Scientists Rebut Claim That Man Causes Climate Change

[Joseph & Ana 0]

So because Oil companies are evil (for some strange reason) - That means Global Warming is true.. I see.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's not true because you say it isn't and put forward no more proof than that. I see.

[Peikko 1,575]

No one said Oil companies are evil, but they do have a specific set of interests that they will safeguard for obvious reasons. How hard is that to understand?

[Joseph & Ana 0]

It's not true because you say it isn't and put forward no more proof than that. I see.

Again, the burden of proof is not on me. Its on those who claim its true, and want to tax everyone for a carbon footprint. Consensus is not good enough, sorry. It wasn't good enough way back when, and it isn't good enough now. Prove it to the people.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So because Oil companies are evil (for some strange reason) - That means Global Warming is true.. I see.

Nobody aside from you made that claim.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It's not true because you say it isn't and put forward no more proof than that. I see.

Again, the burden of proof is not on me. Its on those who claim its true, and want to tax everyone for a carbon footprint. Consensus is not good enough, sorry. It wasn't good enough way back when, and it isn't good enough now. Prove it to the people.

The consensus of the scientific community isn't good enough? What would be good enough? Florida under water?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

It's not true because you say it isn't and put forward no more proof than that. I see.

Again, the burden of proof is not on me. Its on those who claim its true, and want to tax everyone for a carbon footprint. Consensus is not good enough, sorry. It wasn't good enough way back when, and it isn't good enough now. Prove it to the people.

The consensus of the scientific community isn't good enough? What would be good enough? Florida under water?

Move to higher ground.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

you claim that all scientific "associations" have consensus. What I mean is that YOUR idea of consensus isn't good enough. Many meteorologists disagree, whether the ####. itself agrees. Many scientists also disagree. But again, anyone who disagrees you call "not a scientist" so therefore, you can claim 100% of scientists agree.

It's not true because you say it isn't and put forward no more proof than that. I see.

Again, the burden of proof is not on me. Its on those who claim its true, and want to tax everyone for a carbon footprint. Consensus is not good enough, sorry. It wasn't good enough way back when, and it isn't good enough now. Prove it to the people.

The consensus of the scientific community isn't good enough? What would be good enough? Florida under water?

I'm sure the fish will be happy..

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

No one said Oil companies are evil, but they do have a specific set of interests that they will safeguard for obvious reasons. How hard is that to understand?

Everybody has selfish interests. I don't know why all sides don't understand that, or, perhaps, people really are that niave, especially the true believers.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

you claim that all scientific "associations" have consensus. What I mean is that YOUR idea of consensus isn't good enough. Many meteorologists disagree, whether the ####. itself agrees. Many scientists also disagree. But again, anyone who disagrees you call "not a scientist" so therefore, you can claim 100% of scientists agree.

I claimed it - cause its true.

There isn't one scientific body of national or international significance that rejects the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.

The only holdout was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, who revised their position in 2007.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

you claim that all scientific "associations" have consensus. What I mean is that YOUR idea of consensus isn't good enough. Many meteorologists disagree, whether the ####. itself agrees. Many scientists also disagree. But again, anyone who disagrees you call "not a scientist" so therefore, you can claim 100% of scientists agree.

I claimed it - cause its true.

There isn't one scientific body of national or international significance that rejects the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.

The only holdout was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, who revised their position in 2007.

Good job on focusing on one word as opposed to the rest of the post. "claim". Now you're just repeating yourself to make it sound like there is not one scientist who disagrees. Which is a lie.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

you claim that all scientific "associations" have consensus. What I mean is that YOUR idea of consensus isn't good enough. Many meteorologists disagree, whether the ####. itself agrees. Many scientists also disagree. But again, anyone who disagrees you call "not a scientist" so therefore, you can claim 100% of scientists agree.

I claimed it - cause its true.

There isn't one scientific body of national or international significance that rejects the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.

The only holdout was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, who revised their position in 2007.

Good job on focusing on one word as opposed to the rest of the post. "claim". Now you're just repeating yourself to make it sound like there is not one scientist who disagrees. Which is a lie.

Joe - the institutions I'm talking about represent tens of thousands of scientists around the world.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

you claim that all scientific "associations" have consensus. What I mean is that YOUR idea of consensus isn't good enough. Many meteorologists disagree, whether the ####. itself agrees. Many scientists also disagree. But again, anyone who disagrees you call "not a scientist" so therefore, you can claim 100% of scientists agree.

I claimed it - cause its true.

There isn't one scientific body of national or international significance that rejects the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.

The only holdout was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, who revised their position in 2007.

Good job on focusing on one word as opposed to the rest of the post. "claim". Now you're just repeating yourself to make it sound like there is not one scientist who disagrees. Which is a lie.

Joe - the institutions I'm talking about represent tens of thousands of scientists around the world.

And there are 10s of thousands of individual scientists who disagree with it. So, I guess there isn't consensus

[Peikko 1,575]

No one said Oil companies are evil, but they do have a specific set of interests that they will safeguard for obvious reasons. How hard is that to understand?

Everybody has selfish interests. I don't know why all sides don't understand that, or, perhaps, people really are that niave, especially the true believers.

Of course that's true. If it could be proved that all the climate scientists that support GW are funded by specific organisations that have a vested interest in either getting rid of fuels that give larger CO2 emissions or some new technology that uses low CO2 emissions then...but such is not the case as I understand it.

I don't really have that much time for the 'is it/isn't it' the fault of man and CO2 though because there are obvious signals that our planet has man made problems that are entirely visible and causation proven and that fuels the problamatic fuels are in limited supply causing geopolitical problems already. These reasons alone mean that we need to look at alternate fuel sources as well as ways to combat pollutants.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

you claim that all scientific "associations" have consensus. What I mean is that YOUR idea of consensus isn't good enough. Many meteorologists disagree, whether the ####. itself agrees. Many scientists also disagree. But again, anyone who disagrees you call "not a scientist" so therefore, you can claim 100% of scientists agree.

I claimed it - cause its true.

There isn't one scientific body of national or international significance that rejects the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.

The only holdout was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, who revised their position in 2007.

Good job on focusing on one word as opposed to the rest of the post. "claim". Now you're just repeating yourself to make it sound like there is not one scientist who disagrees. Which is a lie.

Joe - the institutions I'm talking about represent tens of thousands of scientists around the world.

And there are 10s of thousands of individual scientists who disagree with it. So, I guess there isn't consensus

Joe, just pulling a number out of your #### for the sake of "Nyah Nyah" doesn't prove any point. Certainly there are scientists who disagree with the theory, that isn't in dispute.

The fact is you don't have the first clue what the big picture is with regard to what you're claiming. The views of the associations in question are tangible (as are their memberships).