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.
Well it used to be called global warming but that wasn't working out so well.
What exactly is climate change? It always changes. The opposite would climate stasis and there is no such thing.
The issue is over AGW and no, we don't understand the climate nearly well enough to be making predictions and yes, as this scientist admitted, they would rather act on incomplete information while they sell the public a line of crap that they the science is settled and there is this huge consensus.
That isn't scientific at all.
Is swallowing whatever you read on a conspiracy blog or in the tabloid press or what a far-right shock-jock tells you 'scientific'?
If you can't be bothered studying the foundational sciences and all the evidence yourself, why not read what the all the major Science Institutions worldwide have to say?
Is swallowing whatever you read on a conspiracy blog or in the tabloid press or what a far-right shock-jock tells you 'scientific'?
If you can't be bothered studying the foundational sciences and all the evidence yourself, why not read what the all the major Science Institutions worldwide have to say?
Yep, you automatically conclude that anything that disagrees with your dogma came from a conspiracy or a right wing blog but I'm the one deluding myself.
The scientific process is influenced by politics and funding, don't kid yourself. That doesn't mean we need to discount all of their findings but it DOES mean they should not be taken as gospel people like you do.
We never know absolutely everything about anything we do. Should we never do anything? There are things about thermodynamics we don't understand, should we dismantle our cars? Doctors don't know everything about the human body, would you refuse to have surgery after a heart attack?
No it means the AGW crowd should stop saying that the "science is settled" and there is this 97% consensus when the truth of the matter is they are taking their best guess based on our current (limited) understanding of the climate and filling in the rest with computer simulated garbage designed to produce the results they want to see.
Yes we need cleaner energy and yes we need to clean up the environment. However, the fear mongering is designed to keep the funding coming and get media attention. It's activism and politics instead of hard science.
We've seen this over and over again. If AGW is so easy to prove, why do they have to fudge data? And why do they have to delete data? And why do they have to operate in secret? If it's so easy to prove, why not be transparent?
---------------------------
Record Crushing Fraud From NOAA And NASA Ahead Of Paris
Gavin and Tom delivered their fraud right on schedule ahead of Paris, just as I predicted they would. They claim that October had the highest temperature anomaly ever recorded for any month.
Not only do NASA and NOAA make up fake data for much of the planet, but they massively tamper with their existing data, like this station in Siberia where they have cooled the past nearly two degrees C since 2012 – and now claim that it is two degrees C above normal.
Your above source was written by a person who literally has (2) names. Sometimes the author calls himself Tony Heller, and other times he calls himself Steven Goddard (to simplify things I will call him Goddard in this post.) Goddard has a Bachelor of Science and a Bachelor in Electrical Engineering (neither of which qualify him to make comments about climate science.) Steven Goddard | DeSmogBlog
And Goddard is directly connected to Wottsupwiththat and Anthony Watts, both of which are on the payroll of large corporations that pollute. Anthony Watts - SourceWatch
And even Anthony Watts himself says " (with the NOAA) the word “fabrication” implies that numbers are being plucked out of thin air in a nefarious way when it isn’t exactly the case." And Anthony says "(Goddard) is wrong is his assertions of fabrication." https://reason.com/blog/2014/06/23/d...alter-us-tempe
And now the whistleblowers have exposed their fraud;
In a second letter in less than a week to Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker, Smith urged her to pressure NOAA to comply with his subpoena for internal communications. Smith says whistleblowers have come forward with new information on the climate study’s path to publication in June.
Yes 'Steve Goddard' aka Tony Heller (who is not a scientist, but pretended to be one for years on his blog) has been caught out lying and "fudging data" over and over again on his anti-science conspiracy blog to support his anti-science agenda. He has zero credibility yet you use him as a source?
Typical. You can't refute his data so you attack the source.
It's all about money. That's where the researchers come up with manufactured statistics, the media hypes said statistics, politicians demand action over said statistics. Ignore actual weather, just dig into your pockets and pay up. Oh, and maybe kiss your jobs goodbye.
No it means the AGW crowd should stop saying that the "science is settled" and there is this 97% consensus when the truth of the matter is they are taking their best guess based on our current (limited) understanding of the climate and filling in the rest with computer simulated garbage designed to produce the results they want to see.
Scientists are saying if you drop a glass on the kitchen tile, it'll shatter. Denialists are saying scientists admit not knowing how many pieces it will shatter into, therefore it's safe to drop it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icy Tea
It's all about money. That's where the researchers come up with manufactured statistics, the media hypes said statistics, politicians demand action over said statistics. Ignore actual weather, just dig into your pockets and pay up. Oh, and maybe kiss your jobs goodbye.
Because the oil industry has no money to fund AGW denialism.
Scientists are saying if you drop a glass on the kitchen tile, it'll shatter. Denialists are saying scientists admit not knowing how many pieces it will shatter into, therefore it's safe to drop it.
.
You are close. Here is a better one;
Scientists who have are paid to develop self serving models are saying if you drop a glass on the kitchen tile, it'll shatter into 298 pieces. Denialists are saying scientists don't know how many pieces it will shatter into and anyone can forecast such nonsense. Moreover, it's shameful for taxpayers to pay scientists to develop useless self serving models.
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.
