2 hours ago, LHookins said:

don't think you made the number up yourself

 

Of course not. The entire reply was obviously AI generated. I don't think anybody would be nieve enough to regard the percentage as utterly precise. Its obviously an estimate. The point is that the concensus is huge. Don't let anybody tell you it isn't. Look at the nature of those that deny it, their political leanings, who funds them.  A multitude of scientific bodies support the concensus. You latched onto an obvious estimate and ignored the definitive points, like the isotopic signature.

I gave you much more than this via PM, incuding right back to the 1800s, demonstrating this is not a modern conspiracy. I can give you a multitude of CO2 graphs etc. There comes a point where so much data is impossible to ignore. Deniers then tell science based believers they refuse to change their mind BUT do exactly the same themselves. We moved way beyond, "its all a big conspiracy" long ago... some are still lagging behind and ignoring who backs the most vocal deniers, and engage in psychological projection. We have seen obvious, blatant examples of that in this very thread.

Im trying to encourage PM debates on this rather than in the forum, as you and I did yesterday. If we don't, this thread will once again be locked and we will all get told off.

So can I once again request we stick to PM debates on this.

Edited July 13, 2025Jul 13 by martin-w

2 hours ago, LHookins said:

"There were between 1000 and 1500 individuals remaining."

"So, 1275?"

"Um... that sounds too specific."

"OK, how about 1280?  Is that better?"

Hook

 

I've no idea what your point is

2 hours ago, LHookins said:

PS.  "Nine out of ten dentists recommend Ipana toothpaste.  'Tastes good, too!'"

 

2 hours ago, LHookins said:

"Come to bed, Dear.  It's getting late."

"I CAN'T!  Someone on the Internet is wrong!!"

(Caption on a comic)

Hook

 

Now you are being rude. Its no more an obsession for me than the person/people that insist on instigating these debates, with the same claims.

Im done. 

6 minutes ago, martin-w said:

Im done.

 

7 hours ago, martin-w said:

Overwhelming Agreement: There is an overwhelming consensus among actively publishing climate scientists (over 99.9% of peer-reviewed studies) that human activities are the primary cause of the observed global warming.

The "97% consensus", or this latest ridiculous "99.9%" number that you copied and pasted, have been debunked multiple times over the years.

You do the same thing the so-called "experts" on this issue do, that is, you cherry-pick data and facts to support your claims, excluding anything that contradicts or doesn't support your theory.  Anyone who disagrees is labeled by you as a "denier", or you malign them by calling into question their motives, a classic tactic when you can't effectively refute their argument with actual facts.

What you copied and pasted doesn't answer my question: have any of the catastrophic predictions regarding your theory come to pass?  Any objective observer would conclude that they have not.  You can continue to play the game where you fail to actually answer the question using diversion tactics and questioning motives or funding sources, but this just further damages your credibility on the subject. 

None of the predicted catastrophes, e.g. mass crop failures, disappearing ice caps, sea levels rising dozens of feet and inundating coastal areas, extinction of polar bears, increased extreme weather, collapse of the Atlantic Gulf Stream resulting in freezing temps in Europe, etc. etc. have been realized, and many so-called experts said all this would happen within the next 10-20 years back in the late 90s and early 2000s.

I'm not going to continue this debate with you or anyone else.  The only reason I'm responding here is to call you out on your unscrupulous tactics.

This will be my last post here.

Dave

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

The "97% consensus", or this latest ridiculous "99.9%" number that you copied and pasted, have been debunked multiple times over the years.

 

 

Debunked by whom? Show us so we can check their claims, credentials, political motivation, their source of funding.

 

"Yes, the 97% climate change consensus is generally considered accurate and reflects a strong agreement among climate scientists that humans are the primary cause of global warming. While the specific number can vary slightly depending on the study and methodology, multiple independent studies have consistently shown that a very high percentage of climate scientists agree on the human influence on climate change. "

Edited July 13, 2025Jul 13 by martin-w

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

You do the same thing the so-called "experts" on this issue do, that is, you cherry-pick data and facts to support your claims,

 

No Dave, you are projecting again. What you say is precisely what the deniers do. Deniers will do things like connecting peaks on graphs to troughs and claiming we are cooling. I can give you a vast number of examples of mischaracterization, misquoting and falsehoods. Climatologists don't cherry pick. Do you see how you are psychologically projecting. There was a perfect example earlier that both Noel and me were amused by.

 

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

Anyone who disagrees is labeled by you as a "denier"

 

Wrong! Only those that ignore scientific fact like isotopic signatures and research going back to the 1800s. And those that mischacterize, misrepresent etc.

 

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

have any of the catastrophic predictions regarding your theory come to pass? 

 

You would have to be specific. Both you and Hook talked about catastrophe within 10 years, when no climatologist has said that. If you want predictions then Arrhenius did a great job back in the 1800s.

Here's some more... a more detailed breakdown is available.

"Climate predictions made in the past have, in general, proven to be accurate, particularly those related to global temperature increases and the melting of Arctic ice. For example, a 1990 IPCC report accurately predicted a global warming of about 1.1 degrees Celsius between 1990 and 2030, and observations show the world has warmed by approximately 0.39 degrees Celsius by 2010. Similarly, Mikhail Budyko's 1972 prediction of a 1°C increase in global mean temperature and a 50% decrease in Arctic multiyear ice by 2019 aligned with observed data. "

 

• "Accuracy of Predictions:

  While there has been some debate about the accuracy of the IPCC's predictions, particularly regarding the rate of warming, the overall warming trend observed since the 1990s aligns with the general projections of the IPCC and other models. "

 

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

so-called experts said all this would happen within the next 10-20 years

 

Not that I recall. They media may have vastly exaggerated but I know of no climatologist that said such a thing would happen within 10 years.

 

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

The only reason I'm responding here is to call you out on your unscrupulous tactics.

 

🤣 Projecting again. Accurately describing yourself. Nice one. 👍

 

Edited July 13, 2025Jul 13 by martin-w

How this feels:

 

Hook

Edited July 13, 2025Jul 13 by LHookins

It /is/ possible to turn the other cheek though.  I mean response isn't necessary, sometimes it's better to just not respond.