"Global Warming is rubbish"

[SheriffJoe]

Which of course is what you are doing.

But please, idiot, go on an show us how, exactly, 97% of climate scientists believe anything.

I can't wait to see the facts behind the idiotic claim.

PS: What is even funnier about you posting that is you pretending this claim hasn't been completely obliterated before.

You really are dumber than a box of rocks.

The is the modus operandi of the ignorant troll.

He really believes nobody notices.

face)(*^%

 

[akphidelt]

Notice how the smarter someone gets the more likely they are to agree with scientists? That's why you guys are part of the "General Public". No different than your economic beliefs. It's really embarrassing.

 

[Acebb]

Yes, you can copy and paste, that's a good start for you!

Hey idiot, I'm not the one pasting the same stupid and incorrect NASA link over & over.

Nice projection.

 

[SheriffJoe]

Good one! You would think people like Sheriff Joe and Russ are intelligent, lol. Dumb following the dumb.

What degree do you have again?

Oh right, can't say because...you don't have one!

Loser!@#0

 

[Acebb]

Notice how the smarter someone gets the more likely they are to agree with scientists? That's why you guys are part of the "General Public". No different than your economic beliefs. It's really embarrassing.

You're the one who does not understand what the words "97% of climate scientists" would mean.

You are not "smart" nor or are you educated.

You've also never had a real job and you're a terribly bad liar.

 

[akphidelt]

You're the one who does not understand what the words "97% of climate scientists" would mean.

You are not "smart" nor or are you educated.

You've also never had a real job and you're a terribly bad liar.

You've obviously never taken a statistics course. This reminds me of you not understanding what spending to GDP meant. What an epic conversation. Damn, you are dumb.

 

[akphidelt]

What degree do you have again?

Oh right, can't say because...you don't have one!

Loser!@#0

You are part of the big blue General Public bar. Notice how smart people don't think like you? This is no different than your economic beliefs, lol.

 

[Acebb]

We've already been through this. You were beaten to a pulp earlier? Must have dementia or something to come back for more.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

The fact that you think this represents "97% of climate scientists" speaks volumes.

So if we were to re-write this sentence to be accurate it would go from:

"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities"

To:

"157 self-identified climate scientists, 141 being from American Institutions, who responded to a singular Web-based survey in 2008, agreed that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities"

 

[Acebb]

You've obviously never taken a statistics course.

"97% of climate scientists" has 1 meaning.

And it has nothing to do with a "statistics course" (which I was doing when you were in diapers you dumb little kid)

 

[Acebb]

You've obviously never taken a statistics course. This reminds me of you not understanding what spending to GDP meant. What an epic conversation. Damn, you are dumb.

Notice that you are quite literally so dumb you do not know what the words "97% of climate scientists" means.

 

[Acebb]

By the way, it is beyond comical this scientific illiterate - consensus has nothing to do with science - actually claimed he was some sort of 'scientist'

I don't know any "scientists" who topped out with a bachelors degree.

You pathetic little liar.

 

[SheriffJoe]

You are part of the big blue General Public bar. Notice how smart people don't think like you? This is no different than your economic beliefs, lol.

That's right, while we provide the hard data, you're still stuck on bogus political "surveys" face)(*^%

The data doesn't lie, only climate frauds do.

Loser!@#0

 

[Acebb]

When you've been reduced to referencing what a % of the public believes you know there is no actual data on your side.

 

[akphidelt]

"97% of climate scientists" has 1 meaning.

And it has nothing to do with a "statistics course" (which I was doing when you were in diapers you dumb little kid)

Sure, it does. It's no different than Foxnews using a Rasmussen poll saying, "55% of people don't approve of Obama's job performance". Did they survey 317,000,000 people to come up with that number?

Of course not, it's called statistics. You guys are really dumb.

The fact you think 75 out of 77 climate scientists who produce over 50% of their published papers on climate change agree with global warming isn't significant is absolutely hilarious. Did you guys go to some special conservative schools that teach you how to be retards?

 

[akphidelt]

When you've been reduced to referencing what a % of the public believes you know there is no actual data on your side.

I'm not a climatologist. I do not know how to prove or disprove of their findings. That's why smart people listen to smart people, and dumb people think like you.

 

[Acebb]

Sure, it does. It's no different than Foxnews using a Rasmussen poll saying, "55% of people don't approve of Obama's job performance". Did they survey 317,000,000 people to come up with that number?

Of course not, it's called statistics. You guys are really dumb.

The fact you think 75 out of 77 climate scientists who produce over 50% of their published papers on climate change agree with global warming isn't significant is absolutely hilarious. Did you guys go to some special conservative schools that teach you how to be retards?

Uh, here is the problem, NASA isn't saying they derived that number from a poll. Further, when polls are conducted they are explained with # of respondents and such. NASA is merely providing a footnote they are hoping nobody reads.

Your contention about 75 out of 77 climate scientists is so comically stupid and has nothing to do with reality.

Of course you don't know anything about "statistics" or the number of respondents to the meaningless survey you cited.

 

[Acebb]

I'm not a climatologist. I do not know how to prove or disprove of their findings. That's why smart people listen to smart people, and dumb people think like you.

You're not a "scientist"

The best way to prove or disprove what they're saying would be kind of known to an actual scientist.

 

[akphidelt]

Uh, here is the problem, NASA isn't saying they derived that number from a poll. Further, when polls are conducted they are explained with # of respondents and such. NASA is merely providing a footnote they are hoping nobody reads.

Your contention about 75 out of 77 climate scientists is so comically stupid and has nothing to do with reality.

Of course you don't know anything about "statistics" or the number of respondents to the meaningless survey you cited.

Not stupid at all. Just basic statistics..

Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question
and 97.4% (75 of 77)

All the data you need to know is here. Not sure what you are still complaining about, lol.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

 

[SheriffJoe]

You've obviously never taken a statistics course. This reminds me of you not understanding what spending to GDP meant. What an epic conversation. Damn, you are dumb.

75 "scientists" and the ignorant troll is now lecturing us about "statistics"

SEVENTY FIVE! :missingte

"You've obviously never taken a statistics course"

Are we projecting again, fratclown?

face)(*^%

 

[Acebb]

I'm not a climatologist. I do not know how to prove or disprove of their findings. That's why smart people listen to smart people, and dumb people think like you.

Since you don't know anything about science, the scientific method, nor ever bothered to read the details about the survey you cited, we can mark you down as dumb.