Friday, November 28th3.4°C
24302
23068

3% of "scientists" deny global warming.

Your thoughts on environment issues and economic issues.

Moderators: Jo, ferri, Triple 6

3% of "scientists" deny global warming.

Postby Nibs » Nov 19th, 2012, 8:11 am

WASHINGTON, Nov 18 (Reuters) -
All nations will suffer the effects of a warmer world, but it is the world's poorest countries that will be hit hardest by food shortages, rising sea levels, cyclones and drought, the World Bank said in a report on climate change.
We're lost but we're making good time.
Nibs
Guru
 
Posts: 5841
Likes: 19 posts
Liked in: 127 posts
Joined: May 29th, 2008, 5:12 pm

Re: 3% of "scientists" deny global warming.

Postby Artofthedeal » Nov 19th, 2012, 11:14 am

Here is a link to the story you cut and paste from:

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/11/1 ... 0B20121119

No where does it mention that 3% of scientists deny global warming. Therefore your thread title is highly misleading, and detracts strongly from whatever point it was you were trying to make.
Artofthedeal
Fledgling
 
Posts: 259
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Oct 11th, 2012, 7:23 pm

Re: 3% of "scientists" deny global warming.

Postby Glacier » Nov 19th, 2012, 11:23 am

Well the World Bankers are telling us it's real, and that carries the weight of more than 3% of scientists.
"...a lie doesn’t become a truth and wrong doesn’t become right and evil doesn’t become good just because it becomes popular. Truth is truth." -Rick warren
User avatar
Glacier
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 16974
Likes: 413 posts
Liked in: 1568 posts
Joined: Jul 6th, 2008, 9:41 pm

Re: 3% of "scientists" deny global warming.

Postby Artofthedeal » Nov 19th, 2012, 12:11 pm

I was mistaken. Here's a direct quote from the article:

"Kim said 97 percent of scientists agree on the reality of climate change."

I hear this a lot, spoken by people we should be able to trust, yet no one ever backs up this statement with actual proof. It seems to be more like the concept that Hitler promoted - repeat a lie long enough and large enough, and people will eventually believe it. There's lots of emotion in these arguments, but no facts. This article makes a lot of wild claims but yet backs up none of them. The real kicker is this sentence: "Last year, the Bank doubled its funding for countries seeking to adapt to climate change, and now operates $7.2 billion in climate investment funds in 48 countries". I'd like to know - who funded the $7.2 billion? Where did this money come from? I would be willing to bet the money trail ends up with the poor taxpayer in the Western world, much like all of the other funding that goes into these scams. And the real question - how much of those funds have actually been invested in real projects, that actually will reduce emissions, and how many billions ended up in complete scams, in the Swiss bank accounts of dictators, and in the hands of the Russian mafia, as was the case with all of those myriad carbon credit scams? Where's the accountability? Instead of wild predictions, give us real details Mr. Kim.

At any rate, with $7.2 billion of funds already invested to "combat climate change", it is obvious which side Mr. Kim's bread is buttered. Is it any surprise that he advocates for the man-made climate change crowd? He would be fired on the spot if he said anything otherwise! Talk about a conflict of interest.
Artofthedeal
Fledgling
 
Posts: 259
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Oct 11th, 2012, 7:23 pm

Re: 3% of "scientists" deny global warming.

Postby ForestfortheTrees » Nov 19th, 2012, 8:51 pm

There have been a number of Journal articles posted on the subject. Here is a recent review that I found that looks at the number of published journal papers on the topic between 1991 and 2012, and their stance. 13,950 for global warming and 24 against.

I am sure someone will say that there is a conspiracy among the funding/peer review process/academia to promote a point of view and so these numbers are meaningless. If that is the case, then please start the conversation with more than a few verifiable examples.
ForestfortheTrees
Board Meister
 
Posts: 432
Likes: 17 posts
Liked in: 43 posts
Joined: Dec 12th, 2010, 11:52 am

Re: 3% of "scientists" deny global warming.

Postby Artofthedeal » Nov 22nd, 2012, 10:17 am

ForestfortheTrees wrote:There have been a number of Journal articles posted on the subject. Here is a recent review that I found that looks at the number of published journal papers on the topic between 1991 and 2012, and their stance. 13,950 for global warming and 24 against.


ha ha - what a brilliant example of manipulating stats to show a bias in favour of man-made global warming. Of course there are going to be more papers in favour of the notion than against. Why would anyone do a study and come out against it? You would never get any more funding. This entire scam is predicated on scientists colluding to keep the cash flowing in their direction. I just feel sorry for anyone who falls for this manipulated "consensus", it is so obvious what is going on here, and given the amount of money at stake, they have to keep the fraud going. Before you throw up the red herring about there being far more money at stake for "big oil", that also is meaningless to this discussion. What we are dealing with is a fraud, that has nothing to do with big oil, and everything to do with scamming taxpayer dollars.

ForestfortheTrees wrote:I am sure someone will say that there is a conspiracy among the funding/peer review process/academia to promote a point of view and so these numbers are meaningless. If that is the case, then please start the conversation with more than a few verifiable examples.


