Comment deleted by Site Moderator

they all have agenda's right? Funding. etc.

Could you provide data where it says 97% agree with this claptrap?

comment by Stretty - mr mourinho (U3123)
posted 31 seconds ago
they all have agenda's right? Funding. etc.

Could you provide data where it says 97% agree with this claptrap?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No... they don't all have an agenda, they could make a great deal more money working in, say, oil. And why don't you think the (few) scientists who support your theory don't have an agenda?

Anyway... let's get back to the archaeology question.... please explain how archaeologists provide you enough data to understand past climate change

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Stretty - mr mourinho (U3123)
posted 2 minutes ago

they all have agenda's right? Funding. etc.

Could you provide data where it says 97% agree with this claptrap?
=============

Funding? Most climate scientists could make far more money elsewhere. Funding isn't a motivation: https://skepticalscience.com/climate-scientists-in-it-for-the-money.htm

On the other hand, a lot of funding has gone into denying and deliberately sabotaging the public's understanding of the threats we are driving:

https://exxonknew.org/

As for 97%: https://skepticalscience.com/500-scientists-global-warming-consensus.htm

Give up. You don't know anything about this subject whatsoever.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by #4zA (U19575)
posted 2 minutes ago
Indiana Jones
----------------------------------------------------------------------


That is probably closer to stretty's way of finding facts than we'd care to imagine

comment by Dave NotSo (U11711)
posted 41 seconds ago
comment by Stretty - mr mourinho (U3123)
posted 7 minutes ago
they all have agenda's right? Funding. etc.

Could you provide data where it says 97% agree with this claptrap?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here you go:

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/#*
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nasa... phhh.

What do they know... we're not talking about moon weather ffs

No... they don't all have an agenda, they could make a great deal more money working in, say, oil. And why don't you think the (few) scientists who support your theory don't have an agenda
===================

Yeah financial gain isnt always a motivator is it

what do nasa know about it? they haven't been able to put a man on the moon for fifty years.

"Around 97% of climate experts agree that humans are causing global warming."

This statement does not appear in the above rebuttal article."

well well .

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Even the lowest consensus i could find, published by a guy working for an energy college, had it at 81%

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#21b546af1157

Now let's get back to the archaeologists.... stretty know he's been checkmated and is trying to move on

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - 2017 joy squids (U2958)
posted 5 minutes ago
Now let's get back to the archaeologists.... stretty know he's been checkmated and is trying to move on
----------------------------------------------------------------------

No I havent.

comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - 2017 joy squids (U2958)
posted 7 minutes ago
Even the lowest consensus i could find, published by a guy working for an energy college, had it at 81%

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#21b546af1157

----------------------------------------------------------------------

so not 97 then <rolf>

comment by Stretty - mr mourinho (U3123)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - 2017 joy squids (U2958)
posted 5 minutes ago
Now let's get back to the archaeologists.... stretty know he's been checkmated and is trying to move on
----------------------------------------------------------------------

No I havent.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
A complete inability to explain how archaeologists provide proof of climate change suggests otherwise.

Face it... it's game over.

Your entire opinion of natural climate change comes from scientists

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Stretty - mr mourinho (U3123)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - 2017 joy squids (U2958)
posted 7 minutes ago
Even the lowest consensus i could find, published by a guy working for an energy college, had it at 81%

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#21b546af1157

----------------------------------------------------------------------

so not 97 then <rolf>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
81% Is a consensus... and that is a clearly skewed article.

If you also believe the 97% figure is skewed... then we'll split the difference and call it 90%. A huge consensus.

Yet I still dont believe the 50%. 81% or 97% which number was it again?

comment by Stretty - mr mourinho (U3123)
posted 2 minutes ago
Yet I still dont believe the 50%. 81% or 97% which number was it again?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No article in the world states 50%... scientists aren't thick

Poor old stretty... checkmated again