The Great Global Warming Swindle

[gwb-trading]

Quote from futurecurrents:

97% (or very close to that number) of the world's publishing climatologists believe that most of the rapid warming we are seeing over the last 50 years is due to the activities of man, mostly the burning of fossil fuels.

...and these clowns are funded to the tune of $4B per year in the U.S. to publish this nonsense with limited scientific evidence to support it.

The more they publish ... the more money they get from the government.

Isn't time you admit that money is the driver for this nonsense.

 

[PHOENIX TRADING]

Quote from futurecurrents:

Where do the denier morons get their news and information about AGW....Fox News? LOL


A question that frequently arises in popular discussion of climate change is whether there is a scientific consensus on climate change.[113] Several scientific organizations have explicitly used the term "consensus" in their statements:
American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2006: "The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National Academies' statement."[28]
US National Academy of Sciences: "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the National Academies’ reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science..."[114]
Joint Science Academies' statement, 2005: "We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."[115]
Joint Science Academies' statement, 2001: "The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus."[21]
American Meteorological Society, 2003: "The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus.... IPCC assessment reports are prepared at approximately five-year intervals by a large international group of experts who represent the broad range of expertise and perspectives relevant to the issues. The reports strive to reflect a consensus evaluation of the results of the full body of peer-reviewed research.... They provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the degree of consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that can be placed on the various statements and conclusions."[116]
Network of African Science Academies: “A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change.”[24]
International Union for Quaternary Research, 2008: "INQUA recognizes the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."[117]
Australian Coral Reef Society,[118] 2006: "There is almost total consensus among experts that the earth’s climate is changing as a result of the build-up of greenhouse gases.... There is broad scientific consensus that coral reefs are heavily affected by the activities of man and there are significant global influences that can make reefs more vulnerable such as global warming...."[119]

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

Quote from futurecurrents:

So a third to half of all the life on earth including humans could die that's what.

Not trying to use hyperbole and scare tactics are you?

Now kindly show me where your scientists predict the dire consequences you claim.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from gwb-trading:

...and these clowns are funded to the tune of $4B per year in the U.S. to publish this nonsense with limited scientific evidence to support it.

The more they publish ... the more money they get from the government.

Isn't time you admit that money is the driver for this nonsense.

Nonsense is right. What you say is. You have no clue how science works. It does not go to the highest bidder. If it did the FF industry would win hands down. If a climatologist could prove AGW was wrong he would be flooded with money and attention.

It's time you give it up and admit the evidence and consensus for AGW is overwhelming. Come out of the right-wing echo chamber and back into the real world.

 

[pspr]

Quote from gwb-trading:

It has already been demonstrated in the Doran study that there is NOT 97% agreement among 'climatologists' because the term 'climatologist' is completely fabricated. In the summary of the results themselves 82% of the responders stated that man had any impact on 'climate change'. This has been pointed out to you over and over.

This means your entire chart is complete B.S.

One has to wonder the motive behind FC's repeatedly, day after day posting of the same tired and discredited information about AGW.

Why would he do this going on about a year against dozens of others who have showed his data/analysis to be suspect at best and uncredible at worst? Is he merely an AGW zealot or is there a deeper, more sinister motive behind his actions?

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from gwb-trading:

It has already been demonstrated in the Doran study that there is NOT 97% agreement among 'climatologists' because the term 'climatologist' is completely fabricated. In the summary of the results themselves 82% of the responders stated that man had any impact on 'climate change'. This has been pointed out to you over and over.

This means your entire chart is complete B.S.

Oh boy you are dense. There certainly is a term "climatologist" and the ones who are the specialist in the area and publish the most are in 97% agreement.

The 82%- if you look closely- is EARTH SCIENCE FACULTY - that includes all sorts of disciplines including petroleum geologists and others who do not have the same skill set as CLIMATOLOGISTS.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from pspr:

One has to wonder the motive behind FC's repeatedly, day after day posting of the same tired and discredited information about AGW.

Why would he do this going on about a year against dozens of others who have showed his data/analysis to be suspect at best and uncredible at worst? Is he merely an AGW zealot or is there a deeper, more sinister motive behind his actions?

Of course a moron like yourself would consider the solid science and facts I've presented as "uncredible". Maybe you need to look at Fox News for the unbiased fair and balanced info...LOL.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from pspr:

One has to wonder the motive behind FC's repeatedly, day after day posting of the same tired and discredited information about AGW.

Why would he do this going on about a year against dozens of others who have showed his data/analysis to be suspect at best and uncredible at worst? Is he merely an AGW zealot or is there a deeper, more sinister motive behind his actions?

Why would all you denier morons continue to put up fraudulent info about AGW like this video and deny the obvious? Perhaps there is a sinister motive for it. How much are the Koch bros paying you? They and those of their ilk pay for a lot of the disinformation about AGW.

 

[377OHMS]

Quote from pspr:

One has to wonder the motive behind FC's repeatedly, day after day posting of the same tired and discredited information about AGW.

Why would he do this going on about a year against dozens of others who have showed his data/analysis to be suspect at best and uncredible at worst? Is he merely an AGW zealot or is there a deeper, more sinister motive behind his actions?

He doesn't believe in AGW, it looks like he is just an attention whore.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from futurecurrents:

Why would all you denier morons continue to put up fraudulent info about AGW like this video and deny the obvious?....

Another slow day in the heat and air business eh?

 

[pspr]

Quote from 377OHMS:

He doesn't believe in AGW, it looks like he is just an attention whore.

FC, the HVAC installer, pretending to be the great defender of the AGW lie? And he calls us the morons!