Accountability Now

Of that 83%, 10% of them think that its equally natural and equally human. In those cases, it would tend to show that the alarmist view on the sensitivity to carbon is half as much.

No kidding. A few more quesitons though.... 1. Does anyone else see post 428 where one MLW claimed "Go with most of the AMS membership that does no scientific research... of any kind!". I guess the 41% of the AMS comment would answer that. I guess not. 2. Does anyone else use the saying "by the by"? I've travelled to all parts of the US and Canada with exception of the maritimes (altough I very much want to) and I haven't ever heard anyone use that. When I look it up on Urban Dictionary is says that 'by the by" is a snooty way of saying "by the way" that should be used with extreme caution. Just checking to see if this saying has further reference to something else.

I certainly wouldn't go with vast vast Vast. You can go with vast IF and only IF the number is as high as 88% but again that number is derived from only the climate scientist in that particular field. If you look at all 231 climate scientists involved in this study, only 73% believe that humans are mostly responsible for the warming. They gain another 10% saying that humans have an equal portion to natural causes. So perhaps its really 83%. But if we are down to 62% then vast doesn't apply....its just a majority. My guess is that its somewhere in between which tells me that there is still a LOT of undecided votes out there which is reflected in the 20% in the final column. I think that most skeptics on this forum would agree that humans have some portion of the percentage of warming. The amount of that percentage may vary but I think the one thing that all skeptics agree on is that the idea of an absolute 97% number is ridiculous.

I know that other posters might want to believe that the AMS is full of weathermen and has no researchers but I think this statement from the survey should settle that. As the bolded part says, 41% of the people invovled in the survey are employed in research which they state is similar to the overall AMS demographic. I

So far we've circled around the studies that use Skeptical Science members to use their interpretation of abstracts. Personally, I could care less about abstracts or the number of papers. I would rather know what the scientists themselves think. As such I think this most recent survey by George Mason University and Yale University of the AMS shed some good insight on to the consensus. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1. As mentioned in the bulletin, this study is peer reviewed and available for publishing. There are many ways to manipulate the numbers. On the low end, if you take all respondents, only 52% believe global warming is mostly human caused. The highest number in this category alone was 78% by the published climate scientists. If you add up the first two rows in order to see the percentage of scientists that believe humans are playing a major role (50% or more) then the number for the total respondents jumps to 62% and on the high end its at 88%. The only time the 'consensus' gets into the 90s...is when you add in those who say there is Insufficient evidence but believe humans have caused SOME of the warming. This again comes from looking at a select category of scientists....not all. I think its fair to say that the 97% number is just wrong especially when you move past just climate scientists. At best the range is between 62% and 88%. I think the objective numbers of this study back that up.

Pedantry? You are the one getting all hopped up on a word. Talk about pedantry!! My point is very simple. I have shown three times where waldo has been outright dishonest in his approach. If you are ok with this then that's fine. I just choose not to engage dishonest posters. That is my only point.

Fair enough. Again...as I pointed out to bleeding heart, I'm referring to the people that we're taking part in the thread.

Do you want to maybe get my quote right before you call me out? Where do I say "everyone" as you quote it? Where? What I said was "I don't need to sell anyone on anything.....they're already sold." Where is everyone in that statement? Does 'they' automatically mean everyone? There are many people that know waldo's ways as KeepitSimple and TimG have pointed out? Perhaps these might be the they I'm referring to?

You were right the first time you told me and you are right now. I accepted that he deflected all the time and that his narcissistic ways force him to have the last word. I didn't mind that stuff but the outright lies are just too much and frankly a waste of my time.

I see you don't like extremes? Then I guess you'll have no problem asking waldo why he said "no one's buying it" when clearly in this thread we've had two other members call him out for his deception. With that being said, I don't care if you or anyone else thinks waldo is dishonest. I really don't care. It's my opinion based on the fact that he has lied three times in our recent conversations. Of course if you feel that is ok then go ahead and chat with him all you want.

