Former NASA Scientist: Global Warming is Nonsense

originally posted by: Dorrell
"The overwhelming majority (97%) of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere comes from nature, not from man. Volcanoes, swamps, rice paddies, fallen leaves, and even insects and bacteria produce carbon dioxide, as well as methane. According to the journal Science (Nov. 5, 1982), termites alone emit ten times more carbon dioxide than all the factories and automobiles in the world."
...
Lot's of Propaganda, Lies and Falsified data result in the Carbon Tax Scam / Global Warming Lie!

GOT IT???????

There is indeed lots of propaganda, lies, and falsified data - but it is mostly coming from the climate change denial camp. Got it?

Take your quote there - termites alone emit ten times more carbon dioxide than all factories and automobiles in the world? Laughable. Termites are part of the natural cycle - factories and automobiles are not.

Additionally, termites produce an estimated 3.5 +/- 0.66 gigatonnes of CO2 annually. A gigatonne is 10^9 tonnes, so ~3,500,000,000 tonnes of CO2. Humans produced 26.8 billion tonnes of CO2 in 2003, while volcanoes average 200 million tonnes of CO annually. The U.S. alone produces far more CO2 than termites - over 5 billion tonnes of CO2 annually for the last twenty years.

I dare say that source is engaging in propaganda, wouldn't you agree?

a reply to: beezzer
Don't forget that earth was the center of the universe, or maybe that was the church folks. One week, lets start small and say 2 days from today.

Wu

a reply to: Chamberf=6

It doesn't matter they are all wrong 70% of the time anyway.
Wu

a reply to: Dorrell

you have absoutely no idea what you are talking about. Climate cycle is only partially driven by solar intensity. You also have Milankovich cycles, which encompass orbital variation on solar insolation, Earths Albedo (relfelctivity index, more ice = greater albedo), then you have atmostpheric and thermohaline circulation, carbon sinks such as deep ocean sediments and biomass, and i whole myriad of other interalated systems which are extremely dynamic and interconnected. Hence all the uncertainty, especially when there are runaway effects as stable sytems begin to collapse which in turn cause more rapid changes to neightboring systems.

But you knew all that didnt you, because clearly you have a handle on the situation and understand it completely

originally posted by: Matt1951
Misapplication of science has occurred before. Lets look at two examples. Eugenics. Darwin was science. What followed was not science. Eugenics led to force sterilizations in the US. In Nazi Germany, it led to the idea of genocide of entire groups of humans.
Example two, hydrogenated vegetable oils. Based largely on speculation and very limited studies, hydrogenated food oils were promoted as being heart healthy. This was promoted as science. Now with accurate and detailed studies completed, we know science tells us hydrogenated oils should never be consumed.
Science tells us there has been an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and this is most likely due to deforestation and burning of carbon fuels. This is pretty much where science on the issue ends.

Your example lumps corporate commercialism (which you claim is rendered as science) with actual scientific research by competent PhDs in climatology. You obviously haven't read books about it, in order to understand it enough for an objective, deconstructive analysis. Its beginning to look like pseudo-skepticism.

a reply to: Everlastingknowitall

It's a chart of the Total Solar Irradiance of Earths upper atmosphere. It's how we measure how much energy (heat) Earth is receiving from the sun. I don't think specific wavelength charts would answer any questions for you.

originally posted by: madmac5150
a reply to: Bone75

Ten other scientists on the payroll is a more accurate statement... this entire thing reeks of corporate and government "science" with one objective... to liberate more cash from the people to line the pockets of the elite.

You have that right, re. on the payroll! Tenure and research grants determine what scientists will spout these days. You would probably notice that scientists who support AGCC are receiving grants, while others not in support, get few to none, REGARDLESS of their field of research. No one is safe from the AGCC nazi's.

And yes, it is all about wealth redistribution, taxation to provide public money channels to private corporations to increase their profits while providing kickbacks to politicians and universities that support this bunk. I think it's called "being milked."

