Oh, yeah...scientists know mmgw is bogus. It's freakin SCIENCE
-
The human contribution to Co2 levels is .9 of 1%...a fart in a hurricane.
Pathetic how so many ignorant libtards support John Kerry, Obama, Al Gore and other alarmists propagating a god damned fart in a hurricane.... oblivious to the fact it is to advance a socialist world governance.
Obamas goal is to redistribute wealth throughout the world, and a climate change scare is the perfect way by which to accomplish this.
It is not we that are the "deniers" . We on the right know that global warming and cooling occurs, always has, always will, with or without mankind...rather it is you leftists that are the deniers. You either refuse to acknowledge the evidence of Obamas agenda that has been laid out in front of you...or you're simply too stupid to put 2+2 together.
“Man Made Global warming is phony science that was concocted to justify implementation of an international political agenda. The idea of using ‘man-caused global warming’ as a ‘surrogate for war’ and as a way to ‘destroy excess wealth’ originated in American and UN-related think tanks such as the Club of Rome back in the 60′s and 70′s. This pseudo-science is the centerpiece of a phony environmental movement by which the UN hopes to redistribute wealth in the world (toward the super-rich and away from the people) to de-industrialize the industrialized countries (via the UN Kyoto Protocol-type carbon taxes, cap and trade schemes, etc.), and radically reduce the human population.”
“The IPCC is essentially operating with pre-determined conclusions, namely that human activity and carbon emissions cause ‘global warming’ and other environmental and climate problems, even though there is little objective scientific evidence to demonstrate ‘global warming’ is in fact a real phenomenon,” Dr. Karlstrom says. Climate scientists working with the IPCC and other international bodies have been known to not only spin scientific data to fit their pre-determined conclusions, but also to outright fabricate “evidence” to support their idea of “man-made climate change.”
Who would benefit from this catastrophically expensive agenda? Only the political and politically connected elite—the Goldman Sachs outfits that would reap billions from trading carbon permits; the Al Gores and corporate and political insiders that would amass fortunes from their ties to a government-rigged energy market and investments in politically correct technologies. And think of the power that governments would have if they controlled energy consumption. By controlling energy, you control people. No wonder governments have spent tens of billions of dollars promoting this scenario and supporting political panels like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to disseminate the desired “findings.”
Even in wealthier countries, people who are affluent enough to afford the monetary costs could find their lives heavily regimented by government bureaucrats monitoring and limiting how many miles they may travel and what activities they may undertake. -
So again, did 99% of the science community go to a secret meeting where they all decided that they would come to the same conclusions? Because that sounds as crazy as all the 9/11 "truthers" who think that top down the government all planned it and no one slipped up and told the truth.
-
It never was 99%. It was politically motivated - because
many scientists had no voice in the decision to support it.
They were just included, and many wanted their names removed
from the support list. We've been over this before.
There are thousands of climate scientists whose names are added
to the pro-bogus mmgw list, who never had a thing to do with the list,
and want nothing to do with it.
-
Source?
-
More and more mmgw people are jumping the bogus ship of mmgw.
Yes, it was a UN political ploy all along. For control over, and making money from,
those countries with money.
*************************************
Green Guru James Lovelock on Climate Change: ‘I don’t think anybody really knows what’s happening. They just guess’ – Lovelock Reverses Himself on Global WarmingLovelock, on BBC TV, slams the global warming claims including those of of the United Nations climate panel. 'They just guess. And a whole group of them meet together and encourage each other’s guesses.'
Lovelock was once one of the leading voices of climate alarm. See: 2006 Climate Shocker: Lovelock Predicted Global Warming Doom: 'Billions of us will die; few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in Arctic'
Lovelock becomes UN IPCC's biggest critic: Green Guru Lovelock Slams UN IPCC & Greens: ‘Whenever UN puts its finger in it seems to become a mess’ — ‘The green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion’ -- James Lovelock: ''IPCC is too politicized & too internalized' -- On Green religion: 'I don't think people have noticed that, but it's got all the sort of terms that religions use. The greens use guilt. You can't win people round by saying they are guilty for putting CO2 in the air'
-
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
Why would all of these scientists (97% of the published science articles on climate) collude to make up a lie? Scientists aren't some monolithic unit that all choose to come to the same conclusions regardless of what the facts say.
-
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
Why would all of these scientists (97% of the published science articles on climate) collude to make up a lie? Scientists aren't some monolithic unit that all choose to come to the same conclusions regardless of what the facts say.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
Why would all of these scientists (97% of the published science articles on climate) collude to make up a lie? Scientists aren't some monolithic unit that all choose to come to the same conclusions regardless of what the facts say.
In fact, scientists are trained to be skeptical of each other and any theory that does NOT have significant evidence. You will never convince Cal of this, though, so you'd be better off trying to convince someone a bit more open-minded about the topic.
