quote:

ORIGINAL: Gauge

This is a fast reply.

Man made global warming is a myth and a lie.

All these folks want you to believe is that they want to find alternative sources of energy for our finite supply of oil, just so we can have clean air, and clean water and a future. They want you to believe that alternative sources of energy will create new jobs, build a better economy at the same time saving the planet.

Those bastards.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: usememistress775

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117


Moron, you really need to understand how funding for scientific research works before you make stupid claims.

http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/seven-myths-about-scientists-debunked

Anyone who opens their statement with an ad hominem attack doesn't get their links clicked.

Lol, willful ignorance is no excuse for stupidity. No wonder you fail to understand science.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

and here is something pretty compelling:


Why Would These Scientists Lie?


October 14, 2013 Joseph Bast

The Heartland Institute Replies to Trenberth and Oppenheimer

On September 18, two scientists sent emails to Media Matters for America denouncing a new report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). Why would two scientists publicly attack a team of nearly 50 of their peers for creating a peer-reviewed report more than 1,000 pages in length and citing nearly 4,000 peer-reviewed articles? Why would they choose to send their criticism to a Web site notorious for being the source of sound-bites for the Democratic Party and groups on the far left?

The two scientists, Kevin Trenberth with the National Center for Atmospheric Research and Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University, have long histories of being extremists in the debate over climate change. They speak as advocates for a cause and not as scientists. So we ask journalists and the interested public to weigh their intemperate opinions against the following endorsements of NIPCC from more credible climate scientists. Who is more likely to be right? We think the answer is obvious, but we would like to hear from you.

The NIPCC report, titled Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, can be downloaded for free here (PDF).) A free 20-page summary for policy makers (PDF) that is faithful to the full report is also available at this site.


http://heartland.org/press-releases/2013/10/14/why-would-these-scientists-lie-heartland-institute-replies-trenberth-and-o

http://heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-II/CCR-II-Full.pdf

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessManko

By the way, sun spots also affect the earth's magnetic field and those are also rather high currently.

quote:


Bad news for warmists: Sun has entered 'weakest solar cycle in a century'

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/02/bad_news_for_warmists_sun_has_entered_weakest_solar_cycle_in_a_century.html#ixzz3SLBBVcJq

quote:

ORIGINAL: usememistress775

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: usememistress775

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117


Moron, you really need to understand how funding for scientific research works before you make stupid claims.

http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/seven-myths-about-scientists-debunked

Anyone who opens their statement with an ad hominem attack doesn't get their links clicked.

Lol, willful ignorance is no excuse for stupidity. No wonder you fail to understand science.

Anyone who cannot make their case without attacking another's intelligence fail to understand that they will never win an argument that way.

I understand science far better than you think I do, I also understand human nature and I see many people paying for studies that all say different things when looking at the same dataset. Lo and behold! All of the people who have a stake in egg sales claim eggs are low in cholesterol and all of those who have stakes in corn production claim high fructose corn syrup is perfectly healthy. In this case correlation is causation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

and here is something pretty compelling:


Why Would These Scientists Lie?


October 14, 2013 Joseph Bast

The Heartland Institute Replies to Trenberth and Oppenheimer

On September 18, two scientists sent emails to Media Matters for America denouncing a new report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). Why would two scientists publicly attack a team of nearly 50 of their peers for creating a peer-reviewed report more than 1,000 pages in length and citing nearly 4,000 peer-reviewed articles? Why would they choose to send their criticism to a Web site notorious for being the source of sound-bites for the Democratic Party and groups on the far left?

The two scientists, Kevin Trenberth with the National Center for Atmospheric Research and Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University, have long histories of being extremists in the debate over climate change. They speak as advocates for a cause and not as scientists. So we ask journalists and the interested public to weigh their intemperate opinions against the following endorsements of NIPCC from more credible climate scientists. Who is more likely to be right? We think the answer is obvious, but we would like to hear from you.

The NIPCC report, titled Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, can be downloaded for free here (PDF).) A free 20-page summary for policy makers (PDF) that is faithful to the full report is also available at this site.


http://heartland.org/press-releases/2013/10/14/why-would-these-scientists-lie-heartland-institute-replies-trenberth-and-o

http://heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-II/CCR-II-Full.pdf

You do know that the Heartland institute is infamous for being in the pockets of the oil industry, correct?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessManko

By the way, sun spots also affect the earth's magnetic field and those are also rather high currently.

Hardly

quote:


Bad news for warmists: Sun has entered 'weakest solar cycle in a century'

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/02/bad_news_for_warmists_sun_has_entered_weakest_solar_cycle_in_a_century.html#ixzz3SLBBVcJq

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

and here is something pretty compelling:


Why Would These Scientists Lie?


October 14, 2013 Joseph Bast

The Heartland Institute Replies to Trenberth and Oppenheimer

On September 18, two scientists sent emails to Media Matters for America denouncing a new report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). Why would two scientists publicly attack a team of nearly 50 of their peers for creating a peer-reviewed report more than 1,000 pages in length and citing nearly 4,000 peer-reviewed articles? Why would they choose to send their criticism to a Web site notorious for being the source of sound-bites for the Democratic Party and groups on the far left?

