done to determine just how much consensus there is amongst climate scientists. Depending upon which study you're referring to...it could be as low as 93% of climate scientists agreeing that man made climate change is happening. The 97% figure however, seems to be the most common result from these studies. In my opinion, whether we're talking about 93% or 97%...it's a rather overwhelming majority that agree on what is happening.

Let me reiterate what has already been pointed out by others. If 30 people out of 100 say they agree with something , 3 people say they disagree and 67 decline to commit themselves either way. that does not mean 97% agree.
 
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟83,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Look people, no one is arguing that 97.1% of 32.6% of scientists came to a consensus. So we all agree that 31.6% of all scientist believe in manmade global warming.
That is far from factual.

The consensus study is about what the published peer reviewed science says that addresses AGW and finds in their research. It has nothing to do with how many scientists say or agree about anything. It is not about opinion. It is about what the actual professionals in that area of expertise have found in their research and demonstrate in the mainstream peer review scientific journals.
 
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟83,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Let me reiterate what has already been pointed out by others. If 30 people out of 100 say they agree with something , 3 people say they disagree and 67 decline to commit themselves either way. that does not mean 97% agree.
I disagree, that is not what the Cook et al, 2013 paper (97% consensus) says. Here is the abstract from that paper.

"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research."​

The BOLD emphasis in the abstract is mine. I emphasize this because suggesting that 66% declined to commit themselves is not an accurate evaluation. Those papers are the part of the search (of all scientific literature) in which the phrases "global climate change' or 'global warming"are found. They were excluded because their research was not about AGW, thus they expressed no position. Expressing no position is not declining to express a position, unless they state specifically so.

And here is a link to the full paper which I encourage you to review. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience
 
Upvote 0

grasping the after wind

That's grasping after the wind
Jan 18, 2010
19,458
6,354
Clarence Center NY USA
✟237,637.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I disagree, that is not what the Cook et al, 2013 paper (97% consensus) says. Here is the abstract from that paper.

"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research."​

The BOLD emphasis in the abstract is mine. I emphasize this because suggesting that 66% declined to commit themselves is not an accurate evaluation. Those papers are the part of the search (of all scientific literature) in which the phrases "global climate change' or 'global warming"are found. They were excluded because their research was not about AGW, thus they expressed no position. Expressing no position is not declining to express a position, unless they state specifically so.

And here is a link to the full paper which I encourage you to review. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

There is absolutely no reasonable excuse for using the statement "97% of scientist agree" or "97 % of climate scientists agree" when there is no positive evidence that 97% of scientists agree . To quote you.
The consensus study is about what the published peer reviewed science says that addresses AGW and finds in their research. It has nothing to do with how many scientists say or agree about anything.

97% of self rated papers expressing a position on AGW studies may well agree, I will accept that as given but that is not the statement that i am disputing. That factual statement about 97% agreement in self rated papers expressing a position on AGW , for some reason is not enough for the climate change zealots and they require a less accurate substitute that sounds more all inclusive. Perhaps they have some need to be backed up by a super majority IDK but I find the deceptiveness off putting and it makes me question what other deceptions might they be engaging in . Why it should matter how many scientists agree about something seems ridiculous to me. The number of scientists that recognize a fact is irrelevant to its nature as a fact.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
That is far from factual.

The consensus study is about what the published peer reviewed science says that addresses AGW and finds in their research. It has nothing to do with how many scientists say or agree about anything. It is not about opinion. It is about what the actual professionals in that area of expertise have found in their research and demonstrate in the mainstream peer review scientific journals.
Whatever you need to tell yourself at night......

And we agree that 31.6% of the professionals arrived at a consensus in manmade global warming. As I said, no one is arguing this fact.

But then I am not the one trying to convince everyone otherwise, even if the very ones writing these scientific papers were polled and only 97.1% of the 32.6% agreed in manmade global warming. That the papers are then reviewed by this small majority 31.6% doesn't mean all that much either.

