|
Phydeaux -> RE: Majority of Scientists skeptical of climate crisis (9/6/2013 12:52:05 AM)
|
So when 1700 scientists sign issue a statement saying client science is settled, why, that should be the end of it, right. 1700 scientists is what it takes to settle an issue.
Or, what about the, what was it 77000 scientists. Well wait, that wasn't right because then they interviewed those scientists - and more than 1/3 did'n't actually agree with the IPCC view.
Yet when 32000 scientists sign a statement denying global warming (http://www.petitionproject.org/) they have no credentials.
When I report "The proportion of papers found in the ISI Web of Science database that explicitly endorsed anthropogenic climate change has fallen from 75% (for the period between 1993 and 2003) as of 2004 to 45% from 2004 to 2008, while outright disagreement has risen from 0% to 6% (Oreskes, 2004; Schulte, 2008) - why thats irrelevent. Of course its dropped further since then.
Here are some quotes from UN IPCC contributors:
“We’re not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.” — UN IPCC’s Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004 and listed as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium.
“Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!” — NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.
“In essence, the jig is up. The whole thing is a fraud. And even the fraudsters that fudged data are admitting to temperature history that they used to say didn’t happen…Perhaps what has doomed the Climategate fraudsters the most was their brazenness in fudging the data” — Dr. Christopher J. Kobus, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University, specializes in alternative energy, thermal transport phenomena, two-phase flow and fluid and thermal energy systems.
short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.” — Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring, of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University. [Updated December 9, 2010. Corrects Jelbring's quote.]
Immaterial.
When I report that Nasa admitted that their science had been politically motivated, and was wrong; that the greenhouse contribution of CO2 was much lower than previously expected.
When the CERN says the IPCC model of global warming is wrong - not by a little bit - but perhaps by multiple magnitudes - ho hum. When not one of the 22 models predicted flat temperatures, your defense is "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain".
When I present graphs showing global temperatures have cycled this same way many, many times with great regularity - its ignored. Never disputed, just ignored.
When even Michael Mann (you know, admitted forger and liar ) admits that global warming isn't occuring and its a crying shame. Irrelevent.
When climate gate documented that alarmists were supressing publication of skeptics research (see the story about Kirby at Cern, for example) Irrelevent.
When I publish links that show that spain, germany, the UK and almost every other dang country has rethoought their commitment to anthro. global warming - irrelevent
I've seen the forgery of the NASA data first hand. Irrelevent. That they systematically excluded cooler stations, and 'corrected more than 3000 points. "
When the global average temperature threatens to break out of the 95 and 90 and 75% confidence levels.. you won't even concede that maybe, possibly your ideas are wrong.
So, in conclusion. Why do I post articles that are so clearly against your popular bias here? Simply to expose you to ideas that most of you will never read. To challenge your world view.
You suggest that I am closeminded. You dismiss published studies of people you don't agree with (svennie for example). And dismiss people for where they publish.
I'll close with the words of the amazing randi - also cowed by global warming religionists
"Happily, science does not depend on consensus. Conclusions are either reached or not, but only after an analysis of evidence as found in nature."
|
|
|
|