The two scientists, Kevin Trenberth with the National Center for Atmospheric Research and Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University, have long histories of being extremists in the debate over climate change. They speak as advocates for a cause and not as scientists. So we ask journalists and the interested public to weigh their intemperate opinions against the following endorsements of NIPCC from more credible climate scientists. Who is more likely to be right? We think the answer is obvious, but we would like to hear from you.

The NIPCC report, titled Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, can be downloaded for free here (PDF).) A free 20-page summary for policy makers (PDF) that is faithful to the full report is also available at this site.


http://heartland.org/press-releases/2013/10/14/why-would-these-scientists-lie-heartland-institute-replies-trenberth-and-o

http://heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-II/CCR-II-Full.pdf

You do know that the Heartland institute is infamous for being in the pockets of the oil industry, correct?

in this instance it doesn't matter if they are in rush Limbaugh's back pocket---more or less all they are doing here is providing the reader with information concerning a study produced by 50 scientists, referencing 4000 articles and wondering why two others would criticize it to media matters. and the main point being---its not the heartland institute's work

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Not as much money as the oil industry or tobacco industry or any other industry where profit is the main outcome and not the greater good

quote:

ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies

quote:

ORIGINAL: usememistress775

Everyone is getting paid for their research. The last scientist who only cared about discovering things for the sake of discovery and not selling his/her ideas for money died penniless after living on catfood for years. Without that mentality all of the research is questionable.

The original research into global warming skipped over the medieval warm period to make the present day temperature spike more startling. The reason we feel the effects of that temperature spike so much more is because we live with all the modern conveniences of air conditioning and heat in the winter. Our bodies have no time to acclimate to the heat outside during the summer so it feels more intense than it did when we spent more time outside than in. The difference between 100 and 99 is not that great, but when we spend 90+% of the time in 70 we cannot bear the regular temperature.

Again, then, why would govs. all over the world be paying scientists to lie about climate change?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessManko

By the way, sun spots also affect the earth's magnetic field and those are also rather high currently.

Hardly

quote:


Bad news for warmists: Sun has entered 'weakest solar cycle in a century'

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/02/bad_news_for_warmists_sun_has_entered_weakest_solar_cycle_in_a_century.html#ixzz3SLBBVcJq

Thanks for refuting your own point there Sanity. Average global temperatures continue to increase over time, and since the sun isn't and has never been the driving factor behind climate change, we've ruled out one possible contributor to our warming climate. Seems like one horse finally made its way to the water on its own [:)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Have you noticed that every "solution" gives governments more control, and most hurt the west more than other countries.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

and here is something pretty compelling:


Why Would These Scientists Lie?


October 14, 2013 Joseph Bast

The Heartland Institute Replies to Trenberth and Oppenheimer

On September 18, two scientists sent emails to Media Matters for America denouncing a new report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). Why would two scientists publicly attack a team of nearly 50 of their peers for creating a peer-reviewed report more than 1,000 pages in length and citing nearly 4,000 peer-reviewed articles? Why would they choose to send their criticism to a Web site notorious for being the source of sound-bites for the Democratic Party and groups on the far left?

The two scientists, Kevin Trenberth with the National Center for Atmospheric Research and Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University, have long histories of being extremists in the debate over climate change. They speak as advocates for a cause and not as scientists. So we ask journalists and the interested public to weigh their intemperate opinions against the following endorsements of NIPCC from more credible climate scientists. Who is more likely to be right? We think the answer is obvious, but we would like to hear from you.

The NIPCC report, titled Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, can be downloaded for free here (PDF).) A free 20-page summary for policy makers (PDF) that is faithful to the full report is also available at this site.


http://heartland.org/press-releases/2013/10/14/why-would-these-scientists-lie-heartland-institute-replies-trenberth-and-o

http://heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-II/CCR-II-Full.pdf

You do know that the Heartland institute is infamous for being in the pockets of the oil industry, correct?

in this instance it doesn't matter if they are in rush Limbaugh's back pocket---more or less all they are doing here is providing the reader with information concerning a study produced by 50 scientists, referencing 4000 articles and wondering why two others would criticize it to media matters. and the main point being---its not the heartland institute's work

I disagree, it does matter. It gives these dissenting opinions legitimacy. Do you give legitimacy to the man who claims evolution isn't real? What about if they say gravity wasn't real? Or heliocentrism? The heartland institute has an agenda, and they're willing to legitimize largely incorrect viewpoints and skeptics simply to peddle said agenda. They want to make it seem as though there is a debate, when in fact the vast majority of the research completed so far has settled the debate rather soundly. What remains are the butt hurt sore losers who want to remain relevant and keep the money flowing from big oil into their back pockets.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Basically, you're stating leftist myth.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Have you noticed that every "solution" gives governments more control, and most hurt the west more than other countries.

You might have a point about the first, but not the second. At the world climate change conferences it's the developing world countries that argue most that they're the ones who will suffer. This is in part because they won't be allowed to go through the heavily-polluting industrialisation process that all the wealthy, western countries have been through. The world can't afford all these newly industrialising countries to do the sort of environmental damage that was done by e.g. Britain in the 19th century.