As far as the rational behind the time line of AGCC, there is a propagation delay between cause and effect, the industrial revolution occurred a couple of/few hundred years ago. If we are seeing the effects of that period of time, with a delay between cause and effect of say 100 years, we're screwed. NO amount of taxation and wealth redistribution, even if it were to go to a real solution, would have any effect. Then there is the second problem, that of system-wide temperature increases in the entire solar system, eg. Mar's cap melting, changes in the storms and sunspot on Jupiter, etc. We are meant to believe by the pontifs of AGCC that cow farts, fireplaces and SUV's on Earth are driving climate change on Mars and Jupiter? But we are not supposed to look at the amount of industrial pollution, yeah right.

I agree that we should reduce pollution of all kinds, I'm all for that, but not taxes to transfer wealth to already bloated CEO's and international bankers and certainly not through the "outlawing" of CO2, that plants kind of need to, ahh, live. There are a ton of technologies in sealed patents that would take us off the oil and fossil fuel "tit," but of course exploitation of those technologies takes away control from those bloated execs. We all know the status quo will not give up control without a fight.

Is it time to eat the rich yet? I understand many are getting hungry for a dish best served cold.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: BeReasonable

Pop Quiz!

If it was warmer in the Medieval period than it is now then why is Human Progression in the Industrial World contributing to the rising temperature? Why are the Global Warming pushers going on and on like a Duracell battery about CO2 emissions when that only accounts to a minuscule output into the atmosphere?!

Did the Knight's of the Medieval period burp too much over their Chicken and Wine? Were the horses they rode into battle on Farting too much?

Why do people not look at the past evidence? Why do they ALWAYS believe the Propagandists of Today? Rather that looking at the evidence of yesterday! You can go on and on about honest scientists and why would they all be in on a scam etc etc etc and all those lovely percentages and numbers flying around but you still cannot say that the people of today are causing Climate Change with all their technology and emissions from industry.

Between 1000 AD and 1300 AD it was hotter than it is now. Now in that period I don't remember historical records indicating a mass of CO2 emissions from their industrial complex!



I do however remember Al Gore's recent Selfie!



I thought people would have learned by now that to create a scam and a lie it doesn't take much to convince the idiots out there. Some falsified data, photo shopped pictures and videos and lot's and lot's of repeated Propaganda!

But still the evidence is there, right in your face and people STILL ignore it and repeat what the Propagandists are spouting off. There are either a lot of stupid people or a lot Disinfo Trolls floating around!

On Dec. 13, 2007, 100 scientists jointly signed an Open Letter to Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations, requesting they cease the man-made global warming hysteria and settle down to helping mankind better prepare for natural disasters. The final signature was from the President of the World Federation of Scientists.

originally posted by: namehere
honestly i find people's attitude on this to be silly, i mean up until 2003 or 2004 most people and scientists looked at man made warming as the nonsense it is, then suddenly when it became profitable due to oil prices rising and the beginnings of economic trouble, everyone out of nowhere started saying the opposite, using the same evidence used to prove it wasn't man made.

if evidence points in two opposing directions then obviously someone is lying about their resulting theory.

Scientist never looked at man made warming as nonsense. Where you got your info from and where did you go to school?

Do you folks even know how much we are polluting this planet?

Do you even consider how 'cracking' industry will destroy rest of planet and water?

And do you know that some farmers are now getting their water from water that is byproduct from oil wells?

Huge corporations have high interest to keep quiet about problem we all will be facing, and ignorance and denial of out part in global warming will not help us (or our kids) in any way.

Couple of graphs to keep in mind...







Scientist predicted more severe weather across globe and if you follow news, you can easily connect dots for your self. Biggest cold, strongest winds, biggest heat in AU... just to mention some of them, and very strong hurricans... and people still not believing something is wrong with weather and we are not cause for it...

This topic reminds me of Dr. Kehoe who claimed that there was no basis that lead fuel poses any health threats. His research was paid by big corporations and got most of planet sick (some parts are still fighting lead poisoning like Detroit, MI.)

