This Is What Happens When You Elect Climate Change Deniers

Guys, there is no money to be made by anyone to keep things the way they are, duh.

That is one of the main reasons why people want to deny this right?
Because the other side, climate change, just wants to make money off us all.

a reply to: amazing

You dont need the whole scientific community to perpetrate a fraud .Cook's 97% consensus paper has been demolished . MSM will not spread the word because they like some of the journals are also in on the scam .There is a very big story to the debate that has a small bull horn compared to the constant bombardment from the media and the front guys in debate . In fact I wouldn't even call it a debate as the pro-agw people refuse to .

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: amazing

You dont need the whole scientific community to perpetrate a fraud .Cook's 97% consensus paper has been demolished . MSM will not spread the word because they like some of the journals are also in on the scam .There is a very big story to the debate that has a small bull horn compared to the constant bombardment from the media and the front guys in debate . In fact I wouldn't even call it a debate as the pro-agw people refuse to .

AS for consensus, just look at this article and the scientific organizations within. It makes a good point?

grist.org...

and I quote

"...This consensus is represented in the IPCC Third Assessment Report, Working Group 1 (TAR WG1), the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, and arguably the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific document in history. While this review was sponsored by the UN, the research it compiled and reviewed was not, and the scientists involved were independent and came from all over the world.

The conclusions reached in this document have been explicitly endorsed by …

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences


In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the TAR report:

NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

If this is not scientific consensus, what in the world would a consensus look like?

originally posted by: TsukiLunar
a reply to: WarminIndy

Then let us work towards a solution so that me and you don't have to give up the modern necessities that we live with every day. Denying the problem isn't gonna stop it and we at some point we may be forced to stop living this modern lifestyle? Do you like your air conditioner? Great! Let's make one that doesn't choke the very life out of the planet. What is so wrong with that?

How about this...

First you stop relying on weather information that goes back further than 30 years.

Let me tell you about summers and winters when I was young. Then maybe we can see whether or not they are being completely honest about the "data" they are giving you.

Second, don't think for a moment that Al Gore was simply doing this out of the goodness of his heart and caring for the planet.

THIS is Al Gore when he first took office Al Gore's Journey

Mr. Gore himself, when asked in a recent interview aboard Air Force Two to summarize his Congressional career, said the message was simple: "I will not hesitate to take on any special interest that is operating to the disadvantage of the American people. And I'll never hesitate to take on any challenge, however complex or difficult."

Global Warming "science" IS and always WAS a special interest group.

He was also an important member of the Congressional Clearinghouse on the Future. "We'd bring in top scientists, top futurists who were looking at technological developments, their implications for society," Mr. Gephardt said.

He intended back then to use any special interest group for the purpose of making a lot of money.

a reply to: Sremmos80

We should have all realized that when Al Gore brought out his inconvenient truth . I hear they banned it from being showed in the schools in Britain . According to him the polar caps were going to be gone by now and the sea would have rose 1 to 2 meters . Shortly after his movie he purchased beach front properties .He also started the carbon credit exchange in Chicago. It went well for a while but I think it has sense shut down .

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: TsukiLunar
a reply to: WarminIndy

Then let us work towards a solution so that me and you don't have to give up the modern necessities that we live with every day. Denying the problem isn't gonna stop it and we at some point we may be forced to stop living this modern lifestyle? Do you like your air conditioner? Great! Let's make one that doesn't choke the very life out of the planet. What is so wrong with that?

How about this...

First you stop relying on weather information that goes back further than 30 years.

Let me tell you about summers and winters when I was young. Then maybe we can see whether or not they are being completely honest about the "data" they are giving you.

Second, don't think for a moment that Al Gore was simply doing this out of the goodness of his heart and caring for the planet.

THIS is Al Gore when he first took office Al Gore's Journey

Mr. Gore himself, when asked in a recent interview aboard Air Force Two to summarize his Congressional career, said the message was simple: "I will not hesitate to take on any special interest that is operating to the disadvantage of the American people. And I'll never hesitate to take on any challenge, however complex or difficult."

Global Warming "science" IS and always WAS a special interest group.

He was also an important member of the Congressional Clearinghouse on the Future. "We'd bring in top scientists, top futurists who were looking at technological developments, their implications for society," Mr. Gephardt said.

He intended back then to use any special interest group for the purpose of making a lot of money.

Keep in mind that Al Gore is just one little guy who made a documentary that I've never even seen.

He really shouldn't even be part of this discussion. We're talking about scientists throughout the world that Al Gore doesn't and will never control. They came up with this science all on their own without Al.

a reply to: ketsuko

The only place that was cold, was the east coast.

