Difference between revisions of "Studies"
(Created page with "<includeonly><h5><small>'''Studies''' : <DPL> category= Studies suppresserrors=true order = ascending ordermethod = title format=,%TITLE% • ,...") |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<includeonly><h5><small>'''[[Studies]]''' : <DPL> | <includeonly><h5><small>'''[[Studies]]''' : <DPL> | ||
− | category= | + | category= Study |
suppresserrors=true | suppresserrors=true | ||
order = ascending | order = ascending | ||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
== Studies == | == Studies == | ||
{{ T0 |<DPL> | {{ T0 |<DPL> | ||
− | category= | + | category= Study |
notnamespace=Template | notnamespace=Template | ||
order=ascending | order=ascending |
Latest revision as of 14:59, 2 February 2019
This is a list of various studies that I've found interesting... usually used for proving or at least supporting a point that I'm making on the site.
Studies
To get the basics, we should memorize the FBI Study on Mass Shooters and what it showed:
Now there was a spike after Obama got elected. Many believe the reason is because the Democrats, President and the media (all of the same political leanings) started sensationalizing these events as much as possible, as an excuse to get gun control. Whether that was the cause or just a contributor, these thing come in waves, and those waves tend to increase under Democrats. But these events are still extremely rare. A bad year of mass murder is still much better than a good month in Chicago (when it comes to death count), and Chicago (478 deaths), is safer in per capita murder rates than quite a few other Democrat controlled cities like St. Louis (188 deaths), Baltimore (344 deaths), Detroit (295), New Orleans (164), Oakland (85). (All 2015 numbers). Among risks, victim of mass murder is barely a blip. Kids are:
The American Meteorological Society (AMS) has looked at Climate Change positions amongst its 13,000 members, 4 times, this is what they concluded:
APEGGA 2008 did a survey of their members and discovered that only 25.7% felt that Climate Change is primarily caused by human factors. So they did a follow up in 2012 and found that only 36% agreed with the IPCC claims on climate change, and 51% think there's little or no danger from anthropogenic causes. More of a consensus against the IPCC than for it. more...
These two studies in 2003 and 1996 mapped how many (and how strongly) scientists agreed/disagreed with the Global Warming consensus, and it was a nice even bell curve, completely showing there was a spectrum of views, and refuting the idea that there was a blanket consensus. more...
These were all filtered polls with lousy methodology. None of them would hold up on their own, but the disingenuous will group them to make it look like there's more evidence than there is.
George Mason University did the largest study of Climatologists in 2007 and found that while 84% thought Global Warming existed, only 73% thought there was proof, and "existed" is a far lower standard than the IPCC's "man caused 90% of Global Warming". The 2010 follow-up they found that "56% find IPCC untrustworthy”, "63% believe global warming is caused mostly by natural causes, and only 31% believe humans are primarily responsible”, Only 24% "see any evidence of climate change in their local weather patterns", and "61% say there is a lot of disagreement among scientists about whether or not global warming is happening”. All blowing up the idea that there's consensus, or agreement with the IPCC. more...
2007 Harris American Meteorological and Geophysical Scientists Poll found that only 52% felt that the warming that was happening was "human-induced”. more...
2012 Lefsrud & Meyer did a study of studies to conclude 36% have a "strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause." (agree with IPCC), yet 64% fall into one of the 4 categories that are skeptical of alarmist global warming claims. And that the explicit endorsements in AGW theory has declined from 1993-2008. more...
PopularTechnology.net did a collection 1,350+ Peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic arguments against AGW alarmism. This means the Consensus side needs to show a list of 45,000 papers that support AGW, to achieve their 97% claims, or we can agree that the claims of 97% are greatly overstated. more...
Physicist Frederick Seitz was President of the US National Academy of Sciences and of Rockefeller University (winner of National Medal of Science, the Compton Award, the Franklin Medal, and numerous other awards, including honorary doctorates from 32 Universities around the world) and well know Global Warming Skeptic. He created the Global Warming Petition Project in 1997, and ran until 2008, allowing prominent Scientists to sign that they disagreed with Kyoto/UN on CO2 and Global Warming Alarmism. 31,487 American scientists (9,029 with Ph.D's) have signed this petition, all to show the absurdity of the consensus claims. To get to 97%, you'd need 1,049,566 Scientists, or at least 300,966 Ph.D.'s to sign the counter-effort, which never got anywhere. more...
Psychology Student and Climate Activist behind the fraudulently named and often discredited Skeptical Science blog, John Cook, did a couple of "Studies" to try to prove the 97% consensus.
Strenger, Verheggen and Vringer did a direct survey of 1,800 international scientists who had published peer reviewed articles on Climate Change. Only 43% (797) of climate scientists agree with the IPCC claims that more than half of the observed increase in surface temperature was caused by manmade causes. (This isn't even the newer/bolder 90% caused by man). more...
|