this is real?Watching the religion of AGW die over the next decade is going to be glorious.
this is real?Watching the religion of AGW die over the next decade is going to be glorious.
I'm not sure if you're being serious but that interview establishes that a former oil executive doesn't believe in global warming but has his own theory of global cooling based on paper-thin evidence. Riiiiiight, good crowd to hang with.
The fact that you choose to misrepresent him makes me think you have an agenda.
And yet just a few months ago scientists said they ARE melting
Seriously, fuck this new trend of politically tinged scientific research.
The fact that you choose to misrepresent him makes me think you have an agenda.
Cubsfan23 said:Science changes its mind every year
Come on BUB, the trolling is a bit too obvious this time.
You mean like how new evidence forces us to modify existing theories? You're right. Science can be very "sciency".
A chemist, one of the fathers of Germanys modern green movement, a social democrat, IPCC and green activist... He's one of yours.
Worth the repost:
Isn't the "science" exactly what's being questioned though?
And he's wrong. What is the issue exactly?
A chemist, one of the fathers of Germanys modern green movement, a social democrat, IPCC and green activist... He's one of yours.
His party, Germany's center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), chose him as environment senator in the city-state of Hamburg, where he incurred the wrath of the environmental lobby by building a waste incineration plant, earning him the nickname "Feuerfritze" (Fire Fritz). He worked in industry after that, first for oil multinational Shell and then for wind turbine maker RePower, which he helped develop.
Okay, to be serious for a bit.
Shockingly enough, I'm not one of them fancy climaterologists with their college DEE-grees and such. In fact, I don't know much about climatology in general. I wouldn't be surprised if even someone like Kosmo legitimately knows more about the science then I do. But like with most situations, one would think you would go with whatever side the scientific consensus is on.
-97%+ of oncologists believe in a causal link between cigarettes and lung cancer.
-97%+ of biologists believe in evolution
-97%+ of geologists believe that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old.
-97%+ of the medical community doesn't think that treating diabetes with exorcisms is appropriate.
So why the heck do we agree with the scientific consensus on pretty much everything BUT global warming?
who says most of us agree with those things? your precious studies showing a link between cancer and cigarette smoking prove nothing. and your studies showing tobacco causes cancer in animals is also inapplicable at best and fradulent at worst. epidemiolog-whatever studies prove NOTHING.Anyone?
Quite the blanket statement. Wrong about what? That the IPCC buries alternative viewpoints and pushes bullshit non peer reviewed studies? That the earth hasn't warmed statistically in 13 years despite CO2 increases. That the sun has more to do with climate than is recognized by the IPCC? That weaker solar cycles are ahead? That we should work to reduce CO2 levels and use renewable energy?
Okay, to be serious for a bit.
Shockingly enough, I'm not one of them fancy climaterologists with their college DEE-grees and such. In fact, I don't know much about climatology in general. I wouldn't be surprised if even someone like Kosmo legitimately knows more about the science then I do. But like with most situations, one would think you would go with whatever side the scientific consensus is on.
-97%+ of oncologists believe in a causal link between cigarettes and lung cancer.
-97%+ of biologists believe in evolution
-97%+ of geologists believe that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old.
-97%+ of the medical community doesn't think that treating diabetes with exorcisms is appropriate.
So why the heck do we agree with the scientific consensus on pretty much everything BUT global warming?
Quite the blanket statement. Wrong about what? That the IPCC buries alternative viewpoints and pushes bullshit non peer reviewed studies? That the earth hasn't warmed statistically in 13 years despite CO2 increases. That the sun has more to do with climate than is recognized by the IPCC? That weaker solar cycles are ahead? That we should work to reduce CO2 levels and use renewable energy?
I wasn't even aware of the existence of global warming skepticism until I started conversing with Americans over the internet. I did however meet one in real life recently, a well-spoken engineer from North Carolina who was very passionate about this issue. He was also passionate about fluoride in the water supply (although only after I brought it up in response) and seemed to be convinced that Islam and Hinduism were the same thing, but he was a very nice man and a lot more pleasant to be around than some of my idealogical brethren.
That being said, the way rightwingers describe trust in the scientific consensus as a "religion" is more than a little ironic.
I wasn't even aware of the existence of global warming skepticism until I started conversing with Americans over the internet. I did however meet one in real life recently, a well-spoken engineer from North Carolina who was very passionate about this issue. He was also passionate about fluoride in the water supply (although only after I brought it up in response) and seemed to be convinced that Islam and Hinduism were the same thing, but he was a very nice man and a lot more pleasant to be around than some of my idealogical brethren.