But believing in manmade global warming means ignoring ice core data, but that's nothing new, ignoring data that conflicts with people's views is billion dollar buisiness as usual.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
I disagree, that is not what the Cook et al, 2013 paper (97% consensus) says. Here is the abstract from that paper.

"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research."​

The BOLD emphasis in the abstract is mine. I emphasize this because suggesting that 66% declined to commit themselves is not an accurate evaluation. Those papers are the part of the search (of all scientific literature) in which the phrases "global climate change' or 'global warming"are found. They were excluded because their research was not about AGW, thus they expressed no position. Expressing no position is not declining to express a position, unless they state specifically so.

And here is a link to the full paper which I encourage you to review. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

Let me quote the relevant part.

"32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

So of the 32.6% that expressed an opinion, only 31.6% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

Also note that those that expressed no opinion was not because they did not write about global warming, but that they simply expressed no opinion as to whether or not man caused it. They were included in the survey specifically because their research was about AGW. Not as they try to make it out as not about AGW. Had their papers had nothing to do with AGW they would never have been included in the survey.

"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011"

So of the 11944 abstracts in the scientific literature on global warming, 66.4% expressed no opinion as to whether or not man caused it, not as they try to imply said nothing about global warming.

Deceit and misdirection is all they have.


 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
So the real question is, if we also include all the scientific literature on global warming, not just a one sided cooked data set search of papers on anthropogenic causes...
(chiefly of environmental pollution and pollutants) originating in human activity.
"anthropogenic emissions of sulfur dioxide"

....what the true results would be of an all inclusive search of even non-anthropogenic causes as well?

Cooked data sets to begin with give skewed results, since not all papers on global warming were written about possible man made causes but natural causes as well. So not only do they misportray and try to pretend the 66.4% didn't write about anthropogenic global warming, but excluded from the start all the scientific literature that wrote about non-anthropogenic causes as well. Cooked the data from the start.

I expect a true search of all the literature would have reduced the consensus from 31.6% to 15% or so.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Motherofkittens

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2017
455
428
iowa
✟50,967.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
So the real question is, if we also include all the scientific literature on global warming, not just a one sided cooked data set search of papers on anthropogenic causes...
(chiefly of environmental pollution and pollutants) originating in human activity.
"anthropogenic emissions of sulfur dioxide"

....what the true results would be of an all inclusive search of even non-anthropogenic causes as well?

Cooked data sets to begin with give skewed results, since not all papers on global warming were written about possible man made causes but natural causes as well. So not only do they misportray and try to pretend the 66.4% didn't write about anthropogenic global warming, but excluded from the start all the scientific literature that wrote about non-anthropogenic causes as well. Cooked the data from the start.

I expect a true search of all the literature would have reduced the consensus from 31.6% to 15% or so.
You're wrong rickg explained it well. But it doesn't matter what scientists think, what matters is the evidence and the evidence say climate change is real.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: RickG
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟83,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
There is absolutely no reasonable excuse for using the statement "97% of scientist agree" or "97 % of climate scientists agree" when there is no positive evidence that 97% of scientists agree . To quote you.
I made no such statement. What I said that 97% of the published peer review science (papers) that address AGW and have an opinion confirm AGW. It is what the research shows, not individual scientists opinions.


97% of self rated papers expressing a position on AGW studies may well agree, I will accept that as given but that is not the statement that i am disputing. That factual statement about 97% agreement in self rated papers expressing a position on AGW , for some reason is not enough for the climate change zealots and they require a less accurate substitute that sounds more all inclusive.
May I ask why you refer to those professional climatologists (world-wide) who do the research, and publish their findings in the top peer review scientific journals in the world as 'zealots'?

Perhaps they have some need to be backed up by a super majority IDK but I find the deceptiveness off putting and it makes me question what other deceptions might they be engaging in.
How is demonstrating that there is a huge consensus that AGW is real and a problem through the actual science being deceptive?

