-----Just want to learn languages, not engage in politics. Since I do believe in keeping what I wrote up, I will. -------
Climate Change, or what they aren’t telling.
"The “97 percent” statistic first appeared prominently in a 2009 study by University of Illinois master’s
student Kendall Zimmerman and her adviser, Peter Doran. Based on a two-question online survey, Zimmerman and Doran concluded that “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific bases of long-term climate processes” — even though only 5 percent of respondents, or about 160 scientists, were climate scientists. In fact, the “97 percent” statistic was drawn from an even smaller subset: the 79 respondents who were both self-reported climate scientists and had “published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.”
"Surely the most suspicious “97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and creator of the blog Skeptical Science (subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”). In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded. "
(I checked the validity of that site and it seems to have a right leaning bias, so educate me if it is wrong.)
“The greenhouse gas theory has unanswered questions. It comes with some baggage, namely a NECESSARY condition that there be a warmer region (a “hot spot”) about 10k above the tropics. Despite millions of radiosondes, that hot spot has never been found. Also, in any event, even if found (rather unlikely at this point) that is not SUFFICIENT. There must still be EVIDENCE.”
Please note that the temperature stopped increasing in 1998 according to satellite data (RSS and UAH).
The computer models all ASSUME that water vapor is the actual culprit, causing more warming than brought on by co2 increase. But nobody really knows whether water vapor feedback is positive or negative.
We do know that the difference between temperatures project by computer models and the actual subsequent measured temperatures continues to WIDEN.
We also know that the capability of co2 to influence warming dissipates quickly as its level increases."
Before I post this to hopefully get responses and learn more, either way, i want to point something out.
And why is it that leaders or famous people that advocate for global warming use so much?
Al Gore promoted carbon credits that his company would have administered. He stood to make billions on this scam. Of course he is upset. Famous people make millions off this and use pollute more than the regular person with MULTIPLE HOMES, PRIVATE PLANES, ETC
I also want to finish by saying climate change is real. The climate does change. The issue is global warming.