I'm sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree with that statement. "Polar vortex" was a term I heard more than once last winter to describe the bone numbing cold we had at times in Wisconsin. It may have not been our coldest or snowiest winter by any means, but to say it wasn't cold here during the winter is just plain false.

a reply to: amazing

I think it was Einstein that said he could have 1000 reasons that he was correct but all it would take is 1 fact to over turn his premise . Please do take the time to read this and engage in the comment section .

Perhaps the wildest error made in one of these episodes is the juxtaposition of a couple of renowned climate science groupies, Stephan Lewandowsky who has written on the psychological illness of climate skeptics, and Peter Doran, who wrote the paper that first described the “Climate Consensus” as 97%. Doran skillfully explains how through tremendous attention to reduction, he was able to create 97% out of 50%, through a process of restricting the number of participants over and over until it was exactly at maximum, self-described climate scientists only, and only those who had published climate science. Then Lewandowsky comes on and complains about the “rest of us”, who aren’t the scientists owning the 97% consensus, as if he were ever one of them, himself, using Doran’s reductive algorithm! What hypocrisy, what hyperbole!

Sceptics are portrayed here by Liberals posing as Scientists and Scientists portraying themselves as Liberals for being morally inferior. There is obviously no possibility whatever that these types of bullies can themselves be morally superior to anyone. The essential purpose of scientific skepticism is to improve the science and improve understanding of the wide body and debates that rage inside of all of the sciences, on a constant and continuing basis. Public skepticism raises interest in science and has never posed any threat to any honest scientist.

wattsupwiththat.com... WUWT is a great source with most of the facts that run contrary to the pro side of agw . You will be met with a very active and well informed group with all the scientific literature .

Hellfire and Brimstone speeches are usually done by people outside the scientific community.
Of course there was that time the physicists needed funding for special high temperature pressure environments to test their theories.

We allow banks and realtors to legally run pyramid schemes without much public transparency.

Good for them! We should not have to pay for research into a faked field. Global/warming/climate change/whatever isn't the purview of NASA, first off, and it isn't sound science, second. If it was, there would not be so many cases where it's proven that data is altered, misrepresented, etc. Real science isn't based on lies.

Cooking Climate Consensus Data: “97% of Scientists Affirm AGW" Debunked

Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate

Fakegate: The Obnoxious Fabrication of Global Warming

Global Warming Scientist Accused Of Falsifying Data On Drowned Polar Bears Retires

I could post a lot more links, but anyone with any sense can see that t his field is nothing but political maneuvering, to control people through fear, and to make money.

Claiming it's "just the U.S." that thinks this is also ridiculous.

I second the motion that this be moved to the "religion" forum. GW/CC is a religion to those that believe it.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

I don't care about al gore, he is not the end all say all figure in this matter.

a reply to: amazing

That is the thing about people trying to scam . They will misquote take things out of context and put their own spin on it . Al is a politician who had a high profile and he used what some scientist said and re-phrased it to scare the beegbeers out of the public to help with the co2 scam . A good magic trick is a slight of hand that makes you look one way while the move is made out of sight . That is what the whole agw meme is .

a reply to: Sremmos80

No but he was a very important part to move public perception .He was the chicken little in the whole facade and he was followed up with the hockey stick team . Mann ,and those that worked within his circle of pal reviewers for the journals . Dont forget that they also had to fool a lot of scientist or at least make them believe that their brother and sister scientist believed in agw .

originally posted by: ISawItFirst
a reply to: Krazysh0t
I think this should be moved to the religion forum.

Nah unlike religious people and far right conservatives, climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies, i.e. not faith, support anthropogenic climate change. Sorry to tell you, your opinion is not as valid as their research.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Crackpot theories? Really?!? Crackpot theories is Congressmen Smith attending more meetings on aliens than on climate change real or imagined. How are you going to be informed on a matter if you don't even read up on the background reading? Then Smith has the GALL to say that climate change is unproven. Typical science denialism...

Dude, I've learned on here that most of the denialists have NOT read the actual studies. They frequently bring up such things as natural climate change, sun cycles, etc, when ALL of those are already addressed and accounted for.

Generally speaking, they don't have relevant scientific training either (if they have any at all).

Sorry denialists, your biochemistry degree or engineering degree doesn't make you magically a climate scientist.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: amazing

That is the thing about people trying to scam . They will misquote take things out of context and put their own spin on it . Al is a politician who had a high profile and he used what some scientist said and re-phrased it to scare the beegbeers out of the public to help with the co2 scam . A good magic trick is a slight of hand that makes you look one way while the move is made out of sight . That is what the whole agw meme is .

