Climate Change Consensus Is Virtually Unanimous:

[Kosh]

Tell me again, How do the hoaxers make money off of the Climate change scam?

One James Hansen who is considered the grand father of AGW movement (some credit another), went before Congress and blamed man for his Nazi environmentalist ways. See Hansen is a very Nazi like environmentalist and tried to use science to back up claims. Yet after 40+ tears NO scientific evidence has been put forth.

He was able to get grants, publish several books, do the AGW speaking tour at $150,000 per 30 minutes. And the AGW cult paid it and worshipped him like a god. Many other discovered they could to the same and next thing you know AGW became a cash cow for many "scientists"..

 

[SwimExpert]

bernie said at a town meeting in morrisvile "you have all the scientists on one side, and rush limbaugh on the other" that's what i mean by cooking the story for political expediency.

when there is a unanimous opinion supported empirically, the scientists will stop arguing about it.

it's a big fat vague political monster revenue generator.

if controlling the weather is the highest priority we have on earth right now, it does explain a bit the way things are the way they are.

Climate Change Consensus Is Virtually Unanimous

when it comes to global warmalists, follow the money.

taking the earth's temperature is like finding the average phone number in the new york phone book.

climate change is the the new whatever at the ballot box. if the wasn't $$ in it, no one would care.

If a billion people say a false thing, it is still a false thing.

A billion people said what?

There are many scientists who disagree with the climate change theory. They aren't allowed to attend the climate change summits.

Apparently it's over your head.

No it's not. Your post is ridiculous. A billion people? Get out of the pool you're water logged.

My post is logic. Interesting that you think of logic as ridiculous.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

 

[Vigilante]

As long as Socialists throw money at the corrupt scientists, that are willing to LIE and manipulate the data, GW will be a way to CONTROL the people by having such entities as the EPA use it as an excuse to achieve their agenda!

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

"Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make. "

The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'

When money is involved, many scientist will say what ever the money tells them to. Billions of dollars are being investing in Green Energy, and those consensus scientist want a piece of that pie. I just hope that when a conservative gets in office, there is going to be a reckoning on those same scientist and some people are going to be tried for treason against this once great country. When examples are made of scammers, soon scammers aren't found.

 

[BluesLegend]

Climate change is just a means to an end. Liberals hate fossil fuels and by that I mean the corporations who profit from them and climate change is the tool they use to attack these corporations. This tactic is not new, the spotted owl, the delta smelt, deformed frogs, the ozone hole, the left have invented a long list of crisis to further their agenda. When the latest crisis runs out of steam or is proved to be a lie they just invent another one. Mark my words 'climate change' won't be the last.

 

[Rustic]

It is cold here....

 

[bripat9643]

Tell me again, How do the hoaxers make money off of the Climate change scam?

Their research empires are funded by the federal government.

 

[healthmyths]

France's top weatherman sparks storm over book questioning climate change
Philippe Verdier, weather chief at France Télévisions, the country's state broadcaster, reportedly sent on "forced holiday" for releasing book accusing top climatologists of "taking the world hostage"
According to Mr Verdier, top climate scientists, who often rely on state funding, have been “manipulated and politicised”.

He specifically challenges the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, saying they “blatantly erased” data that went against their overall conclusions, and casts doubt on the accuracy of their climate models.

The IPCC has said that temperatures could rise by up to 4.8°C if no action is taken to reduce carbon emissions.

Mr Verdier writes: “We are undoubtedly on a plateau in terms of warming and the cyclical variability of the climate doesn’t not allow us to envisage if the natural rhythm will tomorrow lead us towards a fall, a stagnation or a rise (in temperature).”
Mr Verdier told France 5: “Making these revelations in the book, which I absolutely have the right to do, can pose problems for my employer given that the government (which funds France 2) is organising COP [the climate change conference]. In fact as soon as you a slightly different discourse on this subject, you are branded a climate sceptic.”
France's top weatherman sparks storm over book questioning climate change

 

[healthmyths]

Coupled with the above treatment of anyone that questions "consensus global warming science" consider this:

Why was 12.5% of the Earth's land mass NOT included in the 60 years of temperature readings?
When "The number of [Siberian] stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present only four (4) stations, those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations…
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass.
The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Climategatekeeping: Siberia

Plus one other minor point...
Remember... before computers, satellites in the last 30 years.. temperatures at the 10,000+ weather recording stations depended on:
1) human eyeballs distinguishing a mercury thermometer where the scale was NOT in tenths but whole degrees.carmelita.dickson@twcable.com
So pretend you are out in the sweltering heat reading the mercury thermometer 50 years and sweat running into your eyes and you see this:

2) you have to write with a sweaty palm on to a piece of paper the reading.

3) The reading gets transcribed to a central source and what was originally 78 degrees now transcribed 79 degrees.

Again... these were the procedures before computers/satellites...
and the BASIS for extrapolating the globe has warmed over the last 132 years averaged over all land and ocean surfaces, temperatures warmed roughly 1.53°F (0.85ºC) from 1880 to 2012, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (see page 3 of the IPCC's Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers - PDF). Because oceans tend to warm and cool more slowly than land areas, continents have warmed the most. In the Northern Hemisphere, where most of Earth's land mass is located, the three decades from 1983 to 2012 were likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years, according to the IPCC.

