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.
Repeating the 97% lie often enough does not make it the truth
Hey, if you want to deny research from the entire science community, that isn't my problem. You can believe that it is the Easter Bunny that controls the climate for all I care.
Hey, if you want to deny research from the entire science community, that isn't my problem. You can believe that it is the Easter Bunny that controls the climate for all I care.
Nice strawman argument!
I don't deny research from the entire scientific community regarding the climate. I deny the notion of the 97% consensus that believes the alarmist, impending catastrophe view.
I deny the notion that scientists or laypeople cannot be skeptical of the alarmism without being partisan right-wingers, religious nuts or big oil shareholders.
I deny the notion that climate science and computer modeling have advanced to a degree where we can predict the future with any great accuracy when so many of their recent claims have been disproven by the passage of time and failed predictions. I take umbrage when they make predictions so far into the future that we will all be dead by the time history can validate or disprove them.
I discredit people who are paid by special interest groups, yes. Why wouldn't YOU?
I have seen that "paid by" statement SO many times recently in climate threads.
It seems that some folks believe that ALL us "man made catastrophic global warming" skeptics are being PAID by somebody!
If that is true, that "SOMEBODY" is WAY behind on my payments! In fact, I have never received ANY payments from ANYBODY! Where is my money? I don't have many years left, I need it NOW! Oh, and on a side note, I disposed of all of my ARCO stock, AND closed out my ARCO retirement account back about 1983! At the present time, I own NO stock in any company, nor do I receive any retirement funds from any corporation. I wonder how much oil/mining company stock the CAGW cultists own.
Then there are those who believe we all listen to Rush and other talking heads. Since they are so familiar with what those crazy talking heads have to say, it would appear that THEY listen to them WAY more than I do; that wouldn't be difficult, I NEVER listen to them!
Seems to me the CAGW cultists are their own worst enemies!
Nice strawman argument!
I don't deny research from the entire scientific community regarding the climate. I deny the notion of the 97% consensus that believes the alarmist, impending catastrophe view.
I deny the notion that scientists or laypeople cannot be skeptical of the alarmism without being partisan right-wingers, religious nuts or big oil shareholders.
I deny the notion that climate science and computer modeling have advanced to a degree where we can predict the future with any great accuracy when so many of their recent claims have been disproven by the passage of time and failed predictions. I take umbrage when they make predictions so far into the future that we will all be dead by the time history can validate or disprove them.
So if you don't believe in what the majority of scientists are saying from their research, what exactly do you believe in from the science community?
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?
I can't say what context they are in, or even if those people said those things, without some sort of supporting evidence. Just like me saying:
"Anyone who doesn't believe in scientists should be sucker punched in the balls."
- Mahatma Gandhi
No evidence he said it, no backup to the claims, just like yours. What people say also does not debunk actual evidence. If someone believed the world is run by mole people...it doesn't make it true.
Nor do I believe environmentalists are part of a big world government conspiracy for wealth redistribution without evidence either. There has been no evidence to support the claims. I cannot deny or disprove what has no evidence to support it...anymore than I can deny or disprove claims about the eating habits of the Loch Ness monster or that the universe is riding on the back of a turtle.
If the basis of a claim has zero evidence to support it, and a person fervently believes in it to the point where nothing can change their mind, it's considered a mental problem or personality disorder.
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" ICE Virtual Library: Climate stability: an inconvenient proof
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.
Never mind that Soon, an astrophysicist, is no specialist on global sea levels, and his most notable writing on the subject was an op-ed article in the conservative Washington Times last year.
He has, nonetheless, established himself as a front-line combatant in the partisan crossfire over rising oceans, melting ice, and other climate issues beyond his primary expertise. Coveted for his Harvard-Smithsonian affiliation, and strident policy views, he has been bankrolled by hundreds of thousands of dollars in energy industry grants.
Baliunas:
Quote:
In 2003, Baliunas co-authored a highly controversial paper with Willie Soon that reviewed previous scientific papers and came to the conclusion that the climate hasn't changed in the last 2000 years.
Thirteen of the authors Baliunas and Soon cited in the paper refuted her interpretation of their work, and several editors of Climate Research resigned in protest at a flawed peer review process that allowed the publication. According to the acknowledgments listed in the paper, it was partially funded by the American Petroleum Institute.
S. Idso:
Quote:
'900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism Of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm' announces the headline on the Global Warming Policy Foundation's website.
The article references a blog linking to more than 900 papers which, according to the GWPF, refute "concern relating to a negative environmental or socio-economic effect of AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic."
However, a preliminary data analysis by the Carbon Brief has revealed that nine of the ten most prolific authors cited have links to organisations funded by ExxonMobil, and the tenth has co-authored several papers with Exxon-linked contributors.
The top ten contributors are alone responsible for 186 of the papers cited by the Global Warming Policy Foundation. The data also shows that there are many other familiar climate sceptic names among the major contributors to the list.
Dr Sherwood B Idso is the most cited academic on the list, having authored or co-authored 67 of the 938 papers we analysed, which is seven percent of the total.
Kondratyev: Dude is dead and has been for 8 years. And this paper you cited was published 5 years before that.
Posmentier: Any paper you see this dude publish will be written Soon, Baliunus, Postmentier-or- Baliunus, Soon, Postmentier-or- Postmentier, Soon, Baliunus-or- Postmentier, Baliunus, Soon-or- Soon, Postmentier, Baliunus.
Once you crunch the numbers, you find a good proportion of so called "skeptic" papers is made up of a small network of individuals who co-author papers and share funding ties to the oil industry.
Last edited by eddie gein; 06-13-2014 at 10:20 AM..
I can't say what context they are in, or even if those people said those things, without some sort of supporting evidence. Just like me saying:
"Anyone who doesn't believe in scientists should be sucker punched in the balls."
- Mahatma Gandhi
No evidence he said it, no backup to the claims, just like yours. What people say also does not debunk actual evidence. If someone believed the world is run by mole people...it doesn't make it true.
Nor do I believe environmentalists are part of a big world government conspiracy for wealth redistribution without evidence either. There has been no evidence to support the claims. I cannot deny or disprove what has no evidence to support it...anymore than I can deny or disprove claims about the eating habits of the Loch Ness monster or that the universe is riding on the back of a turtle.
If the basis of a claim has zero evidence to support it, and a person fervently believes in it to the point where nothing can change their mind, it's considered a mental problem or personality disorder.
I remember when Gandhi said that, he followed that statement up by actually punching some guy in the balls. It's on YouTube, you should look it up.
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.
