AP Reports IPCC Draft: "8 Reasons to Worry About Global Warming" or "Fear-Mongering for Dummies"

So let me get this straight. Let's take Mann, Al Gore and all of the alarmists out of the picture, and just get with some actual science and truth.

97% of all Scientists agree that Global Warming is real and is caused by man. Let that sink in, if you went to every scientific research center, every university, every scientist on earth...97% of them would say this.

That's a pretty telling stat right there.

amazing
So let me get this straight. Let's take Mann, Al Gore and all of the alarmists out of the picture, and just get with some actual science and truth.

97% of all Scientists agree that Global Warming is real and is caused by man. Let that sink in, if you went to every scientific research center, every university, every scientist on earth...97% of them would say this.

That's a pretty telling stat right there.

But those stats are from big Al. So they are nothing more than fear mongering!

You do have a source for those stats don't you?

P

pheonix358

amazing
So let me get this straight. Let's take Mann, Al Gore and all of the alarmists out of the picture, and just get with some actual science and truth.

97% of all Scientists agree that Global Warming is real and is caused by man. Let that sink in, if you went to every scientific research center, every university, every scientist on earth...97% of them would say this.

That's a pretty telling stat right there.

But those stats are from big Al. So they are nothing more than fear mongering!

You do have a source for those stats don't you?

P

Big Al? We need to get politics and our media talking heads out of this. On to the scientists.

www.skepticalscience.com...

climate.nasa.gov...

Here's just two links but it's all over the internet, the news. This information is easy to find. You just need to stop listening to fox news for a few minutes.

reply to post by amazing


And who funds these scientists? Universities. Who picks the scientists to make it into the top? Who decides how much degrees to add to the "GW hockeystick trend" under the noble name of "bias compensation"? Which university is funded by carbon-taxes-hungry institutions?

Who gives grants to researcher? What are these investors expecting in return? The truth, or a proof in favor of more carbon taxes? Who seriously is ready to pay, these days, a scientist just be told, "er, boss? You're wrong!".

swanne
reply to post by amazing

 

And who funds these scientists? Universities. Who picks the scientists to make it into the top? Who decides how much degrees to add to the "GW hockeystick trend" under the noble name of "bias compensation"? Which university is funded by carbon-taxes-hungry institutions?

Who gives grants to researcher? What are these investors expecting in return? The truth, or a proof in favor of more carbon taxes? Who seriously is ready to pay, these days, a scientist just be told, "er, boss? You're wrong!".

edit on 31-3-2014 by swanne because: (no reason given)

So you're saying that we can't trust any scientists on anything? Meaning Cosmos is useless, there is no evolution, JPL, NASA, all the space agencies, all the universities, non of it can be trusted? Interesting theory. You can't have it both ways though, because if you can't trust the scientists on Global Warming, then you can't also trust those who are speaking against it. Because they are all paid for by special interests.

reply to post by jdub297


Well, I do my level best to counter this propaganda and outright falsehood which is spoon fed to our children. Even the points which have basis in truth..and plenty do...are blown beyond truth for impact and lose *ALL* respect from me when that happens.

Shame on them. SHAME for using our children as pawns and tools of the propaganda war over the environment.

Any means to an end...and the end justifies it all. That's the thinking today..and that thinking has powered evil into the darkest corners of history. More than once.

amazing
So you're saying that we can't trust any scientists on anything?

Not when their salary depends on their political allegiance.

Meaning Cosmos is useless

You trust Fox New's Cosmos?

there is no evolution

At least they can actually prove evolution true. Darwin did so just fine.

You can't have it both ways though, because if you can't trust the scientists on Global Warming, then you can't also trust those who are speaking against it. Because they are all paid for by special interests.

You just realized this?

I don't trust when it comes to political sciences. I prefer to investigate. And my investigation ain't over, unlike some ATSers who think that everything is settled and live in the comfort of this illusion.

amazing
So let me get this straight. Let's take Mann, Al Gore and all of the alarmists out of the picture, and just get with some actual science and truth.

97% of all Scientists agree that Global Warming is real and is caused by man. Let that sink in, if you went to every scientific research center, every university, every scientist on earth...97% of them would say this.

That's a pretty telling stat right there.

You need to stop looking at people and institutions that parrot the "97%" myth, and look for the basis of the figures.

A simple search will reveal that the "consensus" arose from surveys of the authors of papers the authors reviewed and determined to be "climate scientists."

The first researcher, Naomi Oreskes, was a grad student who sent out 11,000 questionnaires to her selected "sample."

She received 79 replies. Of those replies, 77 agreed to 2 questions: has the Earth gotten warmer since 1880; and has man conftributed to the warming?

That's your "97% consensus.

Read the "study," especially the footnotes, which include the comments of the respondents, most of whom ridiculed the questions, format and implications.

N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618

Following resounding criticism, Oreskes went on to teach "History of Science" at Harvard.
Her paper was considered thoroughly debunked, until two more AGW advocates attempted to resurrect the myth with their own survey of papers published on "climate change." After sifting them, they created their own follow-up, which was just as loony, just as subjective, just as flawed (if not more so) as the first.

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002

Anyone who cares to know, and everyone who quotes this nonsense should read the papers and see the source for themselves.

The cites I've given are for the people who created and stand behind their "consensus."
You could always look for those who've debunked the studies, which number in the dozens.

Of course, those who are afraid of having their myth disproved, will decline my invitation. They will rest comfortably in the cocoon of ignorance, "calling out" those who know better and who refuse to endorse falsehoods to join the "consensus."

Fred Singer (professor emeritus - atmospheric and space physics -U. Va.) has written on this and other AGW alarmist myths, but I do not expect any AGW faithful to sin against their religion by even looking at his words.

Think about this: until the mid-twentieth century, the "scientific consensus" REJECTED "continental drift" or plate tectonics; Alfred Wegener was ridiculed as a "denier" of the solid- crust consensus; and,
until the LATE twentieth century, the "scientific consensus" overwhelmingly endorsed the "steady state" theory of the universe. The "big bang theory" was a term of derision coined by the most pre-eminent cosmologist of his time, William Herschel. Its proponents have since earned several Nobel prizes, with more on the way with confirmation of "gravity waves."

"Consensus" has nothing to do with reality, but everything with faith.

reply to post by amazing

So you're saying that we can't trust any scientists on anything?

No one says that; it is not all-or-nothing
There is no consensus that global warming is or will be catastrophic; just look!

Meaning Cosmos is useless

The original Cosmos, with Carl Sagan adopted the rationale that industrialization will destroy nature; a false dichotomy.
The revived Cosmos, is a speculative fantasy.
Both are television programs, not science.
Do you get your "news" from Daily and Colbert?

You can't have it both ways though, because if you can't trust the scientists on Global Warming, then you can't also trust those who are speaking against it.

Explain the logic behind that.

Because they are all paid by special interests,

Another logical fallacy.

Have you actually looked to see who funds each program or author?
I didn't think so.