So based on my simplistic observation that 12.5% of the land mass skewed the readings coupled with before satellites,etc. eyeball observations with penciled transcribe methods give rise to human error..especially when the temperature has changed 1.53°F (0.85ºC) from 1880 to 2012!
Throw away all prior years and take just the last years with digital readings then...
What has been over these last 30 years then the "earth's temperature" AVERAGE... not discounted for colder regions i.e. Siberia, not taken by trash burning barrels!

Just makes you wonder!

 

[healthmyths]

Finally to verify the criticism that reading stations locations biased the readings:
Finally with NOAA drops 600 weather reporting stations because they are reporting inaccurate temperature readings!
Temperature readings are biased as NOAA assessed when closing 600 weather stations amid criticism they're situated to report warming thanks to temperature readings from sweltering parking lots, airports and other locations that distort the true state of the climate.
Indeed, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has closed some 600 out of nearly 9,000 weather stations over the past two years that it has deemed problematic or unnecessary, after a long campaign by one critic highlighting the problem of using unreliable data.
Distorted data? Feds close 600 weather stations amid criticism they're situated to report warming | Fox News

 

[Treeshepherd]

Even if the planet is warming, which I think it is, that's just a repeat of the last several interglacial periods (which actually got warmer with higher sea levels). It warms until it stops warming and then it cools and we head into an ice age.

But that doesn't justify building and staffing an expensive climate change center at UCLA.

 

[washamericom]

bernie said at a town meeting in morrisvile "you have all the scientists on one side, and rush limbaugh on the other" that's what i mean by cooking the story for political expediency.

when there is a unanimous opinion supported empirically, the scientists will stop arguing about it.

it's a big fat vague political monster revenue generator.

if controlling the weather is the highest priority we have on earth right now, it does explain a bit the way things are the way they are.

Climate Change Consensus Is Virtually Unanimous

when it comes to global warmalists, follow the money.

taking the earth's temperature is like finding the average phone number in the new york phone book.

climate change is the the new whatever at the ballot box. if the wasn't $$ in it, no one would care.

If a billion people say a false thing, it is still a false thing.

A billion people said what?

There are many scientists who disagree with the climate change theory. They aren't allowed to attend the climate change summits.

right there ! you said it, it's like "there is no more need for debate".

bernie said at a town meeting in morrisvile "you have all the scientists on one side, and rush limbaugh on the other" that's what i mean by cooking the story for political expediency.

when there is a unanimous opinion supported empirically, the scientists will stop arguing about it.

it's a big fat vague political monster revenue generator.

if controlling the weather is the highest priority we have on earth right now, it does explain a bit the way things are the way they are.

Climate Change Consensus Is Virtually Unanimous

when it comes to global warmalists, follow the money.

taking the earth's temperature is like finding the average phone number in the new york phone book.

climate change is the the new whatever at the ballot box. if the wasn't $$ in it, no one would care.

If a billion people say a false thing, it is still a false thing.

A billion people said what?

There are many scientists who disagree with the climate change theory. They aren't allowed to attend the climate change summits.

Apparently it's over your head.

it's over all of our heads, it's weather. this epidemic of chicken little puts unnecessary pressure and existential angst on people, i think it's predatory politics.

 

[washamericom]

Tell me again, How do the hoaxers make money off of the Climate change scam?

they create government jobs, grants, lifestyles and fat pensions, just studying, & it costs money to "spread the word". 2. al gore

 

[amrchaos]

Tell me again, How do the hoaxers make money off of the Climate change scam?

One James Hansen who is considered the grand father of AGW movement (some credit another), went before Congress and blamed man for his Nazi environmentalist ways. See Hansen is a very Nazi like environmentalist and tried to use science to back up claims. Yet after 40+ tears NO scientific evidence has been put forth.

He was able to get grants, publish several books, do the AGW speaking tour at $150,000 per 30 minutes. And the AGW cult paid it and worshipped him like a god. Many other discovered they could to the same and next thing you know AGW became a cash cow for many "scientists"..

You do know he had to produce creditable results to keep the research grants. Which is based partly on your past record of creditable results (Which is whay the post doctoral is SSSOOOO important for a new Ph.D)

Second, only a few scientist would risk their creditability t scam the public--mainly due to the fact that a life in Academia(with Tenure) is probably the sweetest job a doctor can land(Yes, corporations pay more, but the stressful need to produce makes life miserable for most doctors)

Think about #2 for awhile. This is the point that tends to undermine the scam for cash argument the most!

3rd)Most scientist loves to disprove false theories and ideas! Find the flaw is a quick and fun past time. Proving theories, a lot harder and require some rigorous and critical thinking plus patience in many cases.

