Oh... the Al Gore funded site whose sole purpose is to spread the Climate Cabal religion and "drown-out" anyone who disagrees with them.
Anyone who lived through the 70s knows the entire scientific and media focus was on global cooling.
France's Top Weatherman Suspended Over 'Wrong' Views on Climate Change
- Thread starter Max E.
- Start date
Oh... the Al Gore funded site whose sole purpose is to spread the Climate Cabal religion and "drown-out" anyone who disagrees with them.
Anyone who lived through the 70s knows the entire scientific and media focus was on global cooling.
Not funded by Al Gore although he may have donated something to it. Funded by people like me and the science on that site is solid and has references as opposed to nearly everything that you post. Will you ever get a brain?
And yes, people who know the truth and the science need to drown out idiots like you. Tough shit.
What do you think of Exxon knowing but suppressing the science and actually spreading doubt it?
What do I think of a "science site" whose sole purpose is to round up people to attack any scientist (like Dr. Judith Curry) who expresses any doubt about global warming theory and attempt to find ways to have them fired to undermine their properly researched claims?
I say any site like this, such as the twisted Skeptical Science site, is an example of what exactly is wrong with "climate science" - it has everything to do with politics and money... and nothing to do with science.
This whole business is progressing toward collective, public insanity. If only the scientists working on climate could be left alone to do their work without a surrounding media and political circus, we would have a much better chance of figuring out what is really going on. The present political climate makes it very difficult to do good science.
That is not it's "sole purpose" you nitwit. Are you really this stupid and deluded?
The sites' purpose is to provide arguments science and facts to counter the disinformation campaign by such entities as Exxon, which I notice you still refuse to comment on.
"
One of the goals when I started Skeptical Science was to restore the good name of skepticism, whose reputation has been sullied by being associated with science denial. The Committee for Skeptical Inquirer have also worked hard to claim back the word skepticism, including the powerful article Deniers are not Skeptics written by a number of prominent skeptics, featuring Mark Boslough, Eugenie Scott, Richard Dawkins and Bill Nigh. They also published my article Taking Back Skepticism.
What to call those who reject mainstream climate science (to borrow the terminology of Associated Press) is a topic of hot debate. There are two key points to remember in this debate, which we emphasise in our free online course, Making Sense of Climate Science Denial.
Firstly, skepticism and denial are polar opposites. A genuine scientific skeptic first considers the full body of evidence then comes to a conclusion. A denialist comes to a conclusion first (usually influenced by ideology), then denies any science that conflicts with their position."
Oh Exxon scientist had it figured out thirty years ago..
- By 1978 Exxon’s senior scientists were telling top management that climate change was real, caused by man, and would raise global temperatures by 2-3C this century, which was pretty much spot-on.
- By the early 1980s they’d validated these findings with shipborne measurements of CO2 (they outfitted a giant tanker with carbon sensors for a research voyage) and with computer models that showed precisely what was coming. As the head of one key lab at Exxon Research wrote to his superiors, there was “unanimous agreement in the scientific community that a temperature increase of this magnitude would bring about significant changes in the earth’s climate, including rainfall distribution and alterations in the biosphere”.
- And by the early 1990s their researchers studying the possibility for new exploration in the Arctic were well aware that human-induced climate change was melting the poles. Indeed, they used that knowledge to plan their strategy, reporting that soon the Beaufort Sea would be ice-free as much as five months a year instead of the historic two. Greenhouse gases are rising “due to the burning of fossil fuels,” a key Exxon researcher told an audience of engineers at a conference in 1991. “Nobody disputes this fact.”
They helped organise campaigns designed to instil doubt, borrowing tactics and personnel from the tobacco industry’s similar fight. They funded “institutes” devoted to outright climate denial. And at the highest levels they did all they could to spread their lies.
LOL, after reading this from their site, im not 100% unconvinced that these guys arent just a bunch of jokers who are just parodying themselves.
This is the lunacy of the left. They don't even read or comprehend what they write.
He reads an article which says temps would warm 2 to 3 C by the end of the past decade (1978 to 2000) because of increasing CO2... and thinks that prediction was spot on?
If he could actually think for himself... he was see he just proved another agw nutter climate fail.
even with "adjustments to the temperature record... we may have gone up about .5C during that time... and we have not gone up since.
He reads an article which says temps would warm 2 to 3 C by the end of the past decade (1978 to 2000) because of increasing CO2... and thinks that prediction was spot on?
If he could actually think for himself... he was see he just proved another agw nutter climate fail.
even with "adjustments to the temperature record... we may have gone up about .5C during that time... and we have not gone up since.
This is the lunacy of the left. They don't even read or comprehend what they write.
He reads an article which says temps would warm 2 to 3 C by the end of the past decade (1978 to 2000) because of increasing CO2... and thinks that prediction was spot on?
If he could actually think for himself... he was see he just proved another agw nutter climate fail.
even with "adjustments to the temperature record... we may have gone up about .5C during that time... and we have not gone up since.
Nice chart. But there are better more accurate updated ones.
Why would you need to update a historic temperature chart? It already happened. What happened, happened. Why would you adjust that?