Estimated 40 Percent of Scientists Doubt Manmade Global Warming

[Fort Fun Indiana]

BREAKING NEWS!!

The FLDS interviewed one of their own cultists today. It has been revealed that having multiple teenage wives is God's will.

 

[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.

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.

In other words, very sour grapes as you are part of a very small minority in whatever scientific society to which you belong.

 

[skookerasbil]

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.

In other words, very sour grapes as you are part of a very small minority in whatever scientific society to which you belong.

oh...ok.....so scientists not in the scientific society "clubs".....tens of thousands by the way........don't count. Those are fake scientists and not real scientists. C'mon now........

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

BREAKING NEWS!

Russian State media interviewed Putun's right hand man. It was revealed that Putin is actually a great guy!

 

[SSDD]

BREAKING NEWS!

Russian State media interviewed Putun's right hand man. It was revealed that Putin is actually a great guy!

I can only suppose that the blinders your masters so generously provided you with prevent you from seeing the sheer number of papers being published which question the AGW hypothesis.

We are 56 days into 2018 and already there have been 97 scientific papers published which question either the claim that our CO2 emissions represent some sort of control knob on the climate or the ability of the climate models from which your belief springs (because you sure haven't seen any observed measured data which supports your belief) to accurately predict past, present, or future trends in the climate.

 

[Old Rocks]

SSo DDumb, you are rightly named. No data? The regression of the alpine glaciers world wide? The increasing melt on both ice caps? The four warmest years, 2014, 2017, 2015, and the warmest, 2016 in the last 180 years. All observations, not models. What a silly ass you are for saying what you just said.

 

[SSDD]

SSo DDumb, you are rightly named. No data? The regression of the alpine glaciers world wide? The increasing melt on both ice caps? The four warmest years, 2014, 2017, 2015, and the warmest, 2016 in the last 180 years. All observations, not models. What a silly ass you are for saying what you just said.

So what rocks...you talk as if you believe it is something new...same old same old...and before you go off on your wacko claim that what bit of change we have seen is happening faster than in the past, just be aware that I am going to ask you which proxy has the resolution to support your claim...the only ones that I am aware of are ice cores and they show temperature swings that are both larger, and faster than anything we have witnessed....both warming and cooling.

As to your warmest years evah...bullshit...the claim is based on altered, homogenized, and infilled records...and even then, the claims are of records by hundredths of a degree...as if we could know the global average by 100th of a degree...or a 10th of a degree... You believe bullshit...you preach bullshit...you are a fist order bullshitter.

And as to not having data...it is you and yours who can't produce the first piece of observed, measured data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.