Estimated 40 Percent of Scientists Doubt Manmade Global Warming

[jillian]

Estimated 40 Percent of Scientists Doubt Manmade Global Warming | National Association of Scholars

Sorry if I forget to follow up on USMB.

you mean a rightwingnut group denies climate change?

I'm shocked... shocked i tell ya

 

[CrusaderFrank]

View attachment 178592

Do you have lab work that tests for temperature changes given changes in CO2?

No? Yeah, I know you don't

 

[IsaacNewton]

View attachment 178592

Do you have lab work that tests for temperature changes given changes in CO2?

No? Yeah, I know you don't

 

[SillyWabbit]

This is still a thing?
Maybe when huge swaths of deniers living in coastal areas are forced to move the supposed debate will stop.
Maybe not. They'll probably call it an act of God. Can't be from anything we've done. It's God.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

View attachment 178592

Do you have lab work that tests for temperature changes given changes in CO2?

No? Yeah, I know you don't

View attachment 178599

Yes, we have no lab work.

Don't scientists conduct lab experiences?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This is still a thing?
Maybe when huge swaths of deniers living in coastal areas are forced to move the supposed debate will stop.
Maybe not. They'll probably call it an act of God. Can't be from anything we've done. It's God.

Obama lowered the seas, remember?

 

[skookerasbil]

View attachment 178592

Do you have lab work that tests for temperature changes given changes in CO2?

No? Yeah, I know you don't

View attachment 178599

Actually, our superiority complex comes from a perpetual habit of winning s0n.........especially where climate change is concerned.

Well documented HERE >>> More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

244,000 "views" s0n.......555 pages!! One of the most ePiC threads on the USMB!!

 

[Old Rocks]

Wherein the most retarded repeatedly demonstrate their retardation.

 

[BS Filter]

Estimated 40 Percent of Scientists Doubt Manmade Global Warming | National Association of Scholars

Sorry if I forget to follow up on USMB.

you mean a rightwingnut group denies climate change?

I'm shocked... shocked i tell ya

They don't deny climate change. They deny man made climate change. Everyone with common sense knows the climate changes. Duh!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Wherein the most retarded repeatedly demonstrate their retardation.

Will take the label of full-on retard any day as long as my side is winning. As that thread displays in brilliant detail........despite this intensively false reality projected by true believers of AGW, the world consistently conveys a huge yawn when it comes to global warming. How do we know this with 100% certainty? By checking the late 2016 Obama Administration EIA energy projections out to 2040 >>

http://naturalgasnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/eia-aeo2014-forecast-512x384.png

In an instant, it decimates any fake argument made by the faker AGW crowd and proves beyond ANY doubt that despite 20 years of fakery, fossil fuels continue to DOMINATE the energy landscape. Every single bozo in this forum will be in their box a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time before renewables make any significant dent in fossil fuel dominance!!


Translation?

Nobody is caring a hoot about climate change. Those who are not low information bozos read this thread >> http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/more-proof-the-skeptics-are-winning.313851/ .............and their eye's pop wide open!!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Estimated 40 Percent of Scientists Doubt Manmade Global Warming | National Association of Scholars

Sorry if I forget to follow up on USMB.

Climate denier propaganda group publishes a completely unfounded quote by one of its own members, chosen for his denial. In other news, NAMBLA reports that one of its own members told it in an interview that kid sex is fine.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Estimated 40 Percent of Scientists Doubt Manmade Global Warming | National Association of Scholars

Sorry if I forget to follow up on USMB.

National Association of Scholars

​

Learn more from the Center for Media and Democracy's research on climate change.

The National Association of Scholars (NAS) is a non-profit organization in the United States that opposes multiculturalism and affirmative action and seeks to counter what it considers a "liberal bias" in academia.[1]

In 2010 and 2011, its president was espousing climate contrarianism under the group's auspices, with no evident expertise in the climate science field.[2]

The Association's officers are not answerable to its membership: according to its 2009 IRS Form 990 (Part VI Section A), the Association doesn't have members (line 6), members don't elect the officers (line 7a), and the decisions of the governing body are not subject to members' approval (line 7b).[3] Mid-2000s IRS filings also indicate that the Association was controlled by 0 or 1 person.

