AGW Deniers: Grand conspiracy or everyone wrong

And every science agency on the planet disagrees with you too.

 

Every government funded/run science agency...Not every science agency. The following is a report issued by the NIPCC. It is 122 pages which I have read...I'm sure you won't take that kind of time to read it...You'll just deny.

https://www.heartland.org/sites/default/files/12-04-15_why_scientists_disagree.pdf

 

Heartland Institute??? Are you kidding??? Try a REAL science agency. LOL

 

Swell, another broken record with an internet connection.

 

When the whole world speaks with one voice you should listen

 

Like I said, you won't even bother to read it...Typical liberal....deny, call names, blame it on racism...

So here is an excerpt from the 122page article.

In 2009, a paper by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, at the time a student at the University of Illinois, and her master’s thesis advisor Peter Doran was published in EOS. They claimed “97 percent of climate scientists agree” that mean global temperatures have risen since before the 1800s and that humans are a significant contributing factor (Doran and Zimmerman, 2009). This study, too, has been debunked. The researchers sent a two-minute online survey to 10,257 Earth scientists working for universities and government research agencies, generating responses from 3,146 people. Solomon (2010) observed, “The two researchers started by altogether excluding from their survey the thousands of scientists most likely to think that the Sun, or planetary movements, might have something to do with climate on Earth – out were the solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers. That left the 10,257 scientists in disciplines like geology, oceanography, paleontology, and geochemistry that were somehow deemed more worthy of being included in the consensus. The two researchers also decided that scientific accomplishment should not be a factor in who could answer – those surveyed were determined by their place of employment (an academic or a governmental institution). Neither was academic qualification a factor – about 1,000 of those surveyed did not have a Ph.D., some didn’t even have a master’s diploma.” Only 5 percent of respondents self-identified as climate scientists. Even worse than the sample size, the bias shown in its selection, and the low response rate, though, is the irrelevance of the questions asked in the survey to the debate taking place about climate change. The survey asked two questions: “Q1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively
14 WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING
constant? Q2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”
Overall, 90 percent of respondents answered “risen” to question 1 and 82 percent answered “yes” to question 2. The authors get their fraudulent “97 percent of climate scientists believe” sound bite by focusing on only 79 scientists who responded and “listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50 percent of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.”

Again read this for yourself...
https://www.heartland.org/sites/default/files/12-04-15_why_scientists_disagree.pdf

 

Logical fallacy, appeal to authority. First, your statement is false on it's face as not every science agency on the planet agrees with CAGW. Most of the science agencies on the planet have many scientists and most of them have nothing to do with climate science and the agencies often put out statements that many of their members disagree with, such as the AGU and APS. Some scientists have quit their organizations because they have ignored their own workgroups on climate change and put out political statements.

 

Fact. Every reputable science organization on the planet that takes a stand on AGW believes it is real and a threat to man. So the score is about a million to 100. LOL

 

The only conspiracy theory is the one the communists, er, I mean the greenies AKA the socialists who want to have control over aspect of our lives puts out there. I call it the Anthropogenic Global Warming Conspiracy Theory.

This is from my blog: Anthropogenic Global Warming Conspiracy Theory

To be clear, there is no consensus, and those perpetuating this nonsense have a financial interest in continuing with the fraud. From phony Climatologists, to politicians, they are getting the gullible to following their bogus science to line their pockets, or give themselves more power at the expense of the middle class and the poor. If any of you believe that we can change the climate by instituting taxes on the poor and the middle class then you are the biggest suckers on the planet.

The real science deniers are the ones who ignore the sciences of math, statistics, computer sciences, geology, chemistry, astronomy, physics, and a few others that I'm forgetting right now. Earth climate cycles are driven by changes in the Milankovitch cycles.

We are in an Ice Age that is 2.6 million years old.

The Earth goes through regular cycles called "glaciations". These glaciations or glacial periods can last from 80 to 100 thousand years.

We are currently in an interglacial period. This is a period of time between glaciations which lasts about 12,000 years.

This is what is known as "science". Anyone who denies that we are in an interglacial period that will likely end within the next thousand years or so is what is known as a "science denier".

The Sun has a significant influence on the climate.

The warming the Earth is experiencing in not outside normal variations in temperatures. In fact, it is cooler now than during the Medieval Warming Period. The global temperatures have not risen in the last 18 years in spite of all the predictions of all the anthropogenic global warming conspiracy theorists.

Global Warming: Geophysical Counterpoints to the Enhanced Greenhouse Theory
Paperback – March 30, 2010
by John M. Quinn (Author)

The 97% consensus myth​

Whenever I hear the alarmist make the absurd claim that 97% of climate scientists agree on global warming, I always invite them to show me the scientific survey of climate scientists which says that. They can't because their isn't one. There never has been one. The number is based on a study. A faulty study. A biased study. A study that was intended to deceive. A study with a predetermined outcome.

 

Blah Blah Blah. Nasa and every other science agency on the planet disagrees with you. I will go with them

 

No, there is no conspiracy involving thousands of scientists. There is a
cabal of stupid socialists and gullible people who believe the lie about
scientists agreeing that the globe is warming, and that it is caused by
man. The globe has always gotten warmer and colder. Man didn't cause
it before. Man wasn't around.

 

Thousands and thousands of scientists all over the world. Every reputable science agency that takes a position on AGW. The consensus is overwhelming. I refer you to the NASA AGW consensus page. Game set match

 

Even your OP title shows your ignorance as you have fallen into the political trap with little or no understanding of science. Of course this answer you have given shows even more how little you know.

 

Every. Single. One.

 

I feel sorry for people like you.

 

Every. Single. One. LOL

 

Sure thing Skippy. Poor feller.

 

No, they don't. The Milankovitch Cycles are well understood known science for over
a hundred years.

NASA's job in the last 7 years hasn't been science, it is Muslim outreach. They don't
know a lot about science over at NASA these days.

 

You can't deny it. The science community has spoken with one voice. You lost this one

 

Still with the logical fallacy, which you probably don't understand either. At least you are certain in your ignorance of the issue.

 

NASA is one of hundreds of agencies that all support AGW.

- - - Updated - - -

Is there any other theory that every science agency agrees with that you ALSO deny? LOL

 

I guess all you have is logical fallacies and absolutely no understanding of science or a scintilla of curiosity. Government needs useful idiots.

 

Claiming a logical fallacy without evidence is pointless. You have nothing.

 

I'm afraid those of us who think for ourselves aren't much inclined to take advice from those who are content to let their minds be molded by authority figures, sorry for any inconvenience.

 

You would have to understand what a logical fallacy is which evidently you don't.