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.
As well as trying to cast it as some big communist/NWO/wealth redistribution conspiracy that no one has found a shred of evidence of.
How exactly do you take quotes like the following out of context or in any way deny that they are advocating a world government influenced strongly by environmentalists or wealth distribution?
"The objective, clearly enunciated by the leaders of UNCED, is to bring about a change in the present system of independent nations. The future is to be World Government with central planning by the United Nations. Fear of environmental crises - whether real or not - is expected to lead to – compliance”
Dixy Lee Ray, former liberal Democrat governor of State of Washington, U.S.
“No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister
"We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."
Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official
The only thing that changes is new and different flavors of alarmism. Any skeptical science is derided and dismissed as suspect.
Saying things like "the science is settled" or "the debate is over" does not equal healthy science.
The problem you have is that there isn't any skeptical "science" going on. The least that the Heartland institute could do is found a journal and fund investigations with actual FIELD research.
Wow, it's a conspiracy! Climate change, wealth redistribution, world government...
I guess quote mining different people from different decades, without any verifiable source, is better to some people than actual real data by independent teams of actual researchers. As well as trying to cast it as some big communist/NWO/wealth redistribution conspiracy that no one has found a shred of evidence of.
I love the "OMG, not 100% consensus" as well. If 100,000 people agree on something with tangible evidence, and 20 people disagree and cannot show evidence for it, it doesn't make the 100,000 people wrong...or not a majority consensus.
Gene Ray calls himself a scientist (and smartest man alive) that thinks the world is a cube...does that mean there is not a conscious the world is round?
That's just it, there is no "tangible evidence" to support alarmist claims that humans will destroy the planet and causing climate warming, much less warming at all, or even at an unnatural or alarming rate, or that any of these claims of warming being caused by human-induced CO2.
The problem you have is that there isn't any skeptical "science" going on. The least that the Heartland institute could do is found a journal and fund investigations with actual FIELD research.
There isn't?
Climate stability: an inconvenient proof
David Bellamy, Jack Barrett
"This paper demonstrates that the widely prophesied doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from natural, pre-industrial values will enhance the so-called ‘greenhouse effect’ but will amount to less than 1°C of global warming" http://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/con....2007.160.2.66
Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties
Willie Soon1,2,*, Sallie Baliunas1,2, Sherwood B. Idso3, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev4, Eric S. Posmentier5
1Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA 2Mount Wilson Observatory, Mount Wilson, California 91023, USA 3US Water Conservation Laboratory, Phoenix, Arizona 85040, USA 4Research Centre for Ecological Safety, Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg 197110, Russia 5Long Island University, Brooklyn, New York 11201, USA
"A likelihood of disastrous global environmental consequences has been surmised as a result of projected increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. These estimates are based on computer climate modeling, a branch of science still in its infancy despite recent substantial strides in knowledge.
We further conclude that the incautious use of GCMs to make future climate projections from incomplete or unknown forcing scenarios is antithetical to the intrinsically heuristic value of models. Such uncritical application of climate models has led to the commonly held but erroneous impression that modeling has proven or substantiated the hypothesis that CO2 added to the air has caused or will cause significant global warming."
Global warming and long-term climatic changes: a progress report
L. F. Khilyuk Æ G. V. Chilingar
Abstract The authors believe that recent global warming of Earth’s atmosphere is not due to an increase in anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission but rather to long-term global factors. The human contribution to the CO2 content in the atmosphere and the increase in temperature is negligible in comparison with other sources of carbon dioxide emission. Discussed in this paper are sources, avenues of migration, and the amounts of naturally produced carbon dioxide and methane (greenhouse gases) and long-term changes in the Earth’s climate, which are necessary for understanding the causes of current temperature trends.
This paper argues that the IPCC has oversimplified the issue of uncertainty in its Assessment Reports, which can lead to misleading overconfidence. A concerted effort by the IPCC is needed to identify better ways of framing the climate change problem, explore and characterize uncertainty, reason about uncertainty in the context of evidence-based logical hierarchies, and eliminate bias from the consensus building process itself.
Allow me to translate: "I don't mind one little bit if I take the words of a paid shill. I don't need critical thinking skills at all, in fact, I'm exactly the type of person these liars want me to be. I will comply! I will comply! Yes, master, you tell me what you want me to think!"
So you discredit the entire science community that you disagree with? Common trait from the Flat Earth Society.
The only thing that changes is new and different flavors of alarmism. Any skeptical science is derided and dismissed as suspect.
Saying things like "the science is settled" or "the debate is over" does not equal healthy science.
Depends on who does the funding, if a scientist says cigarettes are good for me and is funded by the tobacco industry, then I question their results. If most scientists come up with similar results about climate change, I am gonna believe that they as a collective have an understanding on what is happening.
Depends on who does the funding, if a scientist says cigarettes are good for me and is funded by the tobacco industry, then I question their results. If most scientists come up with similar results about climate change, I am gonna believe that they as a collective have an understanding on what is happening.
And if there are billions of dollars going to the EPA, NASA and the NSA for climate research, we can be assured that they are conducting nothing but truly impartial, blind science especially when these funding dollars would disappear rapidly without the constant alarmism and notions of an impending crisis.
Inconvenient data for climate change deniers: climate change data.
The climate always changes, fact
Humans causing it, theory.
I will stick with fact.
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.