Now we have ' humans are not source of climate change', which none of other scientist denies, except those with huge grants from big corporations... Interesting how history repeats itself....

originally posted by: Gianfar

originally posted by: Matt1951
Misapplication of science has occurred before. Lets look at two examples. Eugenics. Darwin was science. What followed was not science. Eugenics led to force sterilizations in the US. In Nazi Germany, it led to the idea of genocide of entire groups of humans.
Example two, hydrogenated vegetable oils. Based largely on speculation and very limited studies, hydrogenated food oils were promoted as being heart healthy. This was promoted as science. Now with accurate and detailed studies completed, we know science tells us hydrogenated oils should never be consumed.
Science tells us there has been an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and this is most likely due to deforestation and burning of carbon fuels. This is pretty much where science on the issue ends.

Your example lumps corporate commercialism (which you claim is rendered as science) with actual scientific research by competent PhDs in climatology. You obviously haven't read books about it, in order to understand it enough for an objective, deconstructive analysis. Its beginning to look like pseudo-skepticism.

I gave two examples. If you are referring to the vegetable oils, read the history of the American Heart Association. Proctor and Gamble was corporatism, but overall science agreed with them at the time.
Yet you still cannot offer data that supports your position. I can only hope you are only an adjunct instructor. Maybe you can apply for a priesthood in the pseudo religion of Global Warming.

a reply to: Dorrell

Nothing accounts for the warming trend other than increased CO2 and Methane which has been proven to come from anthropogenic sources.

originally posted by: Matt1951

originally posted by: Gianfar

originally posted by: Matt1951
Misapplication of science has occurred before. Lets look at two examples. Eugenics. Darwin was science. What followed was not science. Eugenics led to force sterilizations in the US. In Nazi Germany, it led to the idea of genocide of entire groups of humans.
Example two, hydrogenated vegetable oils. Based largely on speculation and very limited studies, hydrogenated food oils were promoted as being heart healthy. This was promoted as science. Now with accurate and detailed studies completed, we know science tells us hydrogenated oils should never be consumed.
Science tells us there has been an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and this is most likely due to deforestation and burning of carbon fuels. This is pretty much where science on the issue ends.

Your example lumps corporate commercialism (which you claim is rendered as science) with actual scientific research by competent PhDs in climatology. You obviously haven't read books about it, in order to understand it enough for an objective, deconstructive analysis. Its beginning to look like pseudo-skepticism.

I gave two examples. If you are referring to the vegetable oils, read the history of the American Heart Association. Proctor and Gamble was corporatism, but overall science agreed with them at the time.
Yet you still cannot offer data that supports your position. I can only hope you are only an adjunct instructor. Maybe you can apply for a priesthood in the pseudo religion of Global Warming.

I made a simple point. Making non-specified statements about exaggerated data, bad science...etc, doesn't get it. Quote something from a reputable scientist neck deep in the developing models of climate change, and tell us where he/she went wrong. Complaining about vegetable oil doesn't even come close to making a valid point.

I never share data/research of projects with those who exert their right to speech unless they exhibit some knowledge of the work. There are some nice posts in this thread. There are posts which show parts of the planetary cycle, historical data in tens of thousands of years from core samples..etc.

You haven't illustrated any understanding or acknowledgement of this work or what could possibly be wrong with it. You'd have to be a scientist to do that.

That's why we go to people who have a better education and many years of practical application to learn. Now, if what I understand you to say is that you distrust these folks so much that you wouldn't believe a single word they say, well, that's a deeper problem than what we can help you with here.

When it comes to matters of grave importance -"Lack of substance is more distressing than the force with which it is expressed".

I don't know if this was mentioned: Caution: Now Entering Years Living Dangerously

Yale Climate Project shows that 97% of scientists have reached a consensus that climate change is occurring AND is human caused.

The grand conspiracy of the ultra-majority.

originally posted by: Gianfar

originally posted by: Matt1951

originally posted by: Gianfar

originally posted by: Matt1951
Misapplication of science has occurred before. Lets look at two examples. Eugenics. Darwin was science. What followed was not science. Eugenics led to force sterilizations in the US. In Nazi Germany, it led to the idea of genocide of entire groups of humans.
Example two, hydrogenated vegetable oils. Based largely on speculation and very limited studies, hydrogenated food oils were promoted as being heart healthy. This was promoted as science. Now with accurate and detailed studies completed, we know science tells us hydrogenated oils should never be consumed.
Science tells us there has been an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and this is most likely due to deforestation and burning of carbon fuels. This is pretty much where science on the issue ends.

