Oh, yeah...scientists know mmgw is bogus. It's freakin SCIENCE
-
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.
-
You guys can agree with mmgw all you want. But the truth is slowly making it's
way across the world.
Fraud. Cherry picked data. You mmgw believers can forget it. The tree ring syndrome has
opened the world's eyes to the bogus claim.
Whatever else it is, it is also bleeding heart liberal wanting more and more money
for spending on ... utopian goals.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/6820-global-warming-alarmism-dying-a-slow-death
-
You actually get more in grants for making the case that you are doing something new. I know this because I have helped some of my friends write grant requests at the University level. That is why you end up with a good deal of university studies where the obvious is tested ("Does putting your face on an a flame hurt?") because they can claim no one has studied it.
-
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." ~ Richard Feynman“No theory is carved in stone. Science is merciless when it comes to testing all theories over and over, at any time, in any place. Unlike religion or politics, science is ultimately decided by experiments, done repeatedly in every form. There are no sacred cows. In science, 100 authorities count for nothing. Experiment counts for everything.” ~ Michio Kaku, a professor of theoretical physics at City College of New York“If your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.” ~ Richard Feynman
CAGW asserts that CO2 causes temperatures to rise in the real atmosphere due to the GHG effect. Yes there is a GHG effect but clearly Mother Nature isn't obeying the CAGW Hypothesis as the empirical data shows:No warming for 17 years and 6 months in the actual real atmosphere even while the Co2 has increased contradicts the CAGW hypothesis.Which wins in science, opinion or empirical data? The scientific method says that empirical data always trumps claims or opinions or consensus that contradicts it. Data wins. Papers and paper authors lose when contradictory empirical data shows their claims wrong. That is the harsh way of science and why we make progress.“The exception tests the rule.” Or, put another way, “The exception proves that the rule is wrong.” That is the principle of science. If there is an exception to any rule, and if it can be proved by observation, that rule is wrong.” – Richard FeynmanThere are 17 years and 6 months of empirical temperature data (RSS 2014) exception to the CAGW hypothesis claims thus following the rules of the scientific method the claims of CAGW are automatically falsified and all the papers that contradict this empirical evidence are thus Null And Void.
-
Instead of posting retorts from sites that make money from editorials, why not just find peer reviewed material on the subject that backs your claims?
Also, I am no alarmist. I am a realist. I don't make mmgw out to be a bogeyman. I just accept it knowing that jack shit can be done about it.
-
Furthermore, it's ridiculous to believe that CO2 is a poison.
I mean, seriously, stop the nonsense.
Stop the destruction of the world's virgin rain forests.
That would help the rise of CO2 levels.
Which, obviously, proves that since global temps have stopped rising for
YEARS..
that the correlation was incorrect at best, and diabolically for trying to establish
a giant gw fraud for more and more and more money from the richer countries in the world.
Especially, our country.
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