Now its Global Cooling

[TGHusker]

I wish these scientists would make up there minds. I don't know whether to put on my Bermuda shorts or my parka!

 

 

For your reading enjoyment and consideration.

 

 

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/dark-winter-cold-global-cooling/2014/11/16/id/607672/

[Junior]

A book is not peer reviewed literature. I can write a book about reproduction in sugar gliders. Doesn't mean I know the first f'ing thing about it. In fact, I'm working on a book about mutant squirrels rioting and taking over the United States as a means to end all automobile traffic that has killed so many of their squirrel brethren.

 

Do you believe that? Might as f'ing well. It's as likely as this flaming pile of horsesh#t.

[C N Red]

sh#t....stocked up on ACs for warming. Knew I should have went with heat pumps.

[T_O_Bull]

We need to start pumping CO2 into the ai as soon as possible.

[zoogs]

science literacy in this country

[ZRod]

science literacy in this country

I know right, we should be pumping H2O not CO2. I mean it has a greater overall effect.

[Marf]

I STILL WANNA SEE HIS GOD DAMN BIRTH CERTIFICATE!!!

[Comish]

How do those Global Warming Alarmists who claim WITH 100% CERTAINTY respond to this …?

 

(Admittedly, I am no scientist. But I do have a healthy skepticism when one side of an argument refuses to even consider some contradictory materials.) I agree there is something going on with earth’s weather, but there are enough questions about the degree to which “man” is responsible; the issue of falsified documents; the “pause” that now has 53 differing explanations; and the authenticity of the infamous 97% “consensus” that make me wonder why the issue isn’t debated in a more transparent manner publicly. I also have a friend who is a tenured, honored and decorated professor at UNL who vehemently argues that it is all about following the money and grants than about true consensus. He is what the alarmists label the ultimate denier.

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/11/17/what-the-mainstream-media-wont-tell-you-about-global-warming/

 

Below are some snippets of the larger article.

 

“The “LA Times” refuses to print letters that disagree with global warming, CNN openly mocks them on air, the NY Times ran a cartoon suggesting climate change skeptics should be stabbed to death, and MSNBC and CBS only interview climate change believers on their programs.”

The fact that the liberal skewed media refuses to look at both sides of the climate argument should be evidence enough that they realize global warming theory is flawed. But as one who likes to use facts, below are twelve facts the mainstream media isn’t telling you about climate change. They may not make one believe that global warming is a fraud, but they should at least destroy the argument that climate change is settled science. (italics and bolded emphasis mine)

 

(1) I changed my mind…this past February, Patrick Moore, a Canadian ecologist, and the co-founder of Greenpeace, the militant environmental group told members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee

“There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years.”

 

(2) There is not ONE climate computer model that has accurately connected CO2 to climate change. In fact CO2 is at its highest levels in 13,000 years and the earth hasn’t warmed in almost 18 years. Approximately 12,750 years ago before big cars and coal plants CO2 levels were higher than today. And during some past ice ages levels were up to 20x today’s levels

 

(3)You are more likely to see the tooth fairy or a unicorn than a 97% consensus of scientists believing that there is man-made global warming. The number is a convenient fraud. Investigative journalists at Popular Technology reported the 97% Study falsely classifies scientists’ papers, according to the scientists that published them. A more extensive examination of the Cook study reported that out of the nearly 12,000 scientific papers Cook’s team evaluated, only 65 endorsed Cook’s alarmist position. That is less than 0.97%. How did they come up with 97%? Well out of all the scientists who had a definite opinion, 97% agreed there was global warming and it was the fault of mankind. And how did the Cook folks determine which scientists believed what? They didn’t ask, they read papers written by these scientists and came up with their own opinion

[carlfense]

[Dr. Mantis Toboggan]

I am going to miss his show

[Junior]

 

 

(3)You are more likely to see the tooth fairy or a unicorn than a 97% consensus of scientists believing that there is man-made global warming. The number is a convenient fraud. Investigative journalists at Popular Technology reported the 97% Study falsely classifies scientists’ papers, according to the scientists that published them. A more extensive examination of the Cook study reported that out of the nearly 12,000 scientific papers Cook’s team evaluated, only 65 endorsed Cook’s alarmist position. That is less than 0.97%. How did they come up with 97%? Well out of all the scientists who had a definite opinion, 97% agreed there was global warming and it was the fault of mankind. And how did the Cook folks determine which scientists believed what? They didn’t ask, they read papers written by these scientists and came up with their own opinion

 

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.abstract

 

 

Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

 

 

Sorry, but I trust peer reviewed publications over blogs. Call me crazy.

[Dr. Mantis Toboggan]

 

 

 

(3)You are more likely to see the tooth fairy or a unicorn than a 97% consensus of scientists believing that there is man-made global warming. The number is a convenient fraud. Investigative journalists at Popular Technology reported the 97% Study falsely classifies scientists’ papers, according to the scientists that published them. A more extensive examination of the Cook study reported that out of the nearly 12,000 scientific papers Cook’s team evaluated, only 65 endorsed Cook’s alarmist position. That is less than 0.97%. How did they come up with 97%? Well out of all the scientists who had a definite opinion, 97% agreed there was global warming and it was the fault of mankind. And how did the Cook folks determine which scientists believed what? They didn’t ask, they read papers written by these scientists and came up with their own opinion

 

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.abstract

 

 

Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

 

 

Sorry, but I trust peer reviewed publications over blogs. Call me crazy.

 

THIS!!! A MILLION TIMES THIS!!!!

[Dr. Mantis Toboggan]

I don't even know why this is an argument? Why not try to have a cleaner planet with cleaner air to breath? Even if it is a "hoax". I just do not see the logic in denying this. Is it because Big Oil and Politicians (mainly republican) deny it? Really, I just can't wrap my head around as to why this is an issue.

[Junior]

I don't even know why this is an argument? Why not try to have a cleaner planet with cleaner air to breath? Even if it is a "hoax". I just do not see the logic in denying this. Is it because Big Oil and Politicians (mainly republican) deny it? Really, I just can't wrap my head around as to why this is an issue.

 

 

My favorite is how the scientists are just doing it for those big, lucrative government grants that keep them making nearly six figures!!

[carlfense]

 

I don't even know why this is an argument? Why not try to have a cleaner planet with cleaner air to breath? Even if it is a "hoax". I just do not see the logic in denying this. Is it because Big Oil and Politicians (mainly republican) deny it? Really, I just can't wrap my head around as to why this is an issue.

 

 

My favorite is how the scientists are just doing it for those big, lucrative government grants that keep them making nearly six figures!!

 

The only way to make money in science is to agree with everyone else and not contradict anyone.