Lying About Climate Change To Advance The Environmental Agenda Is A Good Idea, Say Two Economists (independent, companies)

[chad3]

Originally Posted by pknopp

So are blogs valid to use or not?

This source is not from a blog.

From 1991-2012,

"13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles were published."
"(24) of the 13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles rejected global warming."


13,950 peer reviewed climate articles said "man made global warming is happening."
24 peer reviewed climate articles said "man made global warming is (not) happening."

Pie-Chart I

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by pknopp

Nearly the entire country was behind the space program, not so with the more recent mumbo jumbo out of NASA.

So, I looked it up, and you're wrong, here. Demonstrably so. Actually, so was I - I thought the support was way more prevalent.

"Public Opinion Polls and Perceptions of US Human Spaceflight" | Roger Launius - Academia.edu

There was never a majority in favor of Apollo, except for a short timeframe right around Apollo 11. Them be the facts.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by chad3

This source is not from a blog.

Rarely are they. I will note once again, it was claimed that Hansen was peer reviewed. Either the claims were bogus or peer review means absolutely nothing.

[TrapperJohn]

Originally Posted by chad3

This source is not from a blog.

From 1991-2012,

"13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles were published."
"(24) of the 13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles rejected global warming."


13,950 peer reviewed climate articles said "man made global warming is happening."
24 peer reviewed climate articles said "man made global warming is (not) happening."

Pie-Chart I

That's an amazing volume of papers in 21 years - two peer-reviewed articles a day, every day, for 21 years in a row. Call me skeptical.

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by pknopp

What forces would these be? Don't give me your earlier link because it isn't in there.

It's there, read more slowly.

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by TrapperJohn

That's an amazing volume of papers in 21 years - two peer-reviewed articles a day, every day, for 21 years in a row. Call me skeptical.

You must keep in mind that scientists world wide have been working on this issue....

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by rbohm

too bad you dont give any.

Respect is earned, not given, and it's not my fault that calling me a moon bat does not earn my respect....You reap what you sow.

[chad3]

Originally Posted by pknopp

Rarely are they. I will note once again, it was claimed that Hansen was peer reviewed. Either the claims were bogus or peer review means absolutely nothing.

Actually "peer review" means the following,

peer review - a process by which a scholarly work (such as a paper or a research proposal) is checked by a group of experts in the same field to make sure it meets the necessary standards before it is published or accepted.

Peer review - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

[chad3]

Originally Posted by TrapperJohn

That's an amazing volume of papers in 21 years - two peer-reviewed articles a day, every day, for 21 years in a row. Call me skeptical.

Survey finds 97% climate science papers agree warming is man-made | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | theguardian.com


The following is an actual pier reviewed study, examining 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

[nicet4]

Originally Posted by 14Bricks

Humans contributed to the ice age, and the warming that took place afterward?

Why yes, yes they did. 20 thousand years ago much of Ohio was under a sheet of ice a mile thick in some places. If only man had not caused global warming Toledo would still be under a sheet of ice one mile thick and the planet would be a better place.