Dont forget those suppossed "legit" scientists have been caught lying and omiting data. They make millions continuing this scam.
Hidden Volcanoes Melt Antarctic Glaciers from Below
- Thread starter Warborg
- Start date
Yes, of course. The TRUTH is there for everyone to see. NASA is trying to mislead us. As are the other organizations cited on their link: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
It's all a giant propaganda.
Matt
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
It's all a giant propaganda.
Matt
Sarcasm aside...it is a farce. That's a nice little NASA chart that goes back a WHOPPING 134 yrs. WOW.
Let's look at the BIG picture...Not JUST what works for Global Warming...excuse me...I mean Climate Change propagandist...
Let's take a look at the natural variations of climate over the last 450,000 years. Hmm, looks like some kind of pattern...In fact, it looks like we are right about where we should be...Pretty normal looking, nothing alarming.
View attachment 1019062
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/has_western_civilization_peaked/
Don't get me wrong, humans do pollute the earth. Are we the reason...The sole cause for changes in the climate? I would say NOT. In fact, I would go as far as saying that Climate Change as we know it (the way the propagandists want you to believe it) is a myth. The Earth has been fluctuating in temperature on mass scale over HUGE and LONG periods of time. We have to look at "climate change" through macro-scale analysis, NOT micro-scale analysis as that WHOPPING HUGE NASA chart would have us do.
Don't believe the hype...It's crucial we take care of our planet...but don't be fooled. Keep an open mind and follow the science. Remember, if you keep going left at every crossroad...all you end up doing is going in circles...or squares
Scientists constantly critique criticize, and rebut each other. That's science. And that's how junk science, sloppiness and fraud gets exposed. It's called "peer review"
Because there have been some scientists in a field who have exposed falsifying or omitting data doesn't mean that the scientific consensus in that field is in question. If such were the case, we would deny modern medicine and just about every other field of science.
A main source of climate change denial propaganda is the Heartland Institute. I wonder where they get their funding?
Another way of looking at this "debate".
Matt
Because there have been some scientists in a field who have exposed falsifying or omitting data doesn't mean that the scientific consensus in that field is in question. If such were the case, we would deny modern medicine and just about every other field of science.
A main source of climate change denial propaganda is the Heartland Institute. I wonder where they get their funding?
Another way of looking at this "debate".
Matt
97% of the small percent that answered the questionair. Very few papers point to global warming as man made and "very dangerous".
Peer Review is a joke, considering these "climate experts" are paid to prove something and put out bias reports so that they can get further funding (MONEY) to keep repeating the same junk science...even though actual data does not support their ever changing and laughable research supporting supposed catastrophic global warming. Just so that you understand those numbers in a different light...you need to realize that Peer Review journals do not like to take contradictory articles on issues that they have already (been paid) to publish. Only self-sustaining and self-promoting ones are accepted. A very much "can't beat them, join them mentality". Unfortunately, only a small but growing number of scientist exist...who are brave enough to go against the grain or dare be bold enough to suggest relevant and contradicting reports to those who have been brainwashed by repeated bombardments of fantasy scenarios which have been and will continue to be discredited.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/04/13950-meaningless-search-results.html
PEER REVIEW
The hidden volcanoes is one more headline the climate change deniers made to cast doubt on climate change. It works because lay people can easily be manipulated by head line news on such a complex subject. Climate change is highly politicized because there is a lot of money and passion involved. On one end, the fossil fuel industry and users work hard to deny climate change by casting doubts to prevent new law that will cut into their profit. On the other end, passionate environmentalists exaggerate harms often with junk science to support their cause. I don’t trust headline news on face value and read books in depth to form my opinion. IMO, IPCC provides the most neutral and balanced info on climate change. http://ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml IPCC is a United Nation chartered scientific body made up of thousands of scientists across the globe that conduct research and peer reviewed every report, theory and the controversy on climate change. IMO, man induced climate change is real as 97% of the IPCC scientists agree today (only 50% 15 years ago) but the impacts on human and environment are not thoroughly understood. There are winners and losers too. Russia and northern nations will gain, and island nations will lose. Not surprisingly, the climate change deniers don’t like IPCC and attempted to discredit it because they don’t like some truths to come out. A few years ago, they hacked into IPCC emails and made false accusation by taking words out of context that made the headline. I wonder how many of you have read the verdict on the “climate gate”.
Anyone ever seen "thank you for smoking"? Makes me think of the german scientist in the beginning. Think the line was something like "hes been researching the effects of cigarette smoke for 30 years and hasnt found a direct correlation. Guy is so good he could disprove gravity."
im afraid this might not be too far from the truth unfortunately.
im afraid this might not be too far from the truth unfortunately.
To confuse the public dialogue on the findings of the IPCC (i.e. 97% of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities), the Heartland Institute (paid shills for the fossil fuel industry) established the NIPCC and funded it to produce reports.
Unlike the IPCC, the NIPCC examines literature published exclusively by climate contrarians who are paid to contribute their findings to NIPCC reports, according to leaked internal documents of the Heartland Institute (http://skepticalscience.com/denialgate-heartland.html).
The 2009 NIPCC report Climate Change Reconsidered had two lead authors, Fred Singer and Craig Idso, and 35 contributors. Similarly, the 2011 Interim NIPCC report had three lead authors, Fred Singer, Craig Idso, and Robert Carter, and only eight contributors. The NIPCC does not employ the same rigorous standards and approval process used by the IPCC to ensure its assessment reports are accurate and inclusive.
Matt
Unlike the IPCC, the NIPCC examines literature published exclusively by climate contrarians who are paid to contribute their findings to NIPCC reports, according to leaked internal documents of the Heartland Institute (http://skepticalscience.com/denialgate-heartland.html).
The 2009 NIPCC report Climate Change Reconsidered had two lead authors, Fred Singer and Craig Idso, and 35 contributors. Similarly, the 2011 Interim NIPCC report had three lead authors, Fred Singer, Craig Idso, and Robert Carter, and only eight contributors. The NIPCC does not employ the same rigorous standards and approval process used by the IPCC to ensure its assessment reports are accurate and inclusive.
Matt
A great article about those who claim the 97% number is not correct:
The Rupert Murdoch media (i.e. Faux News) continues to deny the reality of human-caused global warming: http://www.theguardian.com/environm...treet-journal-denies-global-warming-consensus
By that standard, there’s less than a 1% expert consensus on evolution, germ theory, and heliocentric theory, because there are hardly any papers in those scientific fields that bother to say something so obvious as, for example, “the Earth revolves around the sun.” The same is true of human-caused global warming. That Bast and Spencer refer to Monckton and Legates’ fundamentally wrong paper in an obscure off-topic journal as “more reliable research” reveals their bias in only considering denial “reliable.”
Matt
The Rupert Murdoch media (i.e. Faux News) continues to deny the reality of human-caused global warming: http://www.theguardian.com/environm...treet-journal-denies-global-warming-consensus
By that standard, there’s less than a 1% expert consensus on evolution, germ theory, and heliocentric theory, because there are hardly any papers in those scientific fields that bother to say something so obvious as, for example, “the Earth revolves around the sun.” The same is true of human-caused global warming. That Bast and Spencer refer to Monckton and Legates’ fundamentally wrong paper in an obscure off-topic journal as “more reliable research” reveals their bias in only considering denial “reliable.”
Matt