Here is a list of American scientists who disagree with Global Warming:
www.petitionproject.org...
31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,including 9,029 with PhDs

You can blather on about how educated you are, but you have presented no arguments except you cannot stoop to present your case to those you deem are less informed than you.
Present your case or stop wasting bandwidth.


Your example lumps corporate commercialism (which you claim is rendered as science) with actual scientific research by competent PhDs in climatology. You obviously haven't read books about it, in order to understand it enough for an objective, deconstructive analysis. Its beginning to look like pseudo-skepticism.

I gave two examples. If you are referring to the vegetable oils, read the history of the American Heart Association. Proctor and Gamble was corporatism, but overall science agreed with them at the time.
Yet you still cannot offer data that supports your position. I can only hope you are only an adjunct instructor. Maybe you can apply for a priesthood in the pseudo religion of Global Warming.

I made a simple point. Making non-specified statements about exaggerated data, bad science...etc, doesn't get it. Quote something from a reputable scientist neck deep in the developing models of climate change, and tell us where he/she went wrong. Complaining about vegetable oil doesn't even come close to making a valid point.

I never share data/research of projects with those who exert their right to speech unless they exhibit some knowledge of the work. There are some nice posts in this thread. There are posts which show parts of the planetary cycle, historical data in tens of thousands of years from core samples..etc.

You haven't illustrated any understanding or acknowledgement of this work or what could possibly be wrong with it. You'd have to be a scientist to do that.

That's why we go to people who have a better education and many years of practical application to learn. Now, if what I understand you to say is that you distrust these folks so much that you wouldn't believe a single word they say, well, that's a deeper problem than what we can help you with here.

When it comes to matters of grave importance -"Lack of substance is more distressing than the force with which it is expressed".

31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs :
www.petitionproject.org...
These scientists are opposed to the concept of "Global Warming".
The names of these scientists are listed on this Global Warming Petition Project.

You say you like some of the posts here, yet you provide no evidence you are really a scientist. You do not provide any technical evidence (such as data you say you admire) to support your position. We are supposed to accept that you cannot divulge any data to those you deem to be less informed than you, which makes us have to accept your position based on faith. Which is why you appear to be practicing a pseudo religion. If you truly are some type of instructor, you should be able to provide some technical evidence to support your position, in language that is understandable to the public.

a reply to: Matt1951

Credentials and authenticity

The credentials, verification process, and the authenticity of the signatories has been questioned.

Jeff Jacoby promoted the Oregon Institute petition as delegates convened for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1998. Jacoby, a columnist for the Boston Globe, said event organizers "take it for granted" that global warming is real when scientists do not agree "that greater concentrations of CO2 would be harmful" or "that human activity leads to global warming in the first place."[17] George Woodwell and John Holdren, two members of the National Academy of Sciences, responded to Jacoby in the International Herald Tribune, describing the petition as a "farce" in part because "the signatories are listed without titles or affiliations that would permit an assessment of their credentials."[18] Myanna Lahsen said, "Assuming that all the signatories reported their credentials accurately, credentialed climate experts on the list are very few." The problem is made worse, Lahsen notes, because critics "added bogus names to illustrate the lack of accountability the petition involved".[19] Approved names on the list included fictional characters from the television show M*A*S*H,[20] the movie Star Wars,[19] Spice Girls group member Geri Halliwell, English naturalist Charles Darwin (d. 1882) and prank names such as "I. C. Ewe".[21] When questioned about the pop singer during a telephone interview with Joseph Hubert of the Associated Press, Robinson acknowledged that her endorsement and degree in microbiology was inauthentic, remarking "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake".[20] A cursory examination by Todd Shelly of the Hawaii Reporter revealed duplicate entries, single names lacking any initial, and even corporate names. "These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided."[22] According to the Petition Project website, the issue of duplication has been resolved.[23] Kevin Grandia offered similar criticism, saying although the Petition Project website provides a breakdown of "areas of expertise", it fails to assort the 0.5% of signatories who claim to have a background in Climatology and Atmospheric Science by name, making independent verification difficult. "This makes an already questionable list seem completely insignificant".[24]

In 2001, Scientific American took a random sample "of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science."

Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[25]

Former New Scientist correspondent Peter Hadfield says scientists are not experts on every topic, as depicted by the character Brains in Thunderbirds. Rather, they must specialize:

"In between Aaagard and Zylkowski, the first and last names on the petition, are an assortment of metallurgists, botanists, agronomists, organic chemists and so on. ... The vast majority of scientists who signed the petition have never studied climatology and don't do any research into it. It doesn't matter if you're a Ph.D. A Ph.D in metallurgy just makes you better at metallurgy. It does not transform you into some kind of expert in paleoclimatology. ... So the petition's suggestion that everyone with a degree in metallurgy or geophysics knows a lot about climate change, or is familiar with all the research that's been done, is patent crap."[26][27]

NAS incident

A manuscript accompanying the petition was presented in a near identical style and format to contributions that appear in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a scientific journal,[28] but upon careful examination was distinct from a publication by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Raymond Pierrehumbert, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Chicago, said the presentation was "designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article … is a reprint and has passed peer review." Pierrehumbert also said the publication was full of "half-truths".[29] F. Sherwood Rowland, who was at the time foreign secretary of the National Academy of Sciences, said that the Academy received numerous inquiries from researchers who "are wondering if someone is trying to hoodwink them."[29]

After the petition appeared, the National Academy of Sciences said in a 1998 news release that "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal."[30] It also said "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." The NAS further noted that its own prior published study had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises."[30]

Robinson responded in a 1998 article in Science, "I used the Proceedings as a model, but only to put the information in a format that scientists like to read, not to fool people into thinking it is from a journal."[29] A 2006 article the magazine Vanity Fair stated: "Today, Seitz admits that 'it was stupid' for the Oregon activists to copy the academy's format. Still, he doesn't understand why the academy felt compelled to disavow the petition, which he continues to cite as proof that it is "not true" there is a scientific consensus on global warming".[31]

wikipedia

originally posted by: Matt1951

originally posted by: Gianfar

originally posted by: Matt1951

originally posted by: Gianfar

originally posted by: Matt1951
Misapplication of science has occurred before. Lets look at two examples. Eugenics. Darwin was science. What followed was not science. Eugenics led to force sterilizations in the US. In Nazi Germany, it led to the idea of genocide of entire groups of humans.
Example two, hydrogenated vegetable oils. Based largely on speculation and very limited studies, hydrogenated food oils were promoted as being heart healthy. This was promoted as science. Now with accurate and detailed studies completed, we know science tells us hydrogenated oils should never be consumed.
Science tells us there has been an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and this is most likely due to deforestation and burning of carbon fuels. This is pretty much where science on the issue ends.

Here is a list of American scientists who disagree with Global Warming:
www.petitionproject.org...
31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,including 9,029 with PhDs

You can blather on about how educated you are, but you have presented no arguments except you cannot stoop to present your case to those you deem are less informed than you.
Present your case or stop wasting bandwidth.


Your example lumps corporate commercialism (which you claim is rendered as science) with actual scientific research by competent PhDs in climatology. You obviously haven't read books about it, in order to understand it enough for an objective, deconstructive analysis. Its beginning to look like pseudo-skepticism.

I gave two examples. If you are referring to the vegetable oils, read the history of the American Heart Association. Proctor and Gamble was corporatism, but overall science agreed with them at the time.
Yet you still cannot offer data that supports your position. I can only hope you are only an adjunct instructor. Maybe you can apply for a priesthood in the pseudo religion of Global Warming.

I made a simple point. Making non-specified statements about exaggerated data, bad science...etc, doesn't get it. Quote something from a reputable scientist neck deep in the developing models of climate change, and tell us where he/she went wrong. Complaining about vegetable oil doesn't even come close to making a valid point.

I never share data/research of projects with those who exert their right to speech unless they exhibit some knowledge of the work. There are some nice posts in this thread. There are posts which show parts of the planetary cycle, historical data in tens of thousands of years from core samples..etc.

You haven't illustrated any understanding or acknowledgement of this work or what could possibly be wrong with it. You'd have to be a scientist to do that.

