Climate Deniers, I Want An Explanation (Minnesota, financial, children, cities)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
"CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? - it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living c...
Censored Global Warming Videos
WARNING! Global Warming Alarmists do not want you to watch these videos. The real inconvenient truth is that there are plenty of videos ...
I don't think Ceist was bringing the Holocaust into this. It was just a miscommunication.
Let's not get off point here.
You are correct. Saying someone is an AGW denier has nothing at all to do with denying the Holocaust. It's a red herring.
AGW deniers are those who don't know enough about the science to be sceptical, they just deny AGW because of political, religious or economic reasons or because they love the drama of buying into conspiracies and expressing their anger.
The same as Evolution deniers know very little of the science and deny evolution for religious reasons.
Craig Idso...In February of 2012, internal documents detailing budgets and strategies from the Heartland Institute were released. These documents indicated that Heartland pays Craig Idso $11,600 per month for his work attacking legitimate climate science.
Alan Carlin appeared on the Glenn Beck Show on July 1, 2009 and stated that U.N. models anticipated an increase in global temperatures, but actual temperatures, according to the figures Carlin presented, had decreased between 2002 to 2008. This is a lie.
Nicola Scafetta forecast that the world climate may remain approximately steady until 2030-2040....Recent events prove him wrong.
Nils-Axel Mörner is known for his supportof dowsing...Really? dowsing?
Nir J. Shaviv...Although he is skeptical of man-made climate change, he stresses that there are a “dozen good reasons why we should strive to burn less fossil fuels.” His two primary reasons are pollution and depletion. He is in favor of developing cheap energy alternatives such as wind and solar power...... I disagree with his skepticism, but I agree with his stance on actions that should be taken.
Richard S.J. Tol....Yes, global warming is real, he believes, and yes, measures to mitigate it should be taken. But unlike the advocates who believe that the science is settled, and the global warning debate is over, Tol thinks that much research needs to be done before we know how best to respond.
Wei-Hock "Willie" Soon....In 2011, it was revealed that Soon received over $1,000,000 from petroleum and coal interests since 2001....Biased.
IMO most of the rationale you listed doesn't discredit the researchers, and to be fair one would have to discredit many of the researchers on both sides of the issue if funding sources were a disqualifier. Much of the research is paid funded by the private sector, or even governments that have a point they are trying to make. The only check is in the peer review process.
But be that as it may, it doesn't explain why the research that are claimed to be biased against AGW would be counted as part of the 97% of scientist that endorse AGW.
Last edited by Boxcar Overkill; 04-05-2014 at 12:56 AM..
Graph number 2 proves my point. Even your graph 2 shows that the earth hasn't warmed in 17 years yet your graph 3 shows that CO2 is increasing. The entire model fall apart mathematically. If each CO2 molecule reflects 50 percent of the short wavelength heat radiation it comes in contact with, and it takes X amount of radiation to raise the temperature of the earth 1 degree, then the earth should increase in temperature in a ratio directly proportional to the amount of CO2 or other "greenhouse gasses" that "trap" the heat molecules. But in your own models, we see the gasses increasing but the heat remaining the same. The warmist model fails mathematically.
No mathematical or otherwise scientific explanation as to why the globalists' model fails even the most basic mathematical test?
You are correct. Saying someone is an AGW denier has nothing at all to do with denying the Holocaust. It's a red herring.
AGW deniers are those who don't know enough about the science to be sceptical, they just deny AGW because of political, religious or economic reasons or because they love the drama of buying into conspiracies and expressing their anger.
The same as Evolution deniers know very little of the science and deny evolution for religious reasons.
What word do you use to describe people that just don't agree with the alarmist aspects of AGW?
If one looks at the survey's of climatologist, (rather then the meta-analysis) only a very few have any certainty that AGW represents a serious threat. Many acknowledge that the field isn't settled enough to know. The burden of proof is on the endorsers, is it not? And it appears that many of them aren't to certain of their claim. Why should we be more certain then they?
I love it when graphs show data that could not be measured. The equipment was not invented to test the data, nor was there ever a reason to do the testing.
Explain the drought and dust bowl of the 1950s and 1880's, once people made it past the Mississippi river, to see it and document it.
What has been documented is that our cold/hot, rainy dry cycles every 50-60.
Global warming made the ice age go away. Explain that!
Actually, it can be measured. Just because you are unaware that the technology exists to measure CO2 levels in the past does not mean it doesn't exist. Please understand technology exists out there beyond what you know.
Of course you have a story to explain it all away. One thing you can't explain away easily is that list of "sceptical" papers. It's a real laugh. You have to be really obsessed with denying AGW to spend the time digging those up
I wonder if you are aware of how many of those authors are signatories to the conservative religious Cornwall Alliance Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming whose 'scepticism' is actually because of their Creationist religious beliefs?
Or how many are not even by climate scientists at all? Or about climate science rather than political or economic views? Or how many are paid to discredit climate science? Or how many have been long 'debunked'?
I had to laugh that you included the one on Agnotology in a little known education Journal that 'Lord' Christopher Monckton must have paid through the nose to get his name on as a co-author so he could finally claim he had published a 'paper'. The lead author was David Legates- a signatory to the Cornwall Alliance. That paper really blew the irony meter off the page.
Tell me how that's a 'peer-reviewed' paper by a 'climate scientist' on climate science?
Everything about the Climate on your website is about denying AGW. A true sceptic would present at least a selection of papers with the best evidence. That's why denialist is an accurate label.
Wrong yet again.
You posted your interpretation of the Cook paper and the Poptech website. I disagree with them both based on what I've read of them both and the arguments people have made in the
course of the discussion. You call it "swallowing anything that supports what I want to believe" because I don't happen to agree with you.
Nope, it's got nothing to do with you agreeing or disagreeing with me. It's to do with you regurgitating propaganda from AGW denier blogs without fact checking it first then the hypocrisy of calling other people "sheep" who "regurgitate anything they read in the media as if it's gospel"
I just went to the poptech site. I've never been to the front page, although I recently must have been to one of it's pages.
He apparently keeps a library of articles for people who are researching global warming. It's not as though he included the paper in a study with findings he was reporting. It was just a resource for people to study.
As such, it's hard to count a misclassification as deception. He wasn't making an argument in the first place.
But I know no one will give him the benefit of the doubt, just like few will acknowledge Ceist wasn't making a holocaust reference by calling poptech a denier.
Everything about Climate on his website is anti-AGW. His bias is very obvious. That's not a skeptic, that's a denier.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
