Jump to content
웃

Scientists Rebut Claim That Man Causes Climate Change

129 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 128
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Filed: Timeline
Posted
Attacking the messenger again.

I merely provided the messenger's "credentials". The very fact that you call that an attack on the messenger would appear to suggest that said credentials are, shall we say, a bit problematic?

The credentials would make him less acceptable, no doubt. To anyone.

But most of the data (aside from industry helps plants) is good. The trend is cooler temps over the last 11 years (overall). But yet the Global Warming bandwagon chugs along.

If we want to clean up the air, fine with me. But you aren't going to arbitrarily end oil. Cap and Tax ain't the way to go. Most economic experts say it would kill the economy even more. But then that seems to be the goal of those in power.

Joseph, do you understand what peer review and scientific consensus mean?

Yes I do, and there are plenty of scientists who don't agree with global warming, so there is not consensus on it.

But in your mind, anyone who doesn't agree with it, is by default not a scientist. So therefore, 100% of scientists agree in your eyes.

Common sense can show you that the earth has cooled over the last 11 years while just as much fuel is consumed globally (moreso actually). But you completely ignore it, because you just can't accept it.

Even if GW were true, Cap and Tax wouldn't be the answer.

What is scientific consensus?

I feel sorry for you guys I really do. You believe whatever the DNC tells you. Even if it were true you think the US government can pass a bill and all will be hunky-dory.

So, you don't actually know what scientific consensus is and now rather try to deflect from that fact by making this a partisan issue. You never disappoint, Joe.

Filed: Other Country: United Kingdom
Timeline
Posted
The problem is that there isn't a single major scientific association (not a single one) which disputes global warming.

That's because they're all sheep.

:thumbs: And living off the government teat!

I see the bait worked.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. :whistle:

Withnail?

Filed: Timeline
Posted
The problem is that there isn't a single major scientific association (not a single one) which disputes global warming.

That's because they're all sheep.

:thumbs: And living off the government teat!

I see the bait worked.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. :whistle:

Withnail?

Handmade Films? I will have to check it out, and then, Bob is your uncle?

Filed: K-1 Visa Country: Philippines
Timeline
Posted
Attacking the messenger again.

I merely provided the messenger's "credentials". The very fact that you call that an attack on the messenger would appear to suggest that said credentials are, shall we say, a bit problematic?

The credentials would make him less acceptable, no doubt. To anyone.

But most of the data (aside from industry helps plants) is good. The trend is cooler temps over the last 11 years (overall). But yet the Global Warming bandwagon chugs along.

If we want to clean up the air, fine with me. But you aren't going to arbitrarily end oil. Cap and Tax ain't the way to go. Most economic experts say it would kill the economy even more. But then that seems to be the goal of those in power.

Joseph, do you understand what peer review and scientific consensus mean?

Yes I do, and there are plenty of scientists who don't agree with global warming, so there is not consensus on it.

But in your mind, anyone who doesn't agree with it, is by default not a scientist. So therefore, 100% of scientists agree in your eyes.

Common sense can show you that the earth has cooled over the last 11 years while just as much fuel is consumed globally (moreso actually). But you completely ignore it, because you just can't accept it.

Even if GW were true, Cap and Tax wouldn't be the answer.

What is scientific consensus?

I feel sorry for you guys I really do. You believe whatever the DNC tells you. Even if it were true you think the US government can pass a bill and all will be hunky-dory.

So, you don't actually know what scientific consensus is and now rather try to deflect from that fact by making this a partisan issue. You never disappoint, Joe.

I know exactly what it is. It doesn't make the topic gospel. As is proven by history.

You would label me as "dumb" either way, so why not. What are radio-pulonium halos? Ohhh sorry you took too long. Guess you don't know science.

K-1 Visa

Service Center : California Service Center

Consulate : Manila, Philippines

I-129F Sent : 2009-08-14

I-129F NOA1 : 2009-08-18

I-129F NOA2 : 2009-10-23

NVC Received : 2009-10-27

NVC Left : 2009-11-06

Consulate Received : 2009-11-12

Packet 3 Received : 2009-11-27

Interview Date : 2009-12-16

Interview Result : APPROVED

Second Interview

(If Required):

Second Interview Result:

Visa Received :

US Entry :

Marriage :

Comments :

Processing

Estimates/Stats : Your I-129f was approved in 66 days from your NOA1 date.

Your interview took 120 days from your I-129F NOA1 date.

Filed: Other Country: United Kingdom
Timeline
Posted
The problem is that there isn't a single major scientific association (not a single one) which disputes global warming.

That's because they're all sheep.

:thumbs: And living off the government teat!

I see the bait worked.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. :whistle:

Withnail?

Handmade Films? I will have to check it out, and then, Bob is your uncle?

I am sorry officer. I have only had a few ales.

withnail.jpg

Filed: Country: Philippines
Timeline
Posted
The problem is that there isn't a single major scientific association (not a single one) which disputes global warming.

And not one used to dispute that the world was flat either? But they also couldn't prove that the earth was flat.

Just as not one can prove that CO2 warms the earth, mainly because its getting colder.

I can prove that trees are dying of fungus in the U.P. of Michigan because Yoopers are eating too much mushroom and pooping in the woods too.

Yes Joe, professional scientific research associations claimed that the world was flat.

Could you seriously get any more ridiculous?

It isn't ridiculous. Most major scientists back then did believe it was flat - they also believed larger objects fell faster than smaller ones, and that if you were sick, you had bad blood and needed to be drained.

Attacking the messenger again.

I merely provided the messenger's "credentials". The very fact that you call that an attack on the messenger would appear to suggest that said credentials are, shall we say, a bit problematic?

