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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
~TheDoc - ICQ7765825
Comment