Fraudcurrents - NOAA just proved you were a fool

[reg]

Why give them that? If they're calling you names, you're winning.

That statement is soooooo gaaaaaaaay!

 

[Ricter]

That statement is soooooo gaaaaaaaay!

Lol.

 

[jem]

so if say you clowned it up with this post.... you are winning?
you can't win on this subject til you present some science, observations, or data which shows man made co2 causes warming here on earth... no matter what names we call anyone.

We are looking for science here.... sticks and stones may break bones but the impact of man made co2 may not hurt you... because is not yet understood.

Maybe it's just the way you write, but it sounds like they get you going. You're never going to change their mind on this subject, nor they, yours. And if you believe they should change their minds, no doubt they think the same of you. But if you let them get you riled up, then they have something that day, no matter how trivial, that they can feel they've accomplished. Why give them that? If they're calling you names, you're winning.

That said, we all drop our guard occasionally. But it might be a bit more than occasionally for you, futurecurrents. : )

 

[WeToddDid2]

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on climate change. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report summarized:
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[5]
Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[6]
Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[7] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[7] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.[7]
The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.[8]
The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).[9]
No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.

So you are saying that institutions are behind disseminating denial information and institutions are behind disseminating information regarding evidence of global warming?

ADD: There are a lot of scientist on both sides of the fence.

 

[WeToddDid2]

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on climate change. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report summarized:
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[5][/B]

Regardless, please prove the 97% or stop quoting it. If those numbers are correct in the WSJ article I posted, the 97% would not hold up under any statistical analysis.

 

[WeToddDid2]

The article completely contradicts itself.

"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort

The largest, most-consistent money fueling the climate denial movement are a number of well-funded conservative foundations built with so-called "dark money," or concealed donations, according to ananalysis released Friday afternoon.

and then it states......

In the end, Brulle concluded public records identify only a fraction of the hundreds of millions of dollars supporting climate denial efforts. Some 75 percent of the income of those organizations, he said, comes via unidentifiable sources.

Blahahahahhahahahahahhahahahhaha

So the answer is they don't know.

 

[futurecurrents]

Regardless, please prove the 97% or stop quoting it. If those numbers are correct in the WSJ article I posted, the 97% would not hold up under any statistical analysis.

It's more than 97%.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

 

[futurecurrents]

The article completely contradicts itself.





and then it states......



Blahahahahhahahahahahhahahahhaha

So the answer is they don't know.

So you deny that there is huge money going toward deceitful denier propaganda from fossil fuel and related political interests?

Wow, you are one gullible sheep. Even with your new name.

 

[jem]

71 one papers in the last year or so saying the sun and the tides seem to play a part in the warming and the cooling of the earth is deceitful.
Recently even you agw nutter buddies admitted the sun and the tides must be factored into their models.

what is deceitful about asking the agw nutters to provide science... not failed models... showing that man made co2 causes warming?

In fact... given that I am now convinced the sun and the tides play a very large part or warming and cooling... as anyone with a brain would expect... I hope co2 does warm the planet... we may need to add some more of it if want to feed this planet since the sun seems to be cycling down for the next few decades.

So you deny that there is huge money going toward deceitful denier propaganda from fossil fuel and related political interests?

Wow, you are one gullible sheep. Even with your new name.

 

[WeToddDid2]

So you deny that there is huge money going toward deceitful denier propaganda from fossil fuel and related political interests?

Wow, you are one gullible sheep. Even with your new name.

SHOW ME THE PROOF. According to the article you posted, they DO NOT KNOW WHERE 75% of the money comes from.