If AGW was a boatload of crap, most scientist would have a field day disproving it, like they did with cold fusion! in fact, some scientist would invite a fraudster to present their claims for 2 harsh reasons

a) To display their supreme understanding of a field while laughing at a "Fool". Both forms of the word is used.

b)To warn their student researchers, postdocs and fellow collegues that science is serious business. Your carreer can be destroyed if you make fantastic claims and can't defend yourself.


This tend to suggest that AGW are all false or discredited scientist that has no support from Government agencies or scientif organizations. But they do, which undercuts the argument as well.

In other words, there has to be more than "scientist are making lots of cash" to explain the Hoaxer. There has to be more to it.....

The Emperor has no clothes theory might apply, but that would suggest a lot of scientist are buying into the claims because they are not familiar with the theories of Meteorology. However, that is highly doubtful as well.

 

[healthmyths]

Tell me again, How do the hoaxers make money off of the Climate change scam?

One James Hansen who is considered the grand father of AGW movement (some credit another), went before Congress and blamed man for his Nazi environmentalist ways. See Hansen is a very Nazi like environmentalist and tried to use science to back up claims. Yet after 40+ tears NO scientific evidence has been put forth.

He was able to get grants, publish several books, do the AGW speaking tour at $150,000 per 30 minutes. And the AGW cult paid it and worshipped him like a god. Many other discovered they could to the same and next thing you know AGW became a cash cow for many "scientists"..

You do know he had to produce creditable results to keep the research grants. Which is based partly on your past record of creditable results (Which is whay the post doctoral is SSSOOOO important for a new Ph.D)

Second, only a few scientist would risk their creditability t scam the public--mainly due to the fact that a life in Academia(with Tenure) is probably the sweetest job a doctor can land(Yes, corporations pay more, but the stressful need to produce makes life miserable for most doctors)

Think about #2 for awhile. This is the point that tends to undermine the scam for cash argument the most!

3rd)Most scientist loves to disprove false theories and ideas! Find the flaw is a quick and fun past time. Proving theories, a lot harder and require some rigorous and critical thinking plus patience in many cases.

If AGW was a boatload of crap, most scientist would have a field day disproving it, like they did with cold fusion! in fact, some scientist would invite a fraudster to present their claims for 2 harsh reasons

a) To display their supreme understanding of a field while laughing at a "Fool". Both forms of the word is used.

b)To warn their student researchers, postdocs and fellow collegues that science is serious business. Your carreer can be destroyed if you make fantastic claims and can't defend yourself.


This tend to suggest that AGW are all false or discredited scientist that has no support from Government agencies or scientif organizations. But they do, which undercuts the argument as well.

In other words, there has to be more than "scientist are making lots of cash" to explain the Hoaxer. There has to be more to it.....

The Emperor has no clothes theory might apply, but that would suggest a lot of scientist are buying into the claims because they are not familiar with the theories of Meteorology. However, that is highly doubtful as well.

OK so the same people that have bought in to AGW i.e. Obama,etc. have DEPENDED on the uninformed to "BELIEVE" academia because well they are "educated"!
But the best example of why people bought into AGW comes from Obama's "Dreams from My Father"...published July 18,1995!
"It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned.
People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves.
They were more than satisfied. They were revealed.
Such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn't seem angry all the time."

So consider the FACT it took "tricks" tactics to fool people. I.e. lies.
And yet when you use the "Emperor has no clothes" and look at the "academic" expertise of Obama etc. ...Obama is naked!
Obama and his ilk have depended on the people they are fooling to believe the "consensus". I mean Obama depended on the "stupidity of American Voter" to
pass Obamacare. So it was with AGW. Obama depending on these "fools" that believe the academia is always right to ignore the facts.

 

[Redfish]

When the dems and libs talk about climate change and its alleged causes, they always talk about pollution.

Pollution is bad, but there is absolutely no link between pollution and climate.

If these idiots wanted a real cause they would take on pollution of the air and water as damaging the environment for human habitation, NOT some hoax that man is causing the climate to change.

But its not really about fixing a problem, is it libs? Its about finding ways to control the actions of humans because you fricken libs know better than everyone else how we should live. You libs hate freedom. You are mentally ill and should be incarcerated.

 

[washamericom]

It is cold here....

i here that, last night was vermont's first chilling frost since april fifteenth. burr is the word. the foliage is beautiful though and it's sunny today, not just because of bernie sanders. in new england we call it crisp.

 

[Rustic]

It is still cold here...

 

[washamericom]

When the dems and libs talk about climate change and its alleged causes, they always talk about pollution.

Pollution is bad, but there is absolutely no link between pollution and climate.

If these idiots wanted a real cause they would take on pollution of the air and water as damaging the environment for human habitation, NOT some hoax that man is causing the climate to change.

But its not really about fixing a problem, is it libs? Its about finding ways to control the actions of humans because you fricken libs know better than everyone else how we should live. You libs hate freedom. You are mentally ill and should be incarcerated.

i get the feeling that global warmalists think they just discovered how smoggy L.A. was fifty years ago. i remember gary indiana (industrial cities) when i was a kid. there is no doubt that humanity is at odds with clean air and water. what i resent is fear mongering and profiteering by people like al gore, and now bernie sanders.