Scientist who said climate change sceptics proved wrong accused of hiding truth

yeah but it is still settled science

 

Only if you have no clue.

 

Good grief this post is old, and on top of it, one was off topic. What gives with this BS

One of the worst cases of trolling by RWers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Walty ( like usual) bumped the thread.. Take it up with him. And if you see it as trolling then by all means take it up with the moderation.

Aka you are complaining to the wrong person.

 

Ok 10(char)

 

Data sets from Venus and Mars are not available and not relevant.

PS: "Venus and Mars are alright tonight".

 

Dude, this thread is very old.

My original post stands.

 

It is common knowledge that the earth cools and warms on a relatively regular basis. One has to ask what the real reason is, and who is behind, the pseudoscience of man-made Global Warming. The globalist George Soros, for one, is up to his ears in promoting the Global Warming game, and of blaming it on the activities of 'wealthy' nations. That speaks volumes.

Soros can't do enough to decimate, and destabilize (through massive immigration, or economically) the western world and redistribute our wealth. If you're wondering what promoting man-made global warming has to do with wealth redistribution think about billions of people in the third world screaming for reparations from the wealthy nations for every typhoon, hurricane, drought, and flood, and every other weather normal weather pattern. Who is going to pay the 100+ billion dollars third world nations are demanding as compensation for their corrugated-steel roofed, and card board houses falling down in a hurricane. We are.

And besides reparations, there is the hundreds of millions of 'climate refugees' that will use global warming as an excuse to migrate to the western countries, join the grievance industry, and receive life-long benefits.

What the deal is today with the natural cycle of global warming is that there are more people on the planet, and therefore more people are effected by harsh weather conditions; and then we have MSM reporting on every little gust of wind. The easiest, and most convenient thing for people like Soros to do is blame the western world, and force them to pay up for weather conditions that are nothing new to this planet.

Stir up enough chaos, destabilize the entire world, and it will be easy to institute a global, totalitarian government with people like Soros at the helm.

 

There were Herbivore Dinosaurs and the vegetation to support them between 400 to 1200 miles from the North Pole about 60 Million years ago. The fossilized remains of both don't lie. Something cause the Earth to warm to that extent, man didn't exist and the fossils for oil were still walking around and growing from the ground. So what caused the Earth to warm that much? We know through indisputable fact that there were Herbivore Dinosaurs and the vegetation to support them between 400 to 1200 miles from the North Pole about 60 Million years ago. We can't rule out that the same process isn't happening again and nothing we can do will matter anyway.

Deforestation is likely a driver of any man made warming far more than any emissions. An area the size of England, Wales and Scotland (50 million acres) is cut down every year around the world. Trees are nature's carbon sinks. When that much carbon sink is removed every year, they are fighting a losing battle by simply controlling emissions. Unless the main thrust of climate change "control" if that's possible, is putting a stop to deforestation why do they bother us with trivial pursuits. It's all about the Benjamines. A "carbon tax" would be a huge source of revenue for the Government crooks who would laugh all the way to their Swiss bank accounts while the warmies with a big grin and say "we're saving the planet".

Soros is 85 with any luck his oil pump will seize up anytime soon.

 

"not been well received by other climate scientists"

I wonder why? Could it be the grant money would dry up? They wouldn't be able to show up at the office, turn on a computer, start a program and head off to the golf club for the rest of the day.

 

haha I just noticed the dates and the guy who bumped the thread... isn't that like a forum violation thing...

anyhow, all my data and questions still stand... why doesn't the data match if thats the cause... I notice nobody is answering my questions and is simply trying to dismiss it as "RWers!!!!!!!!!!!!"....

please educate me on the global warming, I showed the co2 charts not matching up with the temperature charts... and every single time I question global warming someone brings up co2 emissions from man... so I'm just looking for what the new cause is... I really am curious about this but I can't seem to get any straight answers, just dismissed and called a republican...

I actually voted for Gore... but even he's kinda flaked out on data and reality... so I'm still trying to find a good reason as to whats going on... all people do is cite links that say the same nothing, since the one reason used is kinda blown up... so I'm kinda left not being able to defend it myself when I talk to others...

 

97+% of climate scientists back it up.

 

That has been debunked countless times. Its as bad a Gores hockey stick

 

Why wouldn't they.......they'd be out of work if they didn't.

 

Yeah right, another crazy conspiracy from the Right.

 

Your turn.

 

Deniers make the 9/11 truthers seem sane.

 

As I thought no credible response just more nonsense

 

I could pick apart everything you posted in this post
But it would be way to long

So let me take on just one.... You reference

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch
i wanted to see what their research showed

From wiki

This is it
Bray and von Storch, 2008 Edit

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, of the Institute for Coastal Research at the Helmholtz Research Centre in Germany, conducted an online survey in August 2008, of 2,059 climate scientists from 34 different countries, the third survey on this topic by these authors.[12] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 375 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18%. The climate change consensus results were published by Bray,[13] and another paper has also been published based on the survey.[14]

The survey was composed of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from 'not at all' to 'very much'.[12]

In the section on climate change impacts, questions 20 and 21 were relevant to scientific opinion on climate change.

Question 20, "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?" Answers: 67.1% very much convinced (7), 26.7% to some large extent (5–6), 6.2% said to some small extent (2–4), none said not at all.

Question 21, "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" Answers: 34.6% very much convinced (7), 48.9% being convinced to a large extent (5–6), 15.1% to a small extent (2–4), and 1.35% not convinced at all (1).[12]


Which is diametrically opposed to what you say or imply their research shows

Are you aware of this and misrepresenting their research?
Or you just copy and paste from someone else who is misrepresenting?


Btw
I am not endorsing the above study
Just pointing out that you have misrepresented a study that your post presents

 

So you're saying none of the steps Obama has taken will mean squat. I agree on that point. But, I live on the coast, have for quite awhile, and you know...not one iota of MGW evidence. The beach is still there and not one property is under water. The fish still bite on the baited hook, the tide comes in, it goes out just like is has for 40 years. Imagine that.

 

Most science is driven by a desire for money and publicity to get money. Most conclusions desired can be purchased. Companies do it. Governments do it.

 

Try another source please
Besides thats a pretty poor attempt

Lets see
Question 20, "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?" Answers: 67.1% very much convinced (7), 26.7% to some large extent (5–6), 6.2% said to some small extent (2–4), none said not at all.

Even i believe its happening now or has in the past.

Question 21, "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" Answers: 34.6% very much convinced (7), 48.9% being convinced to a large extent (5–6), 15.1% to a small extent (2–4), and 1.35% not convinced at all (1).[12]

So only 34,6 are really convinced the others have some doubts

 

In further response to your post
You mention john cook
And how he was debunked

The problem being that mr cook and the debunkers studied entirely different questions
So it is an apples to oranges sort of thing

- - - Updated - - -

How about you provide me with another source

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/2/