I guess you missed my earlier posts about the range of studies showing the consensus being between 82-98% and the subsequent conversations on that? I guess you also missed my conversations with Squid about the pine beetle. I guess you also missed my conversations with waldo that led up to this point....that of course being where he showed yet again that he is willing to lie just to try and get some apparent edge. I have debated with waldo on a number of other threads and although I was aware of his deflection tactics, I never thought he would flat out lie. I have tried to move passed waldo and his lies with conversations with jbg but he persists to engage me although I will not. As a result I remind him. I honestly couldn't care less about what waldo says or if anyone on here believes him. I only care to have good honest debates...something he clearly can't do. As for the economic policies not needing this high of a consensus....it's because science is out to prove facts...not opinions. Policies (economic and political) are opinions of how to deal with something of which there may be more than one answer. If you want to call something a fact then it needs to be proven and have a high acceptance level.

I've engaged you numerous times on this board and each time I've shown you the door. I used to take pleasure in beating you in what I thought was a fair debate. Even though I have no problems with beating you, I do have a problem with engaging a dishonest poster....like yourself

Who said I agree with the 97%? What does waldo's dishonesty have to do with the 97%?

I won't engage you in debate but I also won't ignore you. Any attempt you make to address me will be replied to with a reminder of your dishonesty. As such, I suggest it's you that uses the ignore feature.

I will not engage someone in debate when they are as dishonest as you.

Lol. I'm talking about everyone being sold in waldo's dishonesty......not global warming. Glad to see you're keeping up with the conversation.

I have shown you three, direct examples of your utter lies in recent history. Add to this your countless attempts of deflection. The fact is that I don't need to sell anyone on anything.....they're already sold. Everything you say needs to be taken with extreme skepticism because of your constant dishonest approach. So....have fun talking to yourself. I'm sure you're used to it by now.

waldo....I have already told you that I will not engage you because you are a dishonest poster and I will not enter into any more debates with you. Like you said, you have an open canvas to have conversations with yourself all day long. Go for it.

It was the one that The Squid posted earlier talking about the the localized region of Chi;cotin area (Quesnel) http://www.pacificclimate.org/sites/default/files/publications/Werner.ClimateChangeCaribooChilcotin.Sep2008.pdf My original point was that temperatures couldn't of dropped off that much as global warming on average is about 1 degree. Squid showed me this paper which shows the minimums in that area have decreased over time. I backed that up by looking at historical data on Environment Canada and it showed that it hasn't hit -40C since 1991 (in that area). It had a -38 minimum in 1996 and -36 in 2012 but not -40....as such the 100% mortality rate isn't being achieved. However a a drop in the minimum of 4C can't be accounted solely by global warming when global warming is about 1 degree. That is where The Squid's paper outlines the effects of PDO and ENSO on temperatures and provides the summary of the strong impact of PDO and ENSO on these regional areas. Of course, if you don't like this study you can always look to the work of Dr. Roy Spencer (a UAH climate scientist who is drastically hated by the alarmists) and his work on the effect of the PDO and how it explains the recent warming over 100 years. This is a study published by Spencer showing the correlation between natural variations (PDO) and global warming. In it he shows that CO2 has an effect but that the PDO plays a more signifcant role. http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/ Cue the alarmist....

Yes...you are right. I found the exact quote from the study.

Maybe this is the Canadian Dream.....the ability to hear the ol' USA chants and to be able to silence them in one shot I do like the flag they use to cheer on Stauskas at the Michigan games. Have you seen it? Lovely Michigan colours....or is it colors if I'm talking about MIchigan?

Yes you are exactly right. Luongo's contract was the only impedment to trading him. He got along great with Schneider as he did with Maclennan in Florida. He's a classy team guy! I guess another poster must have been confused by this skit and made an erroneous assessment of Luongo. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ap8tlQ3oZ0

Engaging someone on a topic is furthering the discussion to further points. I am simply illustrating how you are a dishonest poster and explaining why I won't engage you any further.

I have outright told you a number of times that any response to me with be met with the reminder that I will not engage you because you are a dishonest poster. If you choose to not have this said then you just have to not respond to me.

I won't engage a dishonest poster.