Or I can just point you to Climategate. It was all there in black and white for everyone to see - exactly how the peer review process works. If you support the scam, your paper gets peer reviewed, if you don't, you don't get a peer review, and you are black-balled in the scientific community. It doesn't get any more basic than that. And here's where you say that Penn State exonerated the climate gate participants, and then I say that they also exonerated Jerry Sandusky, so really, that means absolutely nothing.
Artofthedeal
Fledgling
 
Posts: 259
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Oct 11th, 2012, 7:23 pm

Re: 3% of "scientists" deny global warming.

Postby Nibs » Nov 22nd, 2012, 10:43 am

Well artie, you follow the 3%, the thinkers here will pay attention to the 97%.
We're lost but we're making good time.
Nibs
Guru
 
Posts: 5841
Likes: 19 posts
Liked in: 127 posts
Joined: May 29th, 2008, 5:12 pm

Re: 3% of "scientists" deny global warming.

Postby Artofthedeal » Nov 22nd, 2012, 11:39 am

Nibs wrote:Well artie, you follow the 3%, the thinkers here will pay attention to the 97%.


but that's just it - how will you "follow them" exactly? What does that even mean? I think the real contradictions in this whole argument isn't the fact that man is causing some affect on the environment - that whole red herring is just a shell game conceived by the shysters to try and make anybody asking any questions of the fraudulent climate claimants look bad. The real issues boil down to two questions:
1. How much is man affecting the climatic atmosphere with the tiny % of CO2 we produce and...
2. Is there anything we can do to change our ways, that don't involve taking society back to the stone age

We've seen the so-called "believers" in climate change caused by man make dire prediction and after dire prediction over the past 30 years, and also watched 100% of their predictions turn out to be false. All of them. We've also watched charletans and fraudsters glom on to every single weather event and scream and cry and tear their clothes, stating that "insert weather event here" is now the "new normal" and to "expect even worse events to occur now all the time", and yet nothing happens. You Mr Nibs seem to love to cut and paste every single alarmist bit of nonsense that comes out, but do you ever look back and see the folly of what you've posted? Do you see the predictions from only a decade previously that were so greviously and erroneously conceived? Do you not feel some shame at promoting and pasting these things, knowing that every single previous posting you've made has turned out to be a complete lie? If not - you should. While mankind may be affecting the climate, it is quite clear that whatever methods that these "scientists" are using to measure the effects, and thus prognosticate on the future weather, are dead wrong. And will continue to be, dead wrong. And that's what we should be talking about, not more nutty futuristic predictions of armegeddon, that are never going to come true.
Artofthedeal
Fledgling
 
Posts: 259
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Oct 11th, 2012, 7:23 pm

Re: 3% of "scientists" deny global warming.

Postby ForestfortheTrees » Nov 22nd, 2012, 12:14 pm

Artofthedeal wrote:1. How much is man affecting the climatic atmosphere with the tiny % of CO2 we produce and...


CO2 levels have increased by about 20% over the last 50 years and the rate of this increase is also increasing. If you are suggesting that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, and indeed there is no greenhouse effect, you really need to do some more reading on basic chemistry and physics. The main argument is about the amount of climate "forcing" that comes from the increase. I think Richard Lindzen is the most conservative at 1 degree C per doubling of CO2. Most think it is more than that.

Artofthedeal wrote:2. Is there anything we can do to change our ways, that don't involve taking society back to the stone age


I find it really interesting that this argument always comes out. Why is it that you can only think in binary terms? There are other alternatives you know. We are clever people. And you think that oil will last forever? It will run out some time in the next few hundred years, and as it becomes scarcer life will become more difficult. (why are there so many wars in the middle east?? Hmmm.....) So, don't you think it would be a good idea to start looking into alternatives?

Artofthedeal wrote:While mankind may be affecting the climate, it is quite clear that whatever methods that these "scientists" are using to measure the effects, and thus prognosticate on the future weather, are dead wrong. And will continue to be, dead wrong. And that's what we should be talking about, not more nutty futuristic predictions of armegeddon, that are never going to come true.


Not sure if your realize this, but the majority of the things that you use in your day-to-day life is a product of "science". Medicine, transport, communications, education. Are these all wrong as well? Nope, but they are not 100% right either. See, there's that binary viewpoint again--it's either wrong or right. You really need to make room for some shades of grey in your life Art. So let me summarize it like this:

Human development is expanding at an unprecedented rate. To suggest that we have no impact on the equilibrium of our natural systems--and that this may be detrimental to humanity--is to be sticking your head in the sand and thinking everything is rosy in the world. Yes, we have gained significant benefits from all of this advancement, however, it does not mean it is the best it can possibly be. And yes, there will always be people who will misrepresent the facts for various motivations--fame, money, power--but lets step by that. The big picture is that our current path of limitless development is not sustainable, and unmitigated resource extraction, consumption, and pollution, will likely end very badly for our species. So lets do something about finding a solution. Please?
ForestfortheTrees
Board Meister
 
Posts: 432
Likes: 17 posts
Liked in: 43 posts
Joined: Dec 12th, 2010, 11:52 am

Re: 3% of "scientists" deny global warming.

