NOBEL Prize Winners Say NO to AGW........

[jc456]

The meme that 97% of scientists support AGW is a lie.

Why not?

prove its a lie right now ...prove it....you are just another drooler prove that scientist are on your side of this issue asshole

In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change– and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of 928 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused(Oreskes 2004).

Why don't you show the questions the 97% agreed on?

 

[jc456]

I wish folks like you knew what the questions were for that 97%. Do you have them?

sure just as soon as you put up something anything that supports only Exxon affiliated scientist are true scientist the rest are money grubbers

so you have no idea I see. battle is over then. you don't even know what the argument is then.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Why don't you show the questions the 97% agreed on?

why don't you show what you have to support that only Exxon affiliated posters tell the truth..show me nut bag..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. - IPCC Official position

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

A new friend reminded me of the video above, where Joe Bast, Chief of the Climate and Tobacco denying Heartland Institute, was confronted with his own past affirmations of Tobacco’s safety – wherein he first feigned a memory lapse, then, when confronted with his actual words, agreed that, yes, all that talk about tobacco risks was way overblown. Great work by journalist Lee Fang.

Here is a tobacco cancer denier and a Climate change denier too...nice Science double play LOL

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. - IPCC Official position

Climate denial linked to conspiratorial thinking in new study
Posted on 8 July 2015 by dana1981

A new study has examined the comments on climate science-denying blogs and found strong evidence of widespread conspiratorial thinking. The study looks at the comments made in response to a previous paper linking science denial and conspiracy theories.

Motivated rejection of science
Three years ago, social scientists Lewandowsky, Oberauer, and Gignac published a paper in the journal Psychological Science titled NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science.

The paper detailed the evidence the scientists found that, using survey data provided by visitors to climate blogs, those exhibiting conspiratorial thinking are more likely to be skeptical of scientists’ conclusions about vaccinations, genetically modified foods, and climate change. This result was replicated in a follow-up study using a representative U.S. sample that obtained the same result linking conspiratorial thinking to climate denial

 

[westwall]

A new friend reminded me of the video above, where Joe Bast, Chief of the Climate and Tobacco denying Heartland Institute, was confronted with his own past affirmations of Tobacco’s safety – wherein he first feigned a memory lapse, then, when confronted with his actual words, agreed that, yes, all that talk about tobacco risks was way overblown. Great work by journalist Lee Fang.

Here is a tobacco cancer denier and a Climate change denier too...nice Science double play LOL

Non-sequiter, Ad-hom, personal attacks and outright lying are the argumentation methods of the climatologists.

And they wonder why no one takes them seriously any more.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Non-sequiter, Ad-hom, personal attacks and outright lying are the argumentation methods of the climatologists.

And they wonder why no one takes them seriously any more.

Oh you mean ad hominem like when you called me a "dickhead" and now you are whining and crying hhahhahahahahh...that is why I have zero respects for you Right wing blow hards.you launched a personal attack on all Scientist who agree with Global warming...they are just money grubbers that was your argument..,why was that your argument ? because its you who are a Dick head... and a cry baby...Right wing douche.

 

[westwall]

Non-sequiter, Ad-hom, personal attacks and outright lying are the argumentation methods of the climatologists.

And they wonder why no one takes them seriously any more.

Oh you mean ad hominem like when you called me a "dickhead" and now you are whining and crying hhahhahahahahh...that is why I have zero respects for you Right wing blow hards.you launched a personal attack on all Scientist who agree with Global warming...they are just money grubbers that was your argument..,why was that your argument ? because its you who are a Dick head... and a cry baby...Right wing douche.

You made a claim that money drove the sceptic movement. I countered by showing orders of magnitude more money were at stake for the AGW supporters.

You're not very good at this are you?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Joe Bast, Chief of the Climate and Tobacco denying Heartland Institute...The chief says tobacco is not unhealthy and Global warming is not real...any questions

oh wait look who else works for Joe Bast



Ivar Giaever

Nobel Prize in Physics 1973 together with Leo Esaki and Brian D. Josephson "for their experimental discoveries regarding tunneling phenomena in semiconductors and superconductors, respectively".

Affiliations

• Heartland Institute— “Global warming Expert.”[5]

• Cato Institute—Endorser of Cato Institute's global warming advertisement.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Non-sequiter, Ad-hom, personal attacks and outright lying are the argumentation methods of the climatologists.

And they wonder why no one takes them seriously any more.

Oh you mean ad hominem like when you called me a "dickhead" and now you are whining and crying hhahhahahahahh...that is why I have zero respects for you Right wing blow hards.you launched a personal attack on all Scientist who agree with Global warming...they are just money grubbers that was your argument..,why was that your argument ? because its you who are a Dick head... and a cry baby...Right wing douche.

You made a claim that money drove the sceptic movement. I countered by showing orders of magnitude more money were at stake for the AGW supporters.

You're not very good at this are you?

however good or bad I am I am still better than you aren't i...
I showed that Heartland Institute is not scientific its business...real scientist do not support your stupid...you showed exactly Zero proof of any conspiracy for money by 97 percent of Scientist who actually do Climate science...for some reason you think the Heartland Institute whose chief denies to this day that cancer and tobacco are linked has more credibility...you are truly a failure ...you also think an 86 year old non Climate scientist trumps actual Climate scientist.../you are a joke

 

[westwall]

Non-sequiter, Ad-hom, personal attacks and outright lying are the argumentation methods of the climatologists.

And they wonder why no one takes them seriously any more.

Oh you mean ad hominem like when you called me a "dickhead" and now you are whining and crying hhahhahahahahh...that is why I have zero respects for you Right wing blow hards.you launched a personal attack on all Scientist who agree with Global warming...they are just money grubbers that was your argument..,why was that your argument ? because its you who are a Dick head... and a cry baby...Right wing douche.

You made a claim that money drove the sceptic movement. I countered by showing orders of magnitude more money were at stake for the AGW supporters.

You're not very good at this are you?

however good or bad I am I am still better than you aren't i...
I showed that Heartland Institute is not scientific its business...real scientist do not support your stupid...you showed exactly Zero proof of any conspiracy for money by 97 percent of Scientist who actually do Climate science...for some reason you think the Heartland Institute whose chief denies to this day that cancer and tobacco are linked has more credibility...you are truly a failure ...you also think an 86 year old non Climate scientist trumps actual Climate scientist.../you are a joke

No, you're not. Only an absolute moron claims to have "won" on the internet.

Hello moron!

The facts are that the AGW crowd will make orders of magnitude MORE money than ANY sceptic ever has if they get their way. The facts are that AGW supporters have ALREADY recieved orders of magnitude more money than the sceptics have. Since 1980 the AGW crowd have received on the order of 120 BILLION dollars from the Taxpayers of the world while the sceptics have received a puny 100 million dollars.


Facts are facts and you have none.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

If you are like the Wing nut Westwall you believe in a vast conspiracy involving 97 percent of actual Climate Scientist trying in some nebulous never explained manner to access "Trillions of Dollars"....If you are like Westwall you believe being affiliated to Heartland and Exxon means you are a true objective scientist...If you point out that Heartland Chief is a nut bag who thinks smoking tobacco is health he says that such a fact is irrelevant to Heartland credibility...when you point out his big star Scientist a non Climate scientist also works for Heartland he thinks that is an ad hominem attack ...

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Facts are facts and you have none.

Fact number one

Heartland Institute has Zero Scientific credibility

Fact Number two
your big scientist expert has never ever written any papers on Climate ...never

Fact number 3...Consensus
I have presented links showing that a survey of Climate Scientific papers has shown no papers presented denying Climate change

Fact Number Four
The Japanese Meteorological Agency'
The UK Meteorological Agency
NASA and NOAA in the US
97 percent of Climate Scientist
Pope Francis
all agree with me

 

[Mertex]

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

You made a claim that money drove the sceptic movement. I

The claim I made [which is a fact] is that these skeptics are associated with the fossil fuel Industry...there are not many if any scientist not linked to those groups who make such claims...if there are actual non Exxon non Heartland non Koch brothers affiliated scientist bring them on

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Nobel Prize doesn't mean what it used to.

Syria Is 7th Muslim Country Bombed By 2009 Nobel Peace Prize Winner Zero Hedge

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Conspiracy Theorists Are More Likely to Doubt Climate Science Mother Jones

In a recent study of climate blog readers, Lewandowksy and his colleagues found that the strongest predictor of being a climate change denier is having a libertarian, free-market world view. Or as Lewandowsky put it in our interview, "The overwhelming factor that determined whether or not people rejected climate science is their worldview or their ideology." This naturally lends support to the "motivated reasoning" theory—a conservative view about the efficiency of markets impels rejection of climate science because if climate science were true, markets would very clearly have failed in an very important instance.

[Westwall rejects Science because of his Right wing dogma]

But separately, the same study also found a second factor that was a weaker, but still real, predictor of climate change denial—and also of the denial of other scientific findings such as the proven link between HIV and AIDS. And that factor was conspiracy theorizing. Thus, people who think, say, that the Moon landings were staged by Hollywood, or that Lee Harvey Oswald had help, are also more likely to be climate deniers and HIV-AIDS deniers.

"Clearly, for a number of people…conspiratorial thinking determines their rejection of science," explained Lewandowsky in our interview.


[Westwall is on board with there being a conspiracy involving thousands of Scientist who want to ride in a Trillion dollar gravy train]

conclusion Westwall is both dogmatic and paranoid

 

[Mertex]

 

[jc456]

Why don't you show the questions the 97% agreed on?

why don't you show what you have to support that only Exxon affiliated posters tell the truth..show me nut bag..

Funny how you make a point and can't even validate the claim. So typical warmer's rants