That being said, the way rightwingers describe trust in the scientific consensus as a "religion" is more than a little ironic.
the late 70s and early 80s, prominent right wingers, including the men who went on to establish such republican think tanks as the Marshall Institute, conceded that global warming would occur within a relatively short timeframe. but they didn't regard the problem as being urgent. they assumed we could just adjust to the changing climate or that technological innovations would solve our problems. however, by the late 80s and early 90s, they changed their tune, and started attacking the science of global warming itself and the people involved in it. the gradual shift from acceptance to acceptance but it won't be so bad to it's a conspiracy by elitist liberals who want to reset civilization to the stone age has been fascinating to watch.
yeah but it hasn't snowed, like, at all this winter.
Are completely forgetting that the same scientists trying to scare us about global warming now were saying an ice age was imminent in the 70's?
Literally the same scientists. Prob had the same data too.Are completely forgetting that the same scientists trying to scare us about global warming now were saying an ice age was imminent in the 70's?
Most of those are much more effective arguments to garner support than global warming scare tactics ever will be.Worth the repost:
This I'm on board with. We should be focusing on sooty emissions, not CO2.
That is 100% false.
Okay, to be serious for a bit.
Shockingly enough, I'm not one of them fancy climaterologists with their college DEE-grees and such. In fact, I don't know much about climatology in general. I wouldn't be surprised if even someone like Kosmo legitimately knows more about the science then I do. But like with most situations, one would think you would go with whatever side the scientific consensus is on.
-97%+ of oncologists believe in a causal link between cigarettes and lung cancer.
-97%+ of biologists believe in evolution
-97%+ of geologists believe that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old.
-97%+ of the medical community doesn't think that treating diabetes with exorcisms is appropriate.
So why the heck do we agree with the scientific consensus on pretty much everything BUT global warming?
Right, which is why the CIA convened a summit on global cooling in 1974. Actual PDF from the summit: http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf
In fact, when you read that document, it's the exact same thing they are saying that will happen with AGW (famine, etc) except they were talking about global cooling.
Right, which is why the CIA convened a summit on global cooling in 1974. Actual PDF from the summit: http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf
In fact, when you read that document, it's the exact same thing they are saying that will happen with AGW (famine, etc) except they were talking about global cooling.
There you have it. A CIA conference in 1974 negates all subsequent work in climate science. Just to add to this logic, if you didn't hear, doctors performed bloodletting in the Dark Ages, therefore, negating all future work in medicine. See, doesn't this make the world so much simpler!
This proves otherwise.
That damned Dogma of science and empirical evidence. Bigoted Big Science types keeping us from teaching Intelligent Design.This is how excited the AGW-GAF gets to post this comic in every thread that remotely goes against their dogma:
I have a site for you:You intimated it was 100% false that there was a global cooling consensus in the 70's. This proves otherwise.
Governments really need to do a better job of explaining the science to the masses.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/index.html
National Climatic Data Center, annual global analysis.
did u just quote dennis miller
lol @ explaining Science to the masses. If you can't explain something in 30 seconds, 50% of the fucking population will tune you out immediately. another 30% is lost when you use your first field-specific jargon word or two.
Maybe if you can put it in a Dr. Seuss book. Or felt it into an episode of The Family Guy.
lol @ explaining Science to the masses. If you can't explain something in 30 seconds, 50% of the fucking population will tune you out immediately. another 30% is lost when you use your first field-specific jargon word or two.
Maybe if you can put it in a Dr. Seuss book. Or felt it into an episode of The Family Guy.
You intimated it was 100% false that there was a global cooling consensus in the 70's. This proves otherwise.
kosmo we all know alaska is a myth propagated by the liberal media.
Governments really need to do a better job of explaining the science to the masses.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/index.html
National Climatic Data Center, annual global analysis.
The Earth's climate is far more complex than scientists try and make it seem.
Especially in North America where the Jet Stream effects us so directly.
Yeah, those scientists, always trying to oversimplify things...
We have a little over a hundred years of data for a planet that is millions of years old...
I'm not saying that the climate isn't changing, but it's not simply because of humans.
We can quantify everything that's adding energy (heat) into our closed system (the earth). We're heating up. It's not volcanoes, it's not the sun, it's not cosmic rays, it's not poor measurements. We can safely rule all these things out.We have a little over a hundred years of data for a planet that is millions of years old...
I'm not saying that the climate isn't changing, but it's not simply because of humans.