Are the anti-science zealots accepting anthropogenic climate change yet?

[abu afak]

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Opposing (The AGW Consensus)

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[29] NO National or International scientific body any longer rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.".."[28][30]..

`

 

[westwall]

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Opposing (The AGW Consensus)

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[29] NO National or International scientific body any longer rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.".."[28][30]..

`

Yeah, they did so under extreme pressure from government agencies. The year before they gave an award to Crighton for his novel "State of Fear" which highlighted the AGW fear mongering.

They did it for self preservation, nothing more.

 

[abu afak]

Yeah, they did so under extreme pressure from government agencies. The year before they gave an award to Crighton for his novel "State of Fear" which highlighted the AGW fear mongering.

They did it for self preservation, nothing more.

Actually "preservation" is WHY they gave him an award in the first place.
LOL
'PETROLEUM Geologists' are naturally Biased and PAID by 'PETROLEUM/OIL COMPANIES.'
DOH!
They had become a Laughing stock, like you.
Like the Tobacco Growers Assn finally admitting Cigarettes cause lung cancer.

Crighton is an MD who writes Novels, not peer reviewed papers, and not a Scientist, much less climate scientist.
So this is a classic 'Appeal to Authority' FALLACY because the 'authority' is not an expert in the field.. or even close.

It's time for your Nap now Elvis.
`

 

[Lastamender]

Actually "preservation" is WHY they gave him an award in the first place.
LOL
PETROLEUM Geologists are naturally Biased and PAID by PETROLEUM/OIL COMPANIES.
DOH!
They had become a Laughing stock, like you.

Crighton is an MD who write Novels, not peer reviewed papers, and not a Scientist, much less climate scientists.

This is a classic 'Appeal to Authority' FALLACY because the 'authority' is not an expert in the field.. otr even close.

It's time for your Nap now Elvis.
`

Wow, they sound like fact checkers.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Government orders, moron.

WHEN EVS
ARE BANNED
ONLY THE RICH
WILL HAVE EVS

 

[Grumblenuts]

EVs, so awesome they should be mandatory.

^Your buddy says they are^
Best fall in line, little "patriot"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

^Your buddy says they are^
Best fall in line, little "patriot"

Which buddy said what? Where?

 

[BackAgain]

So you gave up on ANY FACTS of the debate. (you can't debate) Just what you heard when you were 10!!!
so Go F*** off dope.

I've been smart and a researcher/reader of Scientific American since i was young.
I am not anti-capitalist and I post two other places.
I'm a financial professional and My Home page is the Wall Street Journal (many thread starts here from it), and also post in two different high-IQ groups.
And you have an IQ well down in the two digits.. down near Westwall's.

`

Why do so many of you dumb people pretend to have high IQ’s?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Which buddy said what? Where?

Government orders, moron.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Several states want to outlaw I.C.E. cars at some future date.
And?

 

[Crick]

Yeah, they did so under extreme pressure from government agencies. The year before they gave an award to Crighton for his novel "State of Fear" which highlighted the AGW fear mongering.

They did it for self preservation, nothing more.

What extreme pressure from what government agencies? I'd like to see something more than just you saying it's so.

 

[james bond]

WHEN EVS
ARE BANNED
ONLY THE RICH
WILL HAVE EVS

Why does abu afak never mention his EV?

 

[Crick]

Why does abu afak never mention his EV?

Why should he. It has no relevance. Have you noticed how often AGW deniers take this tack? Rather than attempting to argue the SCIENCE of a SCIENTIFIC ISSUE, they choose to make ad hominem attacks and commit hosts of logic and reasoning flaws. This is one of them. So, as the OP asks, have you accepted AGW yet?

 

[westwall]

Have you

Why should he. It has no relevance. Have you noticed how often AGW deniers take this tack? Rather than attempting to argue the SCIENCE of a SCIENTIFIC ISSUE, they choose to make ad hominem attacks and commit hosts of logic and reasoning flaws. This is one of them. So, as the OP asks, have you accepted AGW yet?

Have you noticed how not one of the people preaching to us about climate change has a carbon footprint less than 5 normal people?

And not one of them makes the slightest effort to reduce it.

 

[Crick]

Have you



Have you noticed how not one of the people preaching to us about climate change has a carbon footprint less than 5 normal people?

And not one of them makes the slightest effort to reduce it.

I rest my case.

 

[westwall]

I rest my case.

What case. You have nothing but opinion and fantasy.

 

[Crick]

My case was that folks like you would attack me rather than address the subject and its science. Then you came out and attacked me and made no attempt to address any science. That worked so well I'd be surprised if some of your comrades didn't suspect a little collusion a-twixt us.

 

[westwall]

My case was that folks like you would attack me rather than address the subject and its science. Then you came out and attacked me and made no attempt to address any science. That worked so well I'd be surprised if some of your comrades didn't suspect a little collusion a-twixt us.

That's because there IS NO SCIENCE TO SUPPORT IT.

 

[Crick]

That's because there IS NO SCIENCE TO SUPPORT IT.

www.ipcc.ch. Help yourself. No thanks necessary.

 

[MisterBeale]