Originally Posted by
John Boeman
So dr dre,
you have written a lot of words yourself which from my point of view I will only label as misinformed.
The mythical 97% figure so beloved of politicians and the misinformed has been utterly debunked many times over. Multiple peer reviews in scientific journals my ass.
Heres the difference. I’m posting links with peer reviewed studies from reputable scientific organisations (like NASA) whereas you’re claiming the 97% figure has debunked without posting any evidence to back it up. I’ll post it again just to help you:
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Please do tell us why HE doesn’t know what he is talking about.
He doesn’t know what he’s talking about because (like you) he isn’t considered legitimate for many reasons (lack of expertise in the field, obvious connections to fossil fuel companies) by the climate science community.
Here’s some actual climate scientists debunking his claims. There were a lot more but I couldn’t be bothered posting them all:
https://skepticalscience.com/moore-2012.html
https://amp.theguardian.com/environm...cience-deniers
Patrick Moore vs. Patrick Moore on Climate Change | PolluterWatch
He may have been involved with Greenpeace decades ago but it’s obvious he’s sold out his beliefs and his trailing to be a paid stooge for the fossil fuel industry. Some people will say anything as long as you pay them the money.
The problem is deniers think there is a legitimate debate between legitimate scientists. There isn’t. Here’s a mathematically accurate representation of the debate: