Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDoc
No, 7% supported..the other almost half didn't have a clue. And of course "now" we can look back and see it was wrong, we aren't in a ice age or anything.
|
71 total
7 predicted cooling = 9.86%
44 predicted warming = 61.97%
20 were neutral = 28.17%
I have no idea where you got the 7%, but either way, it's clear that the ones who predicted cooling were a small minority. Judging today's large majority of climate scientists by the views of a small minority some decades ago is stupid, plain and simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDoc
Exactly like today, other than today more money is paid to people and forced to publish whatever the 'payments' tell them.
|
Again, it's nothing like today. Today, the theory in question isn't one only supported by a small minority. Today, the theory at hand is one supported by a large majority of scientists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDoc
You missed the point... and again, it was going away, before "man" changed anything. And now, it's been proven as a cycle, and that the estimates given in the 90's were incorrect, it was not as big or bad as they "estimated."
And even more so... when it takes 15-20 years to even see the effects "rise" to the upper atmospheres. Being so mathematically it should still be going on then... and it isn't.
Come on... pull your head out of the dark cavern.
|
It has not been proven as merely a cycle. And, in fact, it was about 20 years ago that a start was made in reducing CFC output. Recovery was expected to start around 2010, and that estimate is turning out to be fairly accurate.
In case you feel like reading more:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/search/?keyword=ozone+layer
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDoc
"aid that they thought human activity" <-- lots of thinking..
"Approximately 5% of the respondents were climate scientists, and 8.5% of the respondents indicated that more than 50% of their peer-reviewed publications in the past 5 years have been on the subject of climate change."
Wow... all 5% and 8.5% published info on climate change (which nobody is arguing) but it doesn't say, 8.5% on man made climate change.
That's a "GREAT" bit of proof you just posted... So in reality, 3 were qualified to take the "poll."
And, more than enough links have been posted on this thread and others, that say it isn't man made.
|
Have you been drinking?
3146 respondents, all of whom were earth scientists. 79 of those 3146 both listed climate science as their area of specialization and published more than half of their papers on the topic of climate change.
I have no idea where you get the "3", but I am starting to suspect that your preferred method of doing math is smashing yourself in the head with a brick repeatedly, then randomly smashing your face into the numpad of your keyboard and seeing what shows up on your screen.
In fact, after your numerous wildly inaccurate statements ("cows produce more co2 than humans", "one volcano releases more co2 into the atmosphere in a day than humans do in a year", etc) I am now realizing that it's entirely pointless to discuss this with you. You have absolutely no idea whatsoever what you're talking about. It's as if you're just wildly quoting things you vaguely remember hearing on tv half a decade ago.
The sad thing, of course, is that that still puts you ahead of most of the other "skeptics" in this thread, most of whom more than likely failed high school science