-
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific ...Peer review|Scientists...|Scientists...|Scientists...... greenhouse gases, man- made sulfate emissions, solar variability ... James Lawrence (2011), The Inquisition of Climate Science, Columbia University ...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists...of_global_warming - CachedMore results from en.wikipedia.org »***************************tartling Number of Scientific Papers Disputed Human-Caused ...The pie chart above says it all. Despite searching just over a year's worth of the scientific literature on global warming and climate change, one man's ...www.weather.com/news/science/environment/startling... - CachedMore results from weather.com »****************************Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical ...It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a ...www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer... - CachedMore results from forbes.com »***************************NASA Scientists Dispute Climate Change - Business Insider... that man-made carbon dioxide is having a ... With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists ...www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate... - Cached****************************SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists ...... More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global ... more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-manmade-global-warming-claims ...www.climatedepot.com/2011/05/31/special-report-more-than... - Cached***************************Startling Number of Scientific Papers Disputed Human-Caused ...The pie chart above says it all. Despite searching just over a year's worth of the scientific literature on global warming and climate change, one man's ...www.weather.com/news/science/environment/startling... - CachedMore results from weather.com »*****************************
*****************************17,200 Scientists Dispute Global Warming - Digital JournalIs there a scientific consensus on the topic of man made global warming? If you read the news in the major media you would have cause to believe that there is. The ...www.digitaljournal.com/article/162241 - Cached***********************************.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works ...... Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007 . Senate Report Debunks "Consensus" Complete U.S. Senate Report Now Available: ...www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority... - Cached -
Good luck guys.
Oh man, he did the Google search thing
-
- The Heartland Institute refused requests by scientists to have their names removed, stating that ...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy - Cached
More results from en.wikipedia.org »
***********************************************
Weird climate? yep.
But man made from CO2? Nah. Not buyin it, and many scientists don't, either. Like I said, their names were listed with orgs, but they never actually signed on, or changed their minds.
When mmgw became "climate change" .... that is the true indicator that mmgw is in now.
No honest person wants to be controlled, and TAXED, and have their country bankrupted, over a controversy. The moves to quelch scientific dissent speaks
volumes.
The UN wants their money. It was a great cause that really hasn't panned out.
Now, if they would just talk the destruction of millions of acres of the world's virgin rain forests.....
-
-
woodypeckerhead - he asked for sources. How the hell else can I go and find them?
you really need to grow up, and learn about things to be able to contribute anything to this
board that isn't wanton, snarky jackass glib comments.
You come off as the boards Dom Delouise's dumb little kid next door.
-
Please note that Cal is once again employing the tactic of showing a really large number of scientists (in this case, ~17,200) who dispute MMGW, without including the fact that this represents a tiny fraction of the global scientific community.
From Nov 2012 to Dec 2013 alone, over 2000 peer reviewed articles on GW were published. Of these, 9000 authors wrote in support of MMGW. One, just one author, disputed MMGW.
So what happened to those ~17,2000 scientists who dispute MMGW? Where are their peer-reviewed publications?
Ugh, I'm getting sucked in again. Calgon take me away!
-
"Their work wasn't allowed to be published! The rest of the evil liberal scientific committee shut them down! MMGW is a hoax. It snowed this winter!"
-
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
Why would all of these scientists (97% of the published science articles on climate) collude to make up a lie? Scientists aren't some monolithic unit that all choose to come to the same conclusions regardless of what the facts say.
In fact, scientists are trained to be skeptical of each other and any theory that does NOT have significant evidence. You will never convince Cal of this, though, so you'd be better off trying to convince someone a bit more open-minded about the topic.
In fact, scientists are trained to be skeptical of each other and any theory that does NOT have significant evidence. You will never convince Cal of this, though, so you'd be better off trying to convince someone a bit more open-minded about the topic.
So in this particular case being skeptical is a bad thing? Or good? Which is it guys?
WSS
-
You're skeptical in the sense you don't just believe things immediately. You need to see the facts, science, evidence etc. Then, you put it all together to get am idea. You don't listen to anyone "just because", you listen to the evidence.
That isn't the same as blind skepticism. That isn't the same as refusing to look at the evidence and then not providing any good evidence to a contrary opinion.
It shouldn't be that hard to follow.
Skepticism in the sense of a peer review process, not a "scientists are all evil liberals" process.
-
Skepticism in the sciences means that everyone runs their own tests against each other's results. 97% of the published, peer - reviewed articles came to the same results.
Instead of trying to plug their ears, mmgw deniers should just accept and change the argument towards "Yeah it is happening but none of the emerging markets are going to dial it back so there is no stopping it". Or they could just continue using the tactic of "nuh uh" as a defense.
-
Haha Cal, the weather.com link you put up was sarcastically titled. The article talks about how 14,000 articles agree with mmgw and only 24 denied it.
-
They found only one peer reviewed paper that denied mmgw....over the course of searching science articles for a year.
-
haha. I didn't read them. I just posted several.
All in all, there is a lot of push to force mmgw onto the scene.
There is science to contradict mmgw.
And thousands of scientists that refute it as fact.
And finding one link that doesn't fit.....and ignoring all the others
is typical nonsense.
So is the hostility towards anyone who won't buy into mmgw.
Now, why would anyone be that outraged at their cherry picked science
is being questioned?
Because it's political. That's why. And more and more folks are understanding that.
-
It's a spread the wealth scheme by the U.N.
Buying into mmgw is a political identity thing.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login