Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real

[Techne]

Haven't read all posts here so sorry if this has already been said (doubt it), but just some food for thought:

In my experience, when articles start talking about "consensus", it's a sure sign that they don't have enough facts and are trying to convince us by weight of numbers (and not the right kind of numbers either)...

I get the same feeling. Anyway, a look at the future of the economies n the West :

And who are these people that spread false alarmism?
Online news service promotes false climate change study

EurekAlert! carried a study with unfounded global warming claims that the planet would warm by 2.4C by 2020

 

[K3NS31]

I get the same feeling. Anyway, a look at the future of the economies n the West :

That cartoon is hilarious!

 

[w1z4rd]

 

[Techne]

That cartoon is hilarious!

More

 

[w1z4rd]

yada its all part of a natural cycle line..

http://www.grist.org/article/current-global-warming-is-just-part-of-a-natural-cycle/
http://climatesight.org/2011/01/11/its-just-a-natural-cycle/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Could-global-warming-be-caused-by-natural-cycles.html

Let me wrap it up in a nutshell:

As we can see, "it's just a natural cycle" isn't just a cop-out argument - it's something that scientists have considered, studied, and ruled out long before you and I even knew what global warming was.

‘Global warming is part of a natural cycle’—This idea is one short step above appealing to magic

etc

Do you know in the fossil fuel industry, its well known political lobbiest for those corporations are doing their hardest to decry the accepted scientific consensus. They know they cant prove the data false, they know that the facts are all against them, but they also know, if they cant win the argument, its really easy to muddy the waters and get people confused on the issue. I see thats money well spent by them. Their plan is working.

 

[unskinnybob]

Cows farting = global warming AND hole in the ozone. Dispute.

 

[Techne]

Puts tinfoil hat on....

Anyway, so w1z4rd, what do you think is the consensus on the magnitude of the impact that humans have on climate change over and above these natural climate changes we see in the geological record? I am unaware of any consensus, well nothing to convince me that carbon taxation is needed anyway.

 

[Pitbull]

http://www.grist.org/article/current-global-warming-is-just-part-of-a-natural-cycle/
http://climatesight.org/2011/01/11/its-just-a-natural-cycle/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Could-global-warming-be-caused-by-natural-cycles.html

Let me wrap it up in a nutshell:





etc

Do you know in the fossil fuel industry, its well known political lobbiest for those corporations are doing their hardest to decry the accepted scientific consensus. They know they cant prove the data false, they know that the facts are all against them, but they also know, if they cant win the argument, its really easy to muddy the waters and get people confused on the issue. I see thats money well spent by them. Their plan is working.

I just want to understand one thing here. Do you disagree with natural climate cycles?

 

[K3NS31]

snip...

Do you know in the fossil fuel industry, its well known political lobbiest for those corporations are doing their hardest to decry the accepted scientific consensus. They know they cant prove the data false, they know that the facts are all against them, but they also know, if they cant win the argument, its really easy to muddy the waters and get people confused on the issue. I see thats money well spent by them. Their plan is working.

Rubbish - all the oil based companies have highly profitable "biofuel" divisions which are making more and more money by the year (not least from grants and tax subsidies). Also, they're all waiting with bated breath to start trading in trillions of dollars worth of carbon credits. That's the REAL pay day behind global warming - it's like Derivative / Futures trading, only safer (and with even less reliance on actual products or services. Literally a "made up" product)

 

[w1z4rd]

I just want to understand one thing here. Do you disagree with natural climate cycles?

Nope.

 

[w1z4rd]

Rubbish - all the oil based companies have highly profitable "biofuel" divisions which are making more and more money by the year (not least from grants and tax subsidies). Also, they're all waiting with bated breath to start trading in trillions of dollars worth of carbon credits. That's the REAL pay day behind global warming - it's like Derivative / Futures trading, only safer (and with even less reliance on actual products or services. Literally a "made up" product)

If you believe that, that is your prerogative.

 

[K3NS31]

If you believe that, that is your prerogative.

sure, come back to me when you're paying bull***t taxes for "emissions " and buying carbon credits etc. Oh wait, bought a new car recently?

 

[w1z4rd]

sure, come back to me when you're paying bull***t taxes for "emissions "

Your beliefs are colorful.

 

[Pitbull]

Nope.

But if you don't disagree with it then...

o nvm, I'm getting confused now

 

[K3NS31]

Your beliefs are colorful.

So you're saying you disagree that there's lots of money to be made from "global warming"? That's just naive.
And what DO you think about our new "emissions tax" on new cars? Maybe you think it's reasonable and the money all goes into anti-global warming research or something.

 

[w1z4rd]

But if you don't disagree with it then...

o nvm, I'm getting confused now

You would not be confused if you read any of the links I supplied you. Let me know what you think of the actual data there and how it correlates with your beliefs.

 

[w1z4rd]

So you're saying you disagree that there's lots of money to be made from "global warming"? That's just naive.

Um, you got that all from my response! Wow, now I understand why you have such interesting beliefs

And what DO you think about our new "emissions tax" on new cars? Maybe you think it's reasonable and the money all goes into anti-global warming research or something.

I dont have an opinion on emissions tax or carbon credit.

 

[Pitbull]

You would not be confused if you read any of the links I supplied you. Let me know what you think of the actual data there and how it correlates with your beliefs.

I read through them. The problem is that none of them refute what I said and that for every link you post I can post something else.

I'm trying to understand your view point though. Since instead of agreeing or disagreeing with what I said you posted these links. That is confusing.

But feel free to indicate your stance to use if you feel like it.

 

[BCO]

I read through them. The problem is that none of them refute what I said and that for every link you post I can post something else.

I'm trying to understand your view point though. Since instead of agreeing or disagreeing with what I said you posted these links. That is confusing.

But feel free to indicate your stance to use if you feel like it.

Sure you can post something else, but how much of the stuff you post in reply is good science? Not much. At all.

Some good reading on what scientific consensus means:

http://solarsaddle.wordpress.com/2011/01/26/james-delingpole-and-the-scientific-consensus/


Also, why is it that those who disagree with carbon taxation/cap & trade etc (a fairly legitimate ECONOMIC debate, I might add) somehow then feel the need to disagree with the SCIENCE of AGW? Just because you don't like the idea of more/different taxation doesn't mean you have to disagree with the science.

 

[A Darter]

Over 1000 leading scientists have now come out against AGW (20 times the number of UN scientists who authored IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers) http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/S...-UN-IPCC--Gore