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.
When not refuting the 97 percent of scientists who believe in human-caused global warming, climate change deniers often draw upon the conspiracy that it’s is a fabricated theory invented by those in a position to gain financially or otherwise from efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
97% of climate scientists who receive government funding predicated on continuing climate alarmism.
You also left out the fact that the majority of skeptical studies are RARELY funded OR published, leaving only the alarmist studies to make up your so called consensus.
Even with all that said, the methods used to arrive at the 97% number have been roundly debunked multiple times on these forums.
As for a conspiracy invented by those in a position to gain financially or otherwise, you tell me…
Quote by Club of Rome: "A keen and anxious awareness is evolving to suggest that fundamental changes will have to take place in the world order and its power structures, in the distribution of wealth and income."
Quote by Mikhail Gorbachev, communist and former leader of U.S.S.R.: "The emerging 'environmentalization' of our civilization and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global community will inevitably have multiple political consequences. Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must assume some aspects of a world government."
Quote by Gordon Brown, former British prime minister: "A New World Order is required to deal with the Climate Change crisis."
Quote by EU Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstroem: "[Kyoto protocol] is not a simple environmental issue, where you can say scientists are not unanimous. This is about international relations, this is about the economy, about trying to create a level playing field for big businesses throughout the world. You have to understand what is at stake, and that is why it is serious,..."
Quote by Robert Muller, former UN Assistant Secretary General: “In my view, after fifty years of service in the United National system, I perceive the utmost urgency and absolute necessity for proper Earth government. There is no shadow of a doubt that the present political and economic systems are no longer appropriate and will lead to the end of life evolution on this planet. We must therefore absolutely and urgently look for new ways.”
Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official: "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."
Quote by Club of Rome: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose."
I have to agree in a way with these methods, because lets face it, there are a lot of stupid, or ignorant people, particularly in the US. Since most are religious, they understand scare tactics, the method used by religion.
So you are fine with exaggerating the impact of man made climate change and ignoring the scientific process in order to get the "stupid" public's attention?
I think many arrogant, elitist liberals in high places who think they are much smarter than anyone who is not a liberal think the same way and have done exactly that!
When not refuting the 97 percent of scientists who believe in human-caused global warming, climate change deniers often draw upon the conspiracy that it’s is a fabricated theory invented by those in a position to gain financially or otherwise from efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A Texas-based physicist is turning that notion on its head by offering $10,000 of his own money to anyone who can disprove mainstream, accepted climate science. Physicist Offers $10,000 To Anyone Who Can Disprove Climate Change | ThinkProgress
That's 72 scientists, not 97%. And I would easily offer 10,000 of my own money to anyone who can prove AGW. That's a joke.
The claim that the debate about the severity and cause of global warming is "settled science" has taken a beating with the release of the names of 31,072 American scientists who reject the assertion that global warming has reached a crisis stage and is caused by human activity.
That's 72 scientists, not 97%. And I would easily offer 10,000 of my own money to anyone who can prove AGW. That's a joke.
The claim that the debate about the severity and cause of global warming is "settled science" has taken a beating with the release of the names of 31,072 American scientists who reject the assertion that global warming has reached a crisis stage and is caused by human activity.
How about this....It is considerably more than one month... May marked the 39th consecutive May and 351st consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average. State of the Climate | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)
Which is still a minute, undetectable grain of sand on a beach when you put it into the context of the earth's history. Your pet quasi-science here relies on what would amount to a social scientist taking a sample size of two people to represent the entire population of the earth. That would never be acceptable there, yet it is sound science here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
When not refuting the 97 percent of scientists who believe in human-caused global warming, ... | ThinkProgress[/url]
The fact that you indeed HAVE to use the word "believe" when talking about the climate issue speaks reams. 97% believe, eh? What if I said 97% of mathematicians believe 2 + 2 = 4 ? That would be silly, just as it is here. In science, either something IS or it IS NOT true. And before it can be claimed to be true, it must be proven to be true. There is no believing other than when a scientist hypothesizes something. But that hypothesis cannot be claimed as truth until it is proven to be so. 97% believing is not proof. 97% of Medieval Europe believed in God. Still no proof there. Still no proof here. Just a (moneymaking) belief. Just a wizard behind a curtain; and sooner or later, when folks see that the climate is not "cooperating" with the AGW people, just about everyone except you faithful are going to be seeing that man behind the curtain for what he is.
Maybe they have jobs and families and things to do, as opposed to the rent a mobs of the alarmists.
Um, scientists don't publish research papers as a hobby.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC
The fact that you indeed HAVE to use the word "believe" when talking about the climate issue speaks reams. 97% believe, eh? What if I said 97% of mathematicians believe 2 + 2 = 4 ? That would be silly, just as it is here. In science, either something IS or it IS NOT true. And before it can be claimed to be true, it must be proven to be true. There is no believing other than when a scientist hypothesizes something. But that hypothesis cannot be claimed as truth until it is proven to be so. 97% believing is not proof. 97% of Medieval Europe believed in God. Still no proof there. Still no proof here. Just a (moneymaking) belief. Just a wizard behind a curtain; and sooner or later, when folks see that the climate is not "cooperating" with the AGW people, just about everyone except you faithful are going to be seeing that man behind the curtain for what he is.
That's not how science works. Scientists argue about something until they can't come up with any more arguments. That's what happened with AGW. Scientists argued and argued, and now they've reach the point where nobody can come up with a credible alternative to AGW that fits the facts. That's what is meant by scientific consensus: nobody can come up with an alternative theory to AGW.
May was 0.74 degrees Celsius warmer than the 20th century world average. The last month that was cooler than normal was February 1985, marking 351 hotter than average months in a row.
Dont you ever get the feeling that like King Canute, you are standing on the beach commanding the tide to retreat?
There are a plethora of articles published over the past several days agreeing with you - that NASA and NOAA and their minions have falsified the data to pursue their AGW agendas. I have read your own posts and I note well that the alarmists have no answer. Why should they? It is ALL about dogma to them. One has to ask who are the deniers?
Cant rep you more. City Data rules. Keep fighting the good fight. With any luck, truth and science will prevail.
Everything the left-wing global warming alarmists hang their hat on is nothing but fabricated data from corrupted computer models. These use data from faulty computer models as if it were actual factual data. Then, ten years after all their computer model predictions are shown to be as inaccurate as can be, they just insert corrupted data to reinvent their predictions for the next ten years.
We used to trust that science was honest and nonpartisan, but now it's been corrupted by politicians and corporations, and special interest groups, and we just cannot stand by and allow it to continue.
All the AGW scammers have now, is to hope that we will have another warm back-to-back El Nino, in 2014, like we had in 1997-98. Then they can falsely claim that the high temps recorded during a warm El Nino were caused by human-induced CO2... even though no scientists are cliaming CO2 has anything to do with the formation of either an El Nino or a La Nina.
Um, scientists don't publish research papers as a hobby.
That's not how science works. Scientists argue about something until they can't come up with any more arguments. That's what happened with AGW. Scientists argued and argued, and now they've reach the point where nobody can come up with a credible alternative to AGW that fits the facts. That's what is meant by scientific consensus: nobody can come up with an alternative theory to AGW.
That is not how science operates. We do not look at something, scratch our heads, and because we don't understand the why, we simply guess that humans must be the cause. You may as well start tossing virgins in the volcano to appease the angry fire gods again.
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.
