The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

Calm down...take a breath. I just wondered if you could explain why all the doomsday scenarios put forth by proponents of the scientific consensus have all turned out to be false and deliberately calculated to frighten people into surrendering their money and sovereignty? I didn't expect you to actually face
the truth and admit you fell for the hype. That would be asking for too much honesty and for you guys to actually take responsibility for your herd-like mentality.

 

That is absolutly true. But a concensus among scientists has a certain validity in determining Scientific validity. Doesn't mean concensus is always right in the scientific world but my bet would be it is correct a lot more often than the scientific theories of non scientists.

 

Sorry but no science I am aware of measures sesitivity. But that has nothing to do with what logical fallicy you think I Am relying on.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, i guess you will have to post your scientific credentials.

 

You can doubt, cast aspersions, do whatever the hell you want. I've given you more than a few web sites to look at, one in particular which you call just a "cartoon site", I suppose your way of diminishing it and NEVER reading the science behind it. Sorry, friend, I've beaten you sixteen ways from Sunday, both on facts and rebuttals and then ... off you go ... skipping to another subject. Tired of playing the game.

 

So just out of curiosity what are these scientific predictions that are designed to scare people that have not come to pass? What predictions of scientists about global warming are designed to get money?

 

There are now 1,000+ scientists dissenting AGW, including current and former IPCC officials.

http://cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf

 

The 97% consensus claim is total science FRAUD based on selective editing of the survey data

From "A Disgrace to the Profession":

An opinion survey of earth scientists on global climate change was conducted by Margaret R K Zimmerman, MS, and published by the University of Illinois in 2008.

Aside from his support from Dr Pantsdoumi, Mann often claims the imprimatur of “settled science”: 97 per cent of the world’s scientists supposedly believe in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming requiring massive government intervention. That percentage derives from a survey conducted for a thesis by M R K Zimmerman.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/052317_c..._fraudulent_science_survey.html#ixzz49QCcQhzY

 

And that was 6 years ago.

 

Oh! Noes!!!


You mean it has not been caused by.............................

Pixie dust??

Which, sadly, is about where the average denialist is - "Change is happening because it does"

 

"Natural News"

Voted one of the top ten most misleading and scientifically inaccurate websites out there - and that is going some

Hint:- before believing ANYTHING on that site check out who their "experts" are - quite often they are not experts but "sum bloke off of da street"

 

Only a 1,000?

And what are their credentials? Mind you consider the source again - Marc "I haven't sold my soul really" Morano

He of the internet campaign to harass and silence climate scientists

Again great sources

 

I will tell the forum one more time.

If global warming as Democrats teach it, was the truth, Democrats all over the USA would be trying to fix it.

Blaming man won't fix it. Since you see Florida and New York City being flooded, where are your sea walls, your dykes and the like. Holland does it, Why don't you?

Not one Democrat has run the numbers to determine just how tiny of an impact man makes.

The impact is so tiny you really can't measure it.

 

No we would not.

Were I sold on the Democrat propaganda over global warming, I really would yell for action.

I would yell to get the sea wall constructed right now to save New York City. A wall around Florida would now be in progress.

Action, not words explains Democrats. They do stupid things like shut down coal mines. Never proven to have warmed Earth.

 

What "doomsday scenarios"???

The only ones I have ever seen are from denialist websites CLAIMING that they came from scientists

Oh! And Faux news of course

Which brings me back to my oft stated

DO NOT CONFUSE BAD JOURNALISM WITH GOOD SCIENCE

 

Maybe that's the real problem, they know its a fraud, they know they've been sold out, but they are petty vengeful people who want everyone to suffer what they have. Plus they are willing to continue and perpetuate the fraud until everyone suffers as they have. Can't get more liberal than that...

 

Still, there have been concerns raised about the study. As Stewart noted, it was an opt-in online survey, and The Fact Checker has raised caution flags in the past about opt-in online polls . You generally cannot draw broad conclusions about such surveys. Critics have also focused on the wording of the questions in the survey, especially the second one. The question did not define the meaning of “significant,” and one scientist might interpret the phrase differently from another.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...69607d2-b77b-11e2-92f3-f291801936b8_blog.html

 

At least you admit you are relying on a logical fallacy.

 

Like I said, you rely on a failed cartoonists alarmist advocacy blog for your information.

 

My predictions? Well, here's one:

It's going to continue to get warmer; there will be hell to pay.

You should brush up on science and what it's about and just stop making such silly statements.

 

Believe as you choose or disbelieve. For anyone else who wants some solid information, go here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

 

I have this strong feeling the Warmies bought into Uncle Al's BS and invested their life savings to get in on the ground floor of "the next big thing". Too bad the only big thing they're getting is fleeced like a flock of sheep. Their only hope is if the taxpayers get fleeced instead. If Trump wins they will be working till they're 80.

 

It's a shame what they are trying to pass off as legitimate science and you buy it hook, line and sinker. 69% of their data comes from stations the NOAA itself classifys as poor or worst.



Sensor close to a busy asphalt street and a building.



The non compliant temperature stations skew the data.




The vast majority of the temperature sensing stations are "poor" or "worst". Garbage in garbage out science.

 

Bwahahahaha! Thanks for proving my point!

 

This is pure gold! I just wrote a comment explaining how you guys fail just by showing how the issue is political and completely centered around American politics and you double down doing it even more. Excellent!

Whether your stations are poor or whatever doesn't really matter. We can measure temperatures outside of the US...

 

You think anyone is going to take a cook conspiracy blog which cites "******* leftists" and likes to write about 'chemtrails' and "Satan inspired Monsanto", seriously? That's Natural News folks!