John Oliver is hilarious, but let's face it none of the conservatives are ever going to see that. I actually don't this is the best of his send-ups of conservative thinking, though.
I would have rated the program more highly if it had examined the 97% claim. There are several reports to choose from; it would have been interesting.
Paper 1: We had 3146 replies and 75 people said man's input was "significant". From which they claim 97%.
Paper 2. Out of over 12,000 abstracts, 65 abstracts say man is mainly to blame while 78 abstracts reject AGW. Therefore 97% of abstracts agree to what exactly?
To just assume that the 97% papers were true without any examination whatsoever is what the guillible do and is what we sceptics have come to expect of the warmists.
When you do look at the 97% papers and see how thin the claims are and then look at some of the scientists involved it makes you question their honesty and integrity.
This process seems to work well with some people - including politicians and presidents. Think how many answers you have seen quoting the 97% figure as if it were fact. In reality, all it shows is that you have not read the papers and that you think science is done by vote.
There is NO 97% consensus, so the whole thing is a lie from the outset. It shows that the media has to shill for the man-made Global Warming SCAM because the science is just not there. And why in the skit did they have the 97% dressed up like scientists but the 3% were not? The bogus claim is that BOTH sides are scientists, but he has the 3% represented NOT as scientists, but as kooky looking civilians.
I found it offensive because it was PURE PROPAGANDA and the uninformed see this stuff and think it's true. It's bogus nonsense and John Oliver is an un-funny foul-mouthed stooge and shill for this SCAM.
It also speaks volumes that Bill Nye (the 'science guy' and bow tie wearing child entertainer) is the best they can do to represent the Warmers.
SEE REAL CLIMATE SCIENTISTS AND WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY HERE:
Top climate scientists say there is no man-made Global Warming.
The Great Global Warming Swindle
To add to what graphic suggested:
Paper 1: We had 3146 replies and 75 people said man's input was "significant". From which they claim 97%.
I realize this will go over the heads of 97% of alarmists but if that many agreed that man's input was significant, that isn't suggesting that the climate change was significant and/or harmful.
I can only comment that ignorance in itself isn't that bad, but it becomes lethal when coupled up with arrogance.
RE:
What do you think of this video showing a "statistically representative" climate change debate, GW?
Conventional media is totally controlled by Bankster Corporations. Whatever political agenda Banksters want they use media to send vibrational, subliminal messages to its vast audience to manipulate people's mind as much as they possibly can. Easily controlled people get sucked it. People aware of the spin and able to think for themselves don't and are able to repel the messages that the Banksters want to feed everybody.
The video is question is doing exactly that. I turned it off maybe 6 times trying to get to the end but eventually got there. It is total rubbish. Not a piece of anything credible, just fully designed to get a message across that a pack of idiots squabbling to say YES to AGW is representative of AGW FACT. The subliminal message is AGW is fact when ZERO substance has been applied to achieve this. Vulnerable, unthinking, easy to manipulate people get sucked in and this type of video is one of the principle methods of sucking them in.
You have to realise Banksters have been practicing mind manipulation for centuries and are masters at it. They only need a majority opinion so they appeal to the dumbed down class as much as possible. Easiest way to avoid such rubbish for the non-dumbed down is to simply switch it off.
He who controls the dialogue controls the world. This is basically how the Banksters have operated for centuries. Don't be complicit with the dialogue but the AGW advocates are exactly that - complicit - change the dialogue is the ultimate solution. Bankster controlled Corporations controlling the media means the dialogue needs to be achieved in alternative media until such time as the Bankster corrupted system eventually implodes in on itself. This is a lot closer than vast majority think.
Prove that 97% of all scientists agree with the Global Warming theory, then ask the question again. I'm sure you can't. Ha! Ha! Just another lame claim by the greenies.
Hey idiots! People are creating more energy which equals more heat. The planet is fighting to "stay" warm anyways, so what the heck is your problem with a current warming of 0.87C (0.3%) in 350 years of industrialization? Catastrophic? Pfffffft! We still don't even have a clue on how many different species are on the planet, let alone what the effects of a 0.3% rise will have. A 2C rise (0.7%) will definitely not effect the planet as much as a 10C rise (3.47%), which has supposedly happened in the past and had absolutely no effect on the planet's climate's ability to sustain continued life (we know it has been this much higher and life continues)!
If anyone truly believes that humans are in anyway a "natural" bi-product (whether thru creationism or a "BIG BANG"), then ALL climate change is always "NATURAL".
" ... The claim that 97 percent of scientist believe that climate change is anthropogenic was derived quite interestingly.
One source frequently cited comes from Harvard science historian Naomi Oreskes, where she wrote and published an opinion essay in Science magazine in 2004.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Oreskes asserts she examined 928 article abstracts that were published in scientific journals from 1993 to 2003. She claims she found 75 percent support the idea that for the last 50 years climate change, or global warming, is due to the activity of humans.
Her examination excluded the opinion of prominent scientists who do not agree with the consensus, scientists like Sherwood Idso, John Christy, Patrick Michaels, and Richard Lindzen.
Furthermore, Nature, the international weekly journal of science, questions whether the decisions made by scientists are objective or subjective when it comes to climate change and other decision-making by its peers.
In addition, another cited source for the overwhelming scientific consensus of human activity being the cause of climate change comes from an article written by a student at the University of Illinois. For her thesis paper, Maggie Kendall Zimmerman and her master’s thesis adviser Peter Doran published the article “Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union,” where they did an online survey of selected scientists.
The survey contains only two questions. Zimmerman and Doran reported that when they asked the scientist whether global temperatures have risen and whether human beings are a significant factor contributing to the change in climate, the following sentence went into their article.
“97 percent of climate scientists agree”
The survey did not include physicists, meteorologists, astronomers, cosmologists, space scientists, or solar scientists, professionals who are most likely to be responsive of climate change due to natural causes. ... "
Total CRAP, except yes AGW is a comical farce.
There has been no real debate, and climate change proponents would not debate it even under the terms of 97 for and 3 against, they would be terrified that the 3 against would use real evidence and facts.
Crap, it's a very load mouthed idiot with limited intelligence talking nonsense.If filling up the room with like minded moronic zombies proves any point at all it's just that there are more stupid people in the world than first thought.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg
Any thoughts?
It shows that when arguing against skeptics, Bill Nye and others need all the backup they can get.
Yes, I would say that 97 against three is statistically representative.
closer to reality