The credentials would make him less acceptable, no doubt. To anyone.

But most of the data (aside from industry helps plants) is good. The trend is cooler temps over the last 11 years (overall). But yet the Global Warming bandwagon chugs along.

If we want to clean up the air, fine with me. But you aren't going to arbitrarily end oil. Cap and Tax ain't the way to go. Most economic experts say it would kill the economy even more. But then that seems to be the goal of those in power.

Joseph, do you understand what peer review and scientific consensus mean?

Yes I do, and there are plenty of scientists who don't agree with global warming, so there is not consensus on it.

But in your mind, anyone who doesn't agree with it, is by default not a scientist. So therefore, 100% of scientists agree in your eyes.

Common sense can show you that the earth has cooled over the last 11 years while just as much fuel is consumed globally (moreso actually). But you completely ignore it, because you just can't accept it.

Even if GW were true, Cap and Tax wouldn't be the answer.

What is scientific consensus?

I feel sorry for you guys I really do. You believe whatever the DNC tells you. Even if it were true you think the US government can pass a bill and all will be hunky-dory.

I believe what the scientists have been telling us. I accept the scientific consensus on Climate Change. I don't pretend to know more about science than they do and I'm not a fan of Conspiracy Theories so they're aren't lying to us either.

...

from Science Journal (peer reviewed)

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

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.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

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

Filed: Timeline
Posted
Attacking the messenger again.

I merely provided the messenger's "credentials". The very fact that you call that an attack on the messenger would appear to suggest that said credentials are, shall we say, a bit problematic?

The credentials would make him less acceptable, no doubt. To anyone.

But most of the data (aside from industry helps plants) is good. The trend is cooler temps over the last 11 years (overall). But yet the Global Warming bandwagon chugs along.

If we want to clean up the air, fine with me. But you aren't going to arbitrarily end oil. Cap and Tax ain't the way to go. Most economic experts say it would kill the economy even more. But then that seems to be the goal of those in power.

Joseph, do you understand what peer review and scientific consensus mean?

Yes I do, and there are plenty of scientists who don't agree with global warming, so there is not consensus on it.

But in your mind, anyone who doesn't agree with it, is by default not a scientist. So therefore, 100% of scientists agree in your eyes.

Common sense can show you that the earth has cooled over the last 11 years while just as much fuel is consumed globally (moreso actually). But you completely ignore it, because you just can't accept it.

Even if GW were true, Cap and Tax wouldn't be the answer.

What is scientific consensus?

I feel sorry for you guys I really do. You believe whatever the DNC tells you. Even if it were true you think the US government can pass a bill and all will be hunky-dory.

So, you don't actually know what scientific consensus is and now rather try to deflect from that fact by making this a partisan issue. You never disappoint, Joe.

I know exactly what it is. It doesn't make the topic gospel. As is proven by history.

You would label me as "dumb" either way, so why not. What are radio-pulonium halos? Ohhh sorry you took too long. Guess you don't know science.

It's not how long it takes to respond, it's the manner in which you respond that is suspect. Asked what scientific consensus is, you rather complain about how the person asking the question believing what the DNC says completely disregarding the inconvenient fact that the DNC is entirely irrelevant in this debate. The DNC isn't a scientific body but a political one.

Posted
Again, you're just believing what the power's that be tell you. Sounds sheepish to me.

Care to prove that the scientists who disagree with the GW are funded by the oil industry?

Let's start with Fred Singer. In case you didn't notice, he's mentioned in the original posting. Before he was a corporate shill for global-warming deniers Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell, and the American Gas Association, he was doing the bidding of his corporate master, Phillip Morris. When the money dried up for those whose job was denying that second-hand cigarette smoke is hazardous to health, Fred found greener pastures under the skirt of the oil industry.

It's a mystery to me how anyone can claim that the oil industry or the tobacco industry are not "the power's to be (sic)."

Filed: Timeline
Posted

I don't believe the Global Warming story. A few decades ago, it was Global Cooling that was the boogieman. That doesn't mean, however, that I think the emissions from the consumption of fossil fuel are delightful and something I want piped into my house like a Glade air freshener.

The Earth has gotten hot before. It has gotten really, really cold before too. I would guess that the Earth's temperature has more to do with solar flares, orbital anomalies, and buffalo farts than it does with who's burning what.

Why can't we just phase out fossil fuel for other, better reasons? Like clean air.

Lady, people aren't chocolates. Do you know what they are mostly? Bastards. ####### coated bastards with ####### filling. But I don't find them half as annoying as I find naive bobble-headed optimists who walk around vomiting sunshine.
Filed: Timeline
Posted
Again, you're just believing what the power's that be tell you. Sounds sheepish to me.

Care to prove that the scientists who disagree with the GW are funded by the oil industry?

Let's start with Fred Singer. In case you didn't notice, he's mentioned in the original posting. Before he was a corporate shill for global-warming deniers Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell, and the American Gas Association, he was doing the bidding of his corporate master, Phillip Morris. When the money dried up for those whose job was denying that second-hand cigarette smoke is hazardous to health, Fred found greener pastures under the skirt of the oil industry.

It's a mystery to me how anyone can claim that the oil industry or the tobacco industry are not "the power's to be (sic)."

Remember, those are private enterprises and therefore good, trustworthy, unbiased and only have the best interest of the people at heart. Look, the fossil fuel industry is making every effort to ensure better plant growth by maximizing the emission of the very CO2 that these plants suck up and need to grow. Without Exxon, there wouldn't be any trees left. Okay, that last sentence might be a bit over the top.

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
- Back to Top -

Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...