The Association's major foundation donor is the Sarah Scaife Foundation. By 2009, the majority of the Association's revenue came from "educational partnerships", the funding for which is winding down. While the NAS continues to describe itself as "an independent membership association of academics..."[4], in late 2009 membership was opened to all.[5]

Anyone interested in a more thorough report on this organization should read the later parts of John Mashey's 34pp "Bottling Nonsense" pdf, in the Resources section below.

National Association of Scholars - SourceWatch

Not a reputable source to go to on scientific issues.

Wow a left wing think tank organization.... and you think its credible...

 

[flacaltenn]

So what you are saying is that all those scientific societies have a membership that have no say in what their policy is on global warming?

Yes I am. Because most of the members of the societies I belong to are more concerned with the insurance and benefits and access to publishing than they are with silly statements from their front offices. And NONE of them ASK for member input or approval on nonsense like that.

Show me where these statements were OPEN to member input ANYWHERE..

 

[flacaltenn]

View attachment 178592

You are aware that your namesake was an Alchemist right? Totally believed in mystical properties and chemistry magic. Kinda figures...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

In other breaking news....the KKK just interviewed one of its own members. As it turns out, white people are superior to all other races! Astounding!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

View attachment 178592

You are aware that your namesake was an Alchemist right? Totally believed in mystical properties and chemistry magic. Kinda figures...

Yes, but also invented calculus. See, we dont rely on people or our gut feings, we rely on empirical evidence.

 

[flacaltenn]

View attachment 178592

You are aware that your namesake was an Alchemist right? Totally believed in mystical properties and chemistry magic. Kinda figures...

Yes, but also invented calculus. See, we dont rely on people or our gut feings, we rely on empirical evidence.

How could a magical chemist be a qualified expert in kinetic physics or theoretical mathematics? I thought you ruled out multi-disciplinary expertise..

 

[IsaacNewton]

View attachment 178592

You are aware that your namesake was an Alchemist right? Totally believed in mystical properties and chemistry magic. Kinda figures...

Yes, but also invented calculus. See, we dont rely on people or our gut feings, we rely on empirical evidence.

Notice when the argument is weak they attack the person. Ad hominem.

Has anyone ever heard Isaac Newton referred to as an alchemist? LOL No.

 

[Old Rocks]

So what you are saying is that all those scientific societies have a membership that have no say in what their policy is on global warming?

Yes I am. Because most of the members of the societies I belong to are more concerned with the insurance and benefits and access to publishing than they are with silly statements from their front offices. And NONE of them ASK for member input or approval on nonsense like that.

Show me where these statements were OPEN to member input ANYWHERE..

You mean you do not vote for the members of your board? And even as an affiliate member I get to vote on what I think the most pressing issues are for the scientific society I belong to.

 

[flacaltenn]

So what you are saying is that all those scientific societies have a membership that have no say in what their policy is on global warming?

Yes I am. Because most of the members of the societies I belong to are more concerned with the insurance and benefits and access to publishing than they are with silly statements from their front offices. And NONE of them ASK for member input or approval on nonsense like that.

Show me where these statements were OPEN to member input ANYWHERE..

You mean you do not vote for the members of your board? And even as an affiliate member I get to vote on what I think the most pressing issues are for the scientific society I belong to.

I don't vote for those board members because of their POLITICAL views -- no... I get the same candidate statements that everyone else does with my ballots. And there's no series of debates or extensive "platforms".. So the membership would be just as surprised if the front office issued "social justice" memos or weighed in on Civil Rights. ESPECIALLY those orgs on your bloated meaningless list like nature Biologists, Medical orgs, FORESTERS and other disciplines.

ELECTING a board is not APPROVING every brain fart they decide to generate.