Why it should matter how many scientists agree about something seems ridiculous to me. The number of scientists that recognize a fact is irrelevant to its nature as a fact.
Again, it is not about how many scientists, it is about what the actual scientific research shows, and whether there is a consensus about it or not.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RickG

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟83,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
And we agree that 31.6% of the professionals arrived at a consensus in manmade global warming. As I said, no one is arguing this fact.
No, we do not agree, that is stated out of context.

But then I am not the one trying to convince everyone otherwise, even if the very ones writing these scientific papers were polled and only 97.1% of the 32.6% agreed in manmade global warming. That the papers are then reviewed by this small majority 31.6% doesn't mean all that much either.
Again out of context. Of those matching the search criteria, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Thus, 66.4% had no position. The 66.4% papers cannot be included because they do no address the issue.

But believing in manmade global warming means ignoring ice core data, but that's nothing new, ignoring data that conflicts with people's views is billion dollar buisiness as usual.
Nothing is being ignored. In fact, it is the ice core data that supports AGW because the excess of CO2, 280 ppmv to 409 ppmv, is shown to be that from fossil fuels by comparison of stable carbon isotope ratios, which differ from those in the natural carbon cycle in ice cores.
 
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟83,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Let me quote the relevant part.

"32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

So of the 32.6% that expressed an opinion, only 31.6% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

Also note that those that expressed no opinion was not because they did not write about global warming, but that they simply expressed no opinion as to whether or not man caused it. They were included in the survey specifically because their research was about AGW. Not as they try to make it out as not about AGW. Had their papers had nothing to do with AGW they would never have been included in the survey.

"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011"

So of the 11944 abstracts in the scientific literature on global warming, 66.4% expressed no opinion as to whether or not man caused it, not as they try to imply said nothing about global warming.

Deceit and misdirection is all they have.

Why are you counting the 66.4% that did not address AGW? Only 33.6% of the papers addressed AGW, thus, the 33.6% becomes 100%, because they are the only papers that address the issue. Of that 100% that address AGW, 97.1% of them endorsed AGW.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
You're wrong rickg explained it well. But it doesn't matter what scientists think, what matters is the evidence and the evidence say climate change is real.
Climate change is real, but the evidence says it started warming Less than 25,000 years ago and happens every 125,000 years and man has nothing to do with it. But you all keep ignoring the evidence.

IMG_0018.PNG

The evidence shows the mideval warm period was warmer than it is today. But you all keep ignoring the evidence.

IMG_0028.JPG

The evidence says they are playing with the data to support their fake agenda. But you keep ignoring the evidence.

IMG_0020.GIF


Oh we certainly do agree that someone is ignoring the evidence, it's only too bad the evidence shows it happens every 125,000 years, was warmer before man started emitting Co2, and they are adjusting past data to make their claims look more convincing.

How many times must I say it, I have never once objected to climate change, it happens every 125,000 years like clockwork, just to political agendas of manmade global warming which the evidence does not support.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,390
11,318
✟433,509.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Let me reiterate what has already been pointed out by others. If 30 people out of 100 say they agree with something , 3 people say they disagree and 67 decline to commit themselves either way. that does not mean 97% agree.

I don't know what that has to do with the link I provided.

If your argument is about the numbers that RickG quoted...I think you're considering the wrong thing. Not every climate scientist studies global warming or climate change. Out of those who do (the one's who have an opinion on the matter) it would appear that 97% are in agreement. That's not something to dismiss lightly.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

HitchSlap

PROUDLY PRIMATE
Aug 6, 2012
14,723
5,468
✟281,096.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
“Global warming” is a myth — so say 80 graphs from 58 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in 2017.

In other words, the so-called “Consensus” on global warming is a massive lie. And Donald Trump was quite right to quit the Paris agreement which pretended that the massive lie was true.

DELINGPOLE: 'Global Warming' Is a Myth, Say 58 Scientific Papers in 2017 - Breitbart
Science (facts) is not decided by consensus. Either our average global temperature is increasing at an unprecedented rate, or it isn't.
 
Upvote 0