And you may be right but the anti AGW meme, pushed by big oil is slight of hand that makes you look one way while the move is made out of sight. Don't forget that.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: amazing


But what about all the Scientists The "97%" ? of them? I'll admit the number probably isn't 97%, but it's a majority. And then you have good scientific organizations like NASA. If you don't believe them about climate change or man made warming, then why would you trust them on anything like aliens or the moon landings?

When science becomes politicised, then all data must be suspect.

Because you can't honestly sit there and state that it hasn't.

So you're saying that we can't trust any scientists? That's going to really suck. How will we ever know anything? Explore anything? Can't trust the moon landing that must have been a hoax because the space race was highly politicized. Scientists were responsible for that. That's a slippery slope.

With our friend the scientific method.

Clearly stated predictions and reproducible results are all that are necessary to confirm or refute any particular hypothesis.

Politically motivated postulates which cannot be tested do not qualify.

And that's why there are so many scientists all over the earth doing research and collecting data. You can't use the scientific method effectively if you don't have enough data.

Another term besides scientific method you should be aware of is "Occam's Razor" The principle states that among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove to provide better predictions, but—in the absence of differences in predictive ability—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.

In this discussion, it would mean that is it more likely that hundreds of thousands of scientists are lying to us and in on the biggest conspiracy of all time or...are they on to something and doing good research and publishing good papers about it.

Occam's Razor would dictate that the conspiracy theory is too complex to me the correct hypothesis here. It would appear that man made global warming is real.

Occam's Razor would dictate that a group of people will do what is in their best interests.

AGW and bigger government is perceived to be in the best interest of nearly 51% of our voting population.

Certainly AGW and bigger government appears to the 51% to be a no brainer handout that will last through the short term and maybe until the utopia happens.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: ketsuko

False again. Not sure if you are just that ill informed or if you are truly trying to be manipulative here.

The 97% can be explained better here:
The 97% consensus on global warming

In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of 928 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004).

A follow-up study by the Skeptical Science team of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013). The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming.

That is cute how you immediately get a few stars for that almost mindless comment, followed by one another mindless comment that tries to equate scientists to religious zealots.

of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming
www.skepticalscience.com...

Taking a position, i.e. assuming AGW, is not the same as proving it.

and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming.
www.skepticalscience.com...

No mention of how many of the 12,000 papers were about climate specifically, or whether any of them proved anything.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: amazing


But what about all the Scientists The "97%" ? of them? I'll admit the number probably isn't 97%, but it's a majority. And then you have good scientific organizations like NASA. If you don't believe them about climate change or man made warming, then why would you trust them on anything like aliens or the moon landings?

When science becomes politicised, then all data must be suspect.

Because you can't honestly sit there and state that it hasn't.

So you're saying that we can't trust any scientists? That's going to really suck. How will we ever know anything? Explore anything? Can't trust the moon landing that must have been a hoax because the space race was highly politicized. Scientists were responsible for that. That's a slippery slope.

With our friend the scientific method.

Clearly stated predictions and reproducible results are all that are necessary to confirm or refute any particular hypothesis.

Politically motivated postulates which cannot be tested do not qualify.

And that's why there are so many scientists all over the earth doing research and collecting data. You can't use the scientific method effectively if you don't have enough data.

Another term besides scientific method you should be aware of is "Occam's Razor" The principle states that among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove to provide better predictions, but—in the absence of differences in predictive ability—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.

In this discussion, it would mean that is it more likely that hundreds of thousands of scientists are lying to us and in on the biggest conspiracy of all time or...are they on to something and doing good research and publishing good papers about it.

Occam's Razor would dictate that the conspiracy theory is too complex to me the correct hypothesis here. It would appear that man made global warming is real.

That's a reasonable statement to explain the single-mindedness problem. I am personally suspicious of real greenhouse gases like methane, if I were to rely on the simplest most likely explanation. I am not sure why that isn't the automatic presumption.

I don't think that carbon dioxide believers are participating in any conspiracy though, anyone who wishes to employ the threat of state violence to control human energy consumption (which is what this has become) is.

At the very least, as was mentioned earlier, NASA should focus on aeronautics and space and leave atmospheric research to NOAA.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

I don't think you understand how science truly works.

Good scientists will rarely if ever claim to have proved anything. Those papers are just evidence that points to the apparent reality that man is indeed contributing to the changing climate and other environmental disasters.

What evidence that suggests we are NOT causing climate change has 'the other side' brought to the table?