Must see: The Great Global Warming Swindle

Quote from Bitstream:

there's no such thing as a consenus.
More...

Really ?

"The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."

To make it quite plain, not one of 928 surveyed papers published in refereed scientific journals disagreed with the concensus.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
 
Quote from ssternlight:

Umm...

You get that off Lyndon Larouche's site and want to suggest it's a credible representation of the state of play?
More...

lol, i can give u most uk/usa mainstream publications with the same references, it's just because this list them all toghether. these are statements made by the scientists themselves, not made up shit.
 
lmao, this is too funny, u are quoting statements from the source that is under scrutiny for including scientists signatures without their consent and manipulating dissenting voices as if they infact agreed with the ipcc conclusions and the very same people promoting gW in the paper. u are virtually letting a suspect play juror and judge in the case agains him.
Quote from dcraig:

Really ?

"The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."

To make it quite plain, not one of 928 surveyed papers published in refereed scientific journals disagreed with the concensus.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
More...
 
Quote from Bitstream:

lol, i can give u most uk/usa mainstream publications with the same references, it's just because this list them all toghether. these are statements made by the scientists themselves, not made up shit.
More...

Yes of course. I'm now perfectly ready to trust Lyndon Larouche's take on things because "...this list them all toghether."

I don't see any information in what you posted to suggest the the "deniers" have anything new to add to the debate. These are all special interest recycled claims that have been debunked.

I'm still curious why you are so ardent about the idea that global warming is some vast conspiracy but I think I'll defer pursuing that one in favor of watching the Singapore market.

Have a great evening...
 
Quote from ssternlight:

Yes of course. I'm now perfectly ready to trust Lyndon Larouche's take on things because "...this list them all toghether."

I don't see any information in what you posted to suggest the the "deniers" have anything new to add to the debate. These are all special interest recycled claims that have been debunked.

I'm still curious why you are so ardent about the idea that global warming is some vast conspiracy but I think I'll defer pursuing that one in favor of watching the Singapore market.

Have a great evening...
More...

k, smartpantz, i will try to dig up the original links from the uk mainstream press. i dont think u need the malaria prof one since he was interviewed in the documentary and made his case pretty clear.

deniers have special interests in your closed mind only since the only scientists that are benefiting in term of reputation, career prospects and funding for research are infact the gW proponents. u become a skeptic and u have everything to lose and nothing to gain....of course, talking about conspiracy, if u think they are in the big oils payroll then....
 
If you want proof that vehicle emmisions are bad for you, go suck on a car exhaust pipe for 3 minutes and see how you feel.

It's not just about Co2. It's also about pumping billions of litres of carcinogenic chemicals into the air we breath.

No one can legitimately claim that exhaust fumes are healthy.

Runningbear
 
Quote from Bitstream:

lmao, this is too funny, u are quoting statements from the source that is under scrutiny for including scientists signatures without their consent and manipulating dissenting voices as if they infact agreed with the ipcc conclusions and the very same people promoting gW in the paper. u are virtually letting a suspect play juror and judge in the case agains him.
More...

Either the research in the survey of many scientific papers is right or it isn't. No amount of inuendo can change that. Until proved otherwise any reasonable person will accept it's correctness. The link to the original research paper is provided. If you think it's a con job go ahead and prove it.
 
A long time ago in a continent not so far away, the consensus was the earth was flat.

A long time ago in a continent not so far wasy, the consensus was the earth was the center of the universe.

A short time ago, in a country now newly reunited, the consensus was that we needed some ethnic cleansing.

Consensus does not necessarily mean it's right, it just means that everyone agrees.

I would agree that automobiles dump a lot of garbage in the air. A hot summer in LA would not convince my lungs otherwise. I would also agree that a few volcanic eruptions can dump a lot of debris in the air, that can contribute to green house gasses. What is amazing though is in the 70's the scare of the decade was global cooling. There was also a consensus. So which is it? The geological clock is very slow, and one tick may last many lifetimes.

Concensus does not = fact. It only = agreement. All those in agreement can be just as wrong (or right) about a certain issue.



Quote from dcraig:

Really ?

"The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."

To make it quite plain, not one of 928 surveyed papers published in refereed scientific journals disagreed with the concensus.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
More...
 
Quote from wilburbear:

There's a saying you may have heard of, "Don't shoot the messenger."

Gore's bright ideas are for you, not him. With regard to that fact, there are those who "get it", and those who don't.
More...

Gore was the environmental vice president for 8 years. During that time environmental lawyers could sue in any court, stop any road from being built in any public land, prevent clearing of brush, etc. and get paid by the court. The result was the burning of the national forests and the enrichment of attorneys that support the Democratic party. Did that not release CO2 and screw up the lumber supply for decades?? Note that the privately held, well managed forests never burnt and are now supporting a lot more wildlife than the public lands.

This non-scientific hysteria just leads to political power grabs and really, really, really, bad management of nature.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top