That's why we go to people who have a better education and many years of practical application to learn. Now, if what I understand you to say is that you distrust these folks so much that you wouldn't believe a single word they say, well, that's a deeper problem than what we can help you with here.

When it comes to matters of grave importance -"Lack of substance is more distressing than the force with which it is expressed".

31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs :
www.petitionproject.org...
These scientists are opposed to the concept of "Global Warming".
The names of these scientists are listed on this Global Warming Petition Project.

You say you like some of the posts here, yet you provide no evidence you are really a scientist. You do not provide any technical evidence (such as data you say you admire) to support your position. We are supposed to accept that you cannot divulge any data to those you deem to be less informed than you, which makes us have to accept your position based on faith. Which is why you appear to be practicing a pseudo religion. If you truly are some type of instructor, you should be able to provide some technical evidence to support your position, in language that is understandable to the public.

Woow, what an achievement - while trying to prove global warming hoax, you managed to find real hoax.

Great job!

www.huffingtonpost.com...

a reply to: Gianfar

I gave two examples where what was regarded (or presented) as science was later proven wrong. Eugenics, and transfats. You chose to respond to my post regarding transfats. Evidently you still feel it is ok to promote transfats, which is the opposite of where science is today. Science evolves as more data is made available, but not Global Warmists. Warmists beliefs are fixed and rigid, no matter what the actual evidence shows.
I will give another example. Flight. The Wright brothers would prove wrong the many scientists who said it was impossible. Or how about another example. The universe was filled with ether.
Yet the false prophets of Global Warming wrap themselves in the self righteous cloak that only they can understand the data they collect and "interpret". However, if someone agrees with them, such as Al Gore who is not a scientist, then they can become a high priest of the religion. Warmists do not allow that most scientists will have evolving positions as more data becomes available. They rigidly claim the right to speak for all scientists.

It is kind of connected with this discussion:

ABC News: Pollution Report Paints Gloomy Picture of Smoggiest U.S. Cities

More than half of Americans breathe in unhealthy air, according to a new American Lung Association’s “State of the Air 2014” report.

The Association found that air pollution throughout the nation has gotten a little worse since last year’s report. In particular, ozone levels rose in the three year period from 2010 to 2012, possibly because of climate change.

“We’re making progress but some of that could be reversed with rising ozone levels,” said Janice Nolen, the Lung Association’s vice president of national policy. “A changing climate is going to make it harder to protect human health.”

a reply to: Kali74

Kali and Superfrog=
No one can deny many of the names on the list are valid. There is no discussion on the HuffingtonPost article describing how the Warmists tried to sabotage the list by adding false names, so the creators of the list had to institute more rigorous procedures verifing names. It is also true, as stated in the article, that some of the scientists who signed the petition, later changed their minds. However that is not the fault of the petition.
In particular the Huffington Post, which is a Warming advocate, the article complains most of the scientists in the Global Warming Petition were not climatologists. Neither were the scientists in the original Global Warming polls of scientists.

Here is one look at how Warmists skew poll results to claim 97% of scientists support global warming:
www.forbes.com...

I read the HuffingtonPost daily, but they only present an advocacy of Global Warming, they will never present the opposing viewpoint. Results of polling of scientists are interpreted to give the results the advocates want. If a scientist believes 5% of global warming from 1970 to 1995 was man made, he can be either listed as a supporter or skeptic, depending on who is running the poll.

The largest hurdle the Warmists had to overcome, was that Warming halted when according to their theories, it should have been rapidly increasing. Another hurdle is the concern that not all researchers are objective, as an example, at University of East Anglia. Researchers have a tendency to support those who are funding them.

So how do Warmists explain the lack of Global Warming? They change their name to Climate Change, so that they can be absolutely right whether temperatures are going up or down.

a reply to: Matt1951

How shocking that there was no verification process in place to weed out the nefarious warmists and their dirty tricks and really why bother you guys don't ever check facts anyway. If you did you'd know that most of the climate coverage in Forbes, WSJ, FOX, Wattsupwiththat is all BS. You don't need facts anyway cuz just the mention of Al Gore and you all perform like the good little circus monkeys you are.