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.
I know. The "3,000 respected scientists" we keep hearing about is a farce. It was a survey - seven questions - given to thousands of scientists from all disciplines with no data provided for their review according to the report I read. In other words, it was opinion without any research or analysis.
Are there even 3,000 dedicated climate change scientists in the world?
Actually, many of us have come to understand that global warming and cooling are processes which the earth has undergone for well, ever. We also realize that while humans are polluters, and do release poisonous gases into the atmosphere, the one they have decided to cite as our major pollutant, CO2, is a gas which is produced mostly by natural processes, not human beings. I believe the number was something like 95% of the CO2 in our atmosphere is created by the ocean. Leading one to believe that the earth's changes are due to the earth's natural processes, not the dreaded human race. We are ravagers of the land, destroyers of natural beauty, but nature is tenacious and quickly takes back the grounds that are not kept thoroughly in check. And our climate changes are a direct result of natural reactions of the planet and the gases and elements it natural emits into the atmosphere. And, all recent evidence has begun to point towards a period of global cooling currently taking place, not global warming. So I'd say people have plenty of reason too ask questions and doubt the official story we've been fed by our government and agencies affiliated with our government.
You have to see that these people are not fighting to save you, they are fighting to enslave you. And if not enslave you, atleast profit from your attempt to be a more planet friendly human being. Take the recycling movement for example. There was a time when things like bottles and cans could be recycled, and you would receive a small amount of money in exchange for your troubles. But corporations didn't much like the part about giving out money, so they took steps to eventually make recycling a requirement. This way, they receive loads of reusable materials at no cost to them other than shipping, which helps them make even more profit, and we collect and return the materials for free because we have to.
Now nobody said doing little things like this for your planet was a bad thing. Far from it. I have no problem with reusing materials to help ease the sapping of natural resources. But I believe the savings these companies gain from using recyled material should be passed onto the consumer since they no longer pay you for your service. And that just doesn't happen folks. We pay more and more while they get tighter and tighter on recyling laws which enable them to collect even more reusable resources for their products. And all in the name of saving the planet. These people are profiting from this new "save the planet" industry and that is not fair to the people who are actually doing the work to help ease the pollution of our planet. The people on top of this entire deal are not in it to help us, they are in it for the money and the control.
Wow, this is a truly scientific-minded climatologist. “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?â€
This has been a growing problem with this community for a while now. I won't claim that it is the entire community, rather it is key individuals and administrative heads who are responsible for revisionist and propaganda based science.
It is good to see some of these problems concerning peer review, due diligence, data archiving and release starting to hit the media.
I look at this type of science as "fad science" in that it is built on social manipulation and political trend in order to achieve validity. Like any fad though, that population is fickle and has a short attention span which loses interest and its support very easily. Eventually, the house of cards to which this position stands begins to crumble as real science demands proper process for verification. It is unfortunate though as the entire field will suffer from the negligence and deceit of a few.
There are no facts. It's a editorial from a guy who denies climate change. Even if his assertions are true, and Michaels has a very poor record for integrity, the data sets are irrelevant to today's discussion. The climate change community moved to more sophisticated temperature estimates years ago.
"The climate change community" That really says it all. This is not science. It is ideology. During the Soviet era artists, historians and scientists were recruited to promote the party line in their various fields. Soviet historians, for instance, simply revised history to support the goals of the revolution. Similarly scientists prostituted their disciplines to suit the needs of their government masters. That's why anything purportedly scientific coming from the Soviet Union was viewed with skepticism. It was never clear whether it was science or ideology talking. That perversion of science and truth has spilled over into "the climate change community" so that serious scientists and even the general public no longer trust what is being reported about the climate.
"The climate change community" That really says it all. This is not science. It is ideology. During the Soviet era artists, historians and scientists were recruited to promote the party line in their various fields. Soviet historians, for instance, simply revised history to support the goals of the revolution. Similarly scientists prostituted their disciplines to suit the needs of their government masters. That's why anything purportedly scientific coming from the Soviet Union was viewed with skepticism. It was never clear whether it was science or ideology talking. That perversion of science and truth has spilled over into "the climate change community" so that serious scientists and even the general public no longer trust what is being reported about the climate.
Aye, its a huge problem in science these days and has been common in the medical sciences (among others) for many years as well. I see these idealist as a great danger to society because they ignore factual representation in order to push their views and they often do so using "the end justifies the means" principal. If you watch closely with some who argue on this board and you work them into a corner using nothing by the data, they begin to make excuses that follow a line of reasoning that doesn't care if the facts support them because the world will be better off if it saves energy and is cleaner anyway. Very dangerous people are who will lie and cheat all the while proclaiming "for the good of the people". As you mentioned, history is littered with this type of propaganda.
"The climate change community" That really says it all. This is not science. It is ideology. During the Soviet era artists, historians and scientists were recruited to promote the party line in their various fields. Soviet historians, for instance, simply revised history to support the goals of the revolution. Similarly scientists prostituted their disciplines to suit the needs of their government masters. That's why anything purportedly scientific coming from the Soviet Union was viewed with skepticism. It was never clear whether it was science or ideology talking. That perversion of science and truth has spilled over into "the climate change community" so that serious scientists and even the general public no longer trust what is being reported about the climate.
Virtually all serious scientist and their professional organizations have endorsed the IPCC findings, conclusion, and recommendation. The serious climatologists who dissent can be counted on one hand. 92% of the American public think we need to take steps to mitigate climate change. 59% think those steps need to be major steps quite soon.
Virtually all serious scientist and their professional organizations have endorsed the IPCC findings, conclusion, and recommendation. The serious climatologists who dissent can be counted on one hand. 92% of the American public think we need to take steps to mitigate climate change. 59% think those steps need to be major steps quite soon.
and less than 1% of the public have heard a blessed thing from those who are challenging the findings of the "community" which we know accounts for a very small set of scientists as well.
and that is a real problem.
it is also a real problem when one set of scientists get a monopoly on the data and those who challenge the findings get marginalized.
Why cant we let the SCIENCE and the Data and the MATH carry the day?
Why does Jones et al stonewall?
THAT is the question.
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.
