Oh, yeah...scientists know mmgw is bogus. It's freakin SCIENCE
-
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.
-
I've said it now for years.
mmgw is bogus.
Far too many scientists have gone with it, for
grants, etc.
It's a global move to take money from the richer countries,
and spread the wealth to poor countries.
It's BS.
-
Cal, you are implying that the vast majority of the science community is choosing to agree because of....? I really don't know why they would because a good deal of them would kill to be able to accurately discredit their peers and look like the hero. That sort of thing makes careers. Mindlessly agreeing does nothing for scientists.
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