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.
That site has no validity: people who rely on it cannot discriminate good information from bad, and are thus a waste of time. Sorry man- I'm not wasting my time.
Yeah, and Wiki has all the credibility and validity you need, right? Hilarious!!
It's not the site, but the document from all those dissenters that is worth reading - but I know you won't.
The list of world-renowned, relevant scientists coming out against the sham is remarkable. If you can really sit there and say they are all irrelevant and their opinions are based in ideology - that would truly be an astounding statement. I know it is convenient and quite intentionally deceitful to just claim all these well-known, published, prize-winning, credentialed relevant scientists, are just flat-earthers - well, that's a well-known, well-worn tactic from the Left.
Funny thing is that people like the Goreacle and his legions of the faithful never want to explain, debate, defend their "predictions" and assumptions. They know it would all fall to pieces as the true evidence and science is revealed.
You must know the IPCC's devious political tactics have brought serious questions regarding it's function and agenda.
Quote:
"This is nonsense," says Tom V. Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the same IPCC. He laments the paucity of geologic knowledge among IPCC scientists -- a knowledge that is central to understanding climate change, in his view, since geologic processes ultimately determine the level of atmospheric CO2.
The IPCC is filled with mostly political hacks and beaurocratic appointees.
Quote:
Dr Vincent Gray, a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception, calls for abolishing the IPCC.
Read this letter from Dr. Gary - it is astounding.
Take a peek at some of the names, qualifications and credentials of these signatories - over 30,000 relevant scientists. All right-wing nutjobs in your opinion?
Wikipedia??? You're joking, right? Even grade school students know it's bad form and unacceptable to cite wikipedia.
And about those IPCC Assessment Report "reviewers"...
As sanrene said,
And just ONE example; there are many, many more:
Norwegian Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: "It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction."
His own words... It is all a fiction.
There is overwhelming scientific evidence that global warming is happening. How many people, in any field, are in 100% total agreement about anything? George W. Bush still has a 24% approval rating after 8 years of hard evidence he is a moron, he cant speak using normal English, and that someone else has been in charge of the past 8 trainwreck years and he still has 1 in 4 Americans support he is doing a "good job" .
While that may not wash with the scientific community, this is an educated, measurable and observable phenomenon, the reasoning is that ANY argument will have "outliers"
So what does the vast majority of equally educated researchers say to the "outliers"?
They say that human activity contributes to warmer temperatures and they, obviously, are correct.
We are increasing the intensity of climate change, and likely are the cause of it entirely
Too bad... You might have actually learned some facts if you had read why scientists dispute anthropogenic global warming theory.
Were that the case, then the fault would be yours for repeatedly presenting false information that I debunked through my own research. If you had a valid point somewhere in what you've written you've shot yourself in the foot by being either intentionally or accidently dishonest.
While that may not wash with the scientific community, this is an educated, measurable and observable phenomenon, the reasoning is that ANY argument will have "outliers"
But only for the last 150 years. Based on that, we can extrapolate what the past looked like and what the future will look like. Do I have that right? But somehow we can't predict weather patterns for the next 2 weeks or hurricane frequency for a season.
Can you show me some empirical evidence (as you must know, THAT is what science is based on, not concensus or anecdotal evidence) that proves the earth is in a unnatural warming trend (or is it cooling trend now)?
Can you tell me what the optimum temperature of the Earth should be?
Can you tell me what caused the warming / cooling conditions in the past - when no humans were around?
You guys have no more credibility due to the misinformation you regularly and perhaps knowingly have posted.
You keep saying that, but nothing in your posts prove it. And look what you have now been reduced to, in addition to name-calling and personal attacks.
Is that link supposed to be a joke? The Sen. Inhofe Biblical non-believers link?
I can wave cash under someones nose and get them to cast doubt on the obvious. But only the weak minded will believe them, as the facts are observable and far too destructive, as well as being too documented, to cast doubt that survives any skepticism.
When climate zones warm, all kinds of observable changes happen. You cannot hide rising tides any more than you can hide disappearing glaciers.
Those are major changes. All kinds of much smaller changes not easily observable are also reported. My eyes dont lie to me, but your right wing radio shock jocks p*ss down your back and tell you its raining and you willfully believe them.
But only for the last 150 years. Based on that, we can extrapolate what the past looked like and what the future will look like. Do I have that right?
Can you show me some empirical evidence (as you must know, THAT is what science is based on, not concensus or anecdotal evidence) that proves the earth is in a unnatural warming trend (or is it cooling trend now)?
Can you tell me what the optimum temperature of the Earth should be?
Can you tell me what caused the warming / cooling conditions in the past - when no humans were around?
Look at my post history in this very thread regarding ice core samples, ocean sediment, etc.
Again, you give me the impression that you are running a PR campaign, hoping people interacting with you will forget past information in this very thread. As I explained previously, scientists have a pretty good grasp of global temperatures for almost the past 700,000 years. You were participating in this thread when I posted the information- most of which is non-controversial even by global warming skeptics. The fact that you have conveniently forgotten those previous posts and chose once again to present debunked arguments impresses upon just how little you think honesty matters in debate.
The IPCC is filled with mostly political hacks and beaurocratic appointees.
Who told you that, Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity?
Those two really know their science.
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.
