Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility: Only 1 of 9,136 Recent Peer-Revie

So before humans , the climate didnt change ?

 

Skeptics of AGW are not 'deniers' and there is no such thing as a 'climate denier.'

 

How strange, it doesn't appear that anyone said that

 

" because climate change more accurately describes what's happening "

Then , I asked the question " did climate change not exist before humans ? "


Don't know what you don't understand ...

 

1) You cant see it if you're an Obama supporter, just as you cant see the same fact when the topic is Obamacare.

2) I'm sorry but there is just no good reason to accept junk science as evidence. These people who are paid to report on a concept they already have invested interests in "proving" to be true are stretching data to a point where only somebody who favors the result would believe.

This is how junk science tries to fool you:

CO2 keeps the Earth warm. This is a fact.

The burning of fossil fuels produces CO2. This is also a fact.

Therefore the burning of fossil fuels makes the Earth warmer. WHOA! Hold on now, this is where the junk science begins. In the makeup of our atmosphere CO2 comes in at about 0.01% to 0.07%, depending on time of day and/or location. That makes CO2 a trace gas. Mans contribution of CO2 is a trace amount of that trace gas. In other words its like somebody saying "you spitting into the ocean will cause a title wave", its absurd.

So again, you're being lied to by people who want to take control of another huge chunk of the economy and weaken the economic freedom of American citizens by force feeding them a deficient and expensive alternative.

 

That 15 year cooling trend must really be a thorn in the side of your alarmist cult, huh?

http://www.c3headlines.com/global-cooling-dataevidencetrends/

 

The global temperature average has remained roughly the same since 1998. Everybody that knows a thing or two about global warming knows this. It looks a might chilly down there in Oregon today, Lunchboxxy!

 

It would appear that he never said the climate change didn't occurring before humans. He is clearly talking about our current climate change event

 

The surface of Mars at the equator can get as hot as 80 degrees Fahrenheit during the day and as cold as -200 degrees Fahrenheit during the night. Mars' atmosphere is made up mostly of CO2. Global warmists never, ever mention this, because it throws their CO2 greenhouse effect theory right out the window.

 

IPCC latest report: Climate Change: The Physical Science Basis.

The IPCC the one of the leaders in this AGW crusade admits there has been a 15 year hiatus in the warming trend.

Lets touch on a few more quotes:

IPCC admits they don't see catastrophe for this century from climate change...

IPCC now says there is little confidence that human influence in causing droughts...

Im sure skimming over the 2000+ pg report would lead to a lot more stuff to make one question whats going on.

 

It was a question that has yet to be answered... I don't understand your difficulty understanding the question.

 

I dont think you understand what science of the day means. Well you never understand much in these debates. When a botanist is testing how plant life will respond to a 4 degree rise in temperature they aren't confirming a 4 degree rise in temperature. They are taking what the climatologists give them as a scenario.

 

Once a similar ratio of scientists thought the world was flat, so what's your point?

 

That's not how all research is done. Plenty of research explores the changes that have already occurred.

- - - Updated - - -

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

 

Well you could call it begging the question or you could call it affirming the consquence or you could call it circular logic or you could call it Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc but you can't call it ad hominem.

an ad hominem is a personal attack and does not require any degree of relevancy to the subject.

 

Climate change is definitely happening of course, just like when half the world was covered in ice and defrosted. The unknown is how much impact is due to human causes and the cost of proposed taxes. Of for collectivists the only answer is collecting more of your money.....what a surprise that isnt.

The following project shows why its 50 times cheaper to adapt than try to stop climate change. They also worked out that Australia's massive carbon tax, one of the highest in the world would only make a difference of 1/20,0000th of a degree over 10 years.

[video=youtube;Zw5Lda06iK0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw5Lda06iK0[/video]

And the website with further info and interviews: http://topher.com.au/50-to-1-video-project/

 

There were scientists prior to the medieval times you know...

Either way, it matters naught how many people are wrong, just the ones that are right. In this case there is no comprehensive multi-system model that supports the global warming cult's point of view...

 

I guess reading between the lines takes a special skill. Using Obama supporter/Obamacare as a prop for your argument sells your side of the story short right out of the box. Just to give you a heads up, I believed in global warming way before I new who Obama was. Which makes this post of yours quite ridiculous. And so you say we are being lied to by the people who want to take control of the economy. Yes, there's a guy down there in Antarctica who has spent most of his life since the sixties studying global warming, and his only real interest is taking over the economy. That's great! Except for one thing. If the naysayers thought that was really true, don't you think they would be soaking millions of Koch funded dollars down there debunking those very scientists who insist it is going on, by the very strong evidence they have. The core samples they have are undeniable. And if the samples were bogus, why aren't the Kochs equipped with their own scientific research to destroy the evidence that is available? Because right now, all they have are people like you fear mongering your own version of what's happening.

 

Cutting down 50 million acres of carbon sink every years is man made, what do you plan to do about it.

 

Total BS propaganda.


I can refute that right now:

Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. William Braswell published in Nov 2013 Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences. Thats 2 that I know of just off the top of my head, and I'm not even a climate scientist and don't read the journals.

I downloaded your guys spreadsheet of papers, the Spencer/Braswell paper was not there. Out of curiosity I checked a couple of other non-AGW climate scientists, guess what? Not in your guys spreadsheet. I'll bet your guy has cherry picked his data. Just like a good global warmist.


LOL, total FAIL.


And then there is this: The following is the study that resulted in the claim that 97% of scientists support man made global warming:

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
By John Cook et. al.
Environmental Research Letters, 15 May 2013

That study looked at 11,944 peer-reviewed papers on climate change in the years 1991–2011. Ignoring all other problems with the paper, Cook found 124 authors (climate scientists) who flat out rejected man made global warming.

The guy in your link found only 24 over the same period.

Considering the Cook study is so flawed its almost a fraud, I will associate the word "fraud" with your guy.


Ha, FAIL again.

 

"Global warming is caused by man, the guy who wants to sell me a more expensive less effective alternative fuel told me so."

Look if the planet catches on fire like Al Gore said it would, then I'll stand corrected.

Otherwise spend your time developing a better alternative that the FREE MARKET will pick to replace fossil fuels and I'll gladly use it.

 

Why even post stuff like this? The deniers have that ideology wrapped up in their identity, you won't change their minds with facts or reason--they're impervious to it. I've actually stopped coming to this forum so often because I just can't handle the sheer ignorance any longer. These people don't deserved to be debated with, they deserve to be swept into the dust bin of history until their generation fades away.

 

Those three sentences just reinforced my last post. You just surrendered your argument due to a lack of scientific proof from all the naysayers. It's just hyperbole nonsense while injecting additional hate for Obama and Obamacare, which has absolutely nothing to do with this. Try not to be so obvious next time.

 

If you believe this study yoy are the one with your head in the sand. See above my sekf ans others have easily found more papers published in the last year. The OPs source is a transparent fraud only believed by the faithful.

 

Government funding. This has been a cash cow for those dabbling in the very young and immature science called "climatology".