Postby Artofthedeal » Nov 22nd, 2012, 1:57 pm

ForestfortheTrees wrote:
CO2 levels have increased by about 20% over the last 50 years and the rate of this increase is also increasing.


Even if this is true, which I doubt, given I doubt that people were measuring, accurately, the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere in the early 1960's, this just shows how CO2 being created by man has done absolutely NOTHING to change weather patterns anywhere. That's the point! Climate continues to change as it always does, and CO2 doesn't affect it. CO2 is a gas that is required by all plant life, and to call it a pollutant is the height of folly.

ForestfortheTrees wrote:
I find it really interesting that this argument always comes out. Why is it that you can only think in binary terms?


I laughed out loud that you wrote this Forest, mostly because its the loons and whack-jobs in your movement that are the most binary people I've ever seen. Either we stop using oil RIGHT NOW, or we're all going to die. That's all they say - we have to stop now! Of course I am not so "binary" as you call it to think that we shouldn't be looking for alternatives. But at what cost? The US government under the great King Canute president who was going to stop the rising of the oceans, has committed $90 billion they don't have to alternatives, and most of this funding has been siphoned off in dead-end schemes and outright frauds, with nothing to show for it but more debt. There is no point trying to stop a bloody nose by cutting off all blood flow to the head, which is exactly what the alarmist nuts in your hoax want to do. It would be great to meet in the middle, but that would require the incredibly arrogant and self-righteous in the man-made climate disruption scam to finally admit there is room to move on their end in terms of just how much they are over-estimating the issue and the problem, and they won't do it. They can't do it. And sign of weakness to them means loss of power, and funding.

ForestfortheTrees wrote:
Not sure if your realize this, but the majority of the things that you use in your day-to-day life is a product of "science". ?


That's great! And I'm not sure that you realize this, but these things you speak of, were all derived using the scientific method, a concept that most of the "scientists" involved in promoting your scam abandoned a long time ago. Once the Al Gores and David Suzukis realized there was big money to be made, and the politicians realized there were votes to be garnered, the entire process was completely perverted. I pointed out exact predictions from past "scientists" that have all been 100% wrong, all supposedly based on all of this "modelling", and you just ignore it. Just like the rest of the media. The Paul Ehrlichs, because they are left wing nuts, have a carte blanche to lie and still be called "eminent scientists", while any one who calls foul on the AGW scam is pilloried and black-balled. There is no science anymore in the AGW fraud, just profiteers and power mongers, all supported by a lunatic fringe, desperate to believe and support anything, as long as it is anti-capitalist and anti-logic. It truly is sad to see.
Artofthedeal
Fledgling
 
Posts: 259
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Oct 11th, 2012, 7:23 pm

Re: 3% of "scientists" deny global warming.

Postby ForestfortheTrees » Nov 22nd, 2012, 2:08 pm

removed - Jennylives
ForestfortheTrees
Board Meister
 
Posts: 432
Likes: 17 posts
Liked in: 43 posts
Joined: Dec 12th, 2010, 11:52 am

Re: 3% of "scientists" deny global warming.

Postby Nibs » Nov 22nd, 2012, 3:07 pm

removed - Jennylives
We're lost but we're making good time.
Nibs
Guru
 
Posts: 5841
Likes: 19 posts
Liked in: 127 posts
Joined: May 29th, 2008, 5:12 pm

Re: 3% of "scientists" deny global warming.

Postby Artofthedeal » Nov 22nd, 2012, 3:50 pm

removed - Jennylives
Artofthedeal
Fledgling
 
Posts: 259
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Oct 11th, 2012, 7:23 pm

Re: 3% of "scientists" deny global warming.

Postby SmokeOnTheWater » Nov 22nd, 2012, 3:57 pm

removed - Jennylives
" Nature is not a place to visit. It is home. " ~ Gary Snyder
User avatar
SmokeOnTheWater
Guru
 
Posts: 6430
Likes: 221 posts
Liked in: 150 posts
Joined: Aug 22nd, 2012, 6:13 pm

Re: 3% of "scientists" deny global warming.

Postby bh » Dec 10th, 2012, 8:12 am

Nibs wrote:WASHINGTON, Nov 18 (Reuters) -
All nations will suffer the effects of a warmer world, but it is the world's poorest countries that will be hit hardest by food shortages, rising sea levels, cyclones and drought, the World Bank said in a report on climate change.


There is no food shortage, but a shortage of money to buy the food. The two are not the same. Those that control the money and resources are willing to have people die if they can't pay for or submit to austerity measures in exchange for the necessities of life.

What the hell is the world bank doing in the affairs of sociology and humanitarian relief?
Making money.
bh
Fledgling
 
Posts: 115
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: May 30th, 2005, 1:45 pm

Next

Return to Environmental & Economic Concerns

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests