Rasmussen: 69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research

[bripat9643]

That would be the same 97% of scientists who are sucking on the government tit and benefit financially from the global warming con.

I see, its a conspiracy!

So we aren't supposed to trust anyone who receives money or benefit from what they say?

Who does this leave?

Why are you asking me? Aren't warmist liberal turds the ones who claim any scientist who ever received a dime from an oil company can't be trusted?

That's the liberal epistemology (I know you'll have to look that up).

Live with it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh my, Pattycake has learned a new word.

Come on, fruitcake, show us one Scientific Society, one National Academy of Science, or even one major University that states that AGW is false. You cannot because such doesn't exist, not even in Outer Slobovia.

 

[gslack]

Oh my, Pattycake has learned a new word.

Come on, fruitcake, show us one Scientific Society, one National Academy of Science, or even one major University that states that AGW is false. You cannot because such doesn't exist, not even in Outer Slobovia.

Slobovia? Your neck of the woods right?

 

[wirebender]

Oh my, Pattycake has learned a new word.

Come on, fruitcake, show us one Scientific Society, one National Academy of Science, or even one major University that states that AGW is false. You cannot because such doesn't exist, not even in Outer Slobovia.

The real trick rocks is to show a scientific society or national academy whose general membership, as opposed to its political head office is on board with the AGW hoax. Political heads are concerned with funding often stoop to very low lows in order to keep the money flowing. Lets look at the American Meterological Society for example. It's primary peer review mechanism is its own journal, The Journal of Climate.

Anthony J. Broccoli is the chief editor of the journal but also a contributing author and expert reviewer for IPCC AR4.

Nathan Gillett, an editor for the journal was also as a lead author, an expert reviewer for both Working Group 1 and Working Group 2, and as an expert reviewer of the Synthesis Report on AR4 and is presently a lead author for AR5.

Marika Holland, an editor for the journal also wrote two chapters of AR4.

Andrew Pitman, an editor for the journal also was a IPCC lead author, a contributing author, and an expert reviewer for the 2007 IPCC report and is currently areview editor for AR5.

James Renwick, an editor for the journal was a contributing author to the 2001 IPCC report, a lead author for the 2007 report, and is currently a lead author for AR5.

Brian Soden, an eidtor for the journal was a 2007 contributing author and an expert reviewer and is currently an AR5 lead author.

Shang-Ping Xie, an editor for the journal is an AR5 lead author.

Michael Alexander, an editor for the journal was a 2007 IPCC expert reviewer.

Among the other names listed as associate editors and editors emeritus are such notables as Michael E. Mann, Gavin Schmidt, Andrew Weaver, Francis Zwiers, Gabriele Hegerl and Peter Stott.


This sort of thing, rocks is pandemic throughout all fields associated with climate science. It is laughable that you point to the political heads of organizations as evidence to support your claims when they are all rife with such blatant corruption. The real tell, rocks, is that you and those like you aren't outraged at such incestuous practices.

And it isn't just the American Meteorological Society either rocks. For example, Nancy Jackson, president of the American Chemical Society (the largest scientific society in the world) just happens to also be the founder and chair for the climate and energy project. an organization with close ties to the IPCC. It doesn't take much looking at all to find close ties between the political heads of all those societies and organizations you love to list and IPCC and thier great pool of money.

By the way you miserable coward, as to your personal attack off the general board in my user CP, if you actually took a look at the money spent on propping up the climate hoax vs skeptics, you would find that the money available to skeptics is pennies to the hundred dollar bill. For example,

Since 1989, the US government alone has spent 32 billion on climate research. It has dropped another 36 billion for development of climate related technologies. In 1989 the first climate specific government agency was formed with an anual budget of 134 million. Today, in one form or another, the US government alone is funneling 7 billion dollars per year into climate related causes.

The worst part is that after pouring 30 billion dollars into pure climate science research, there still isn't a single shred of hard, observable, repeatable, evidence that establishes an unequivocal link between the activities of man and the changing climate.

In 2008, carbon trading worldwide reached 126 billion. How much of that do you suppose was "reinvested" in the climate cause in an effort to keep the money flowing?

Now tell me rocks, other than the whopping 23 million claimed to have been paid to skeptics by exxon, what other "vast" pool of money do you believe skeptical scientists are dipping from? By the information that I can find, skeptics have about eight tenths of one percent of the money available to them that climate pseudoscientists are rolling in. If there is a vast pool of wealth that dwarfs, or hell, even comes close to the money climate pseudoscience is getting, then point it out.

Here is a notice from one office within the US government offering a total of 15.5 million dollars for FY 2012 for climate pseudoscientists. How much of that money do you think will go to scientists who are skeptical of mainstream pseudoscience? The level of your ignorance in holding a belief that any private agency could even approach the expenditures by government is astounding. It shows beyond doubt that you have not only drunk all the koolaid, but are eating the raw powder now as fast as you can shovel it in.

http://www.climate.noaa.gov/opportunities/

And if you find that you must attack me stealthily off the public board, keep the profanity to yourself. I understand that with your limited education, you don't have many words at your disposal, but the profanity isn't necessary.