Climate Change Deniers Are Lying

[Liminal]

I'd bury my head and ass in the sand before I decide on issues depending on WHO is on a particular side. What if we decided justice that same way? (( and I WOULD like an answer on that one))

Science issues are decided by how many are on a particular side, not who, a consensus. Justice is decided the same way, a jury or a panel. HTH.

I'd bury my head and ass in the sand before I decide on issues depending on WHO is on a particular side. What if we decided justice that same way? (( and I WOULD like an answer on that one))

Science issues are decided by how many are on a particular side, not who, a consensus. Justice is decided the same way, a jury or a panel. HTH.

We would LIKE justice to work that way. But unfortunately "authority" figures like a crooked coroner or a desperate D.A can arrange to infect the jury with flawed evidence.

And in science, it's not voting that determines truth, it's debate and ability to defend your hypotheses against qualified challenges. If there is a sense that there ARE NO qualified challenges, it stops becoming science. But the media/politicians/Pope are complicit in serving that impression.. And the vast sums of money tagged for "MAN-MADE" Climate Change (not good generic Climate Studies") also gives the false impression of "consensus". AND stifles workers in the field from attempting debate and dissent.

By contrast, what kind of impressions do you suppose multi national energy corporations are complicit in creating?

 

[flacaltenn]

I'd bury my head and ass in the sand before I decide on issues depending on WHO is on a particular side. What if we decided justice that same way? (( and I WOULD like an answer on that one))

Science issues are decided by how many are on a particular side, not who, a consensus. Justice is decided the same way, a jury or a panel. HTH.

I'd bury my head and ass in the sand before I decide on issues depending on WHO is on a particular side. What if we decided justice that same way? (( and I WOULD like an answer on that one))

Science issues are decided by how many are on a particular side, not who, a consensus. Justice is decided the same way, a jury or a panel. HTH.

We would LIKE justice to work that way. But unfortunately "authority" figures like a crooked coroner or a desperate D.A can arrange to infect the jury with flawed evidence.

And in science, it's not voting that determines truth, it's debate and ability to defend your hypotheses against qualified challenges. If there is a sense that there ARE NO qualified challenges, it stops becoming science. But the media/politicians/Pope are complicit in serving that impression.. And the vast sums of money tagged for "MAN-MADE" Climate Change (not good generic Climate Studies") also gives the false impression of "consensus". AND stifles workers in the field from attempting debate and dissent.

By contrast, what kind of impressions do you suppose multi national energy corporations are complicit in creating?

They don't need to create impressions for the large part. They are too busy keeping the lights on and serving customers. They DEFEND themselves when attacked or the stupidity level grows to the point where CO2 is a pollutant more dangerous than radioactive coal ash.

If they evaluate renewables and think it's actually the better way -- -- they often invest and try to become a market factor. "Bout 15 years ago --- BP was the largest systems integrator of solar power on the planet. Billions in research sunk into biofuels, creating and using carbon credits, etc...

 

[flacaltenn]

it's a myth on the consensus,

Most of the prestigious American scientific associations disagree with you. But what would they know, amIright?

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming

American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Geological Society of America
American Chemical Society

U.S. National Academy of Sciences​

Membership of those societies were never polled about the content or conclusions of those statement. Was never submitted for debate for the most part. The front office wrote those statements.

The Australia Geophysical Society DID put it up to the membership when they last wanted to revise "their statement". It was wrapped in such turmoil and debate that they abandoned the update..

I'll wager the same would happen if those statements actually represented the general membership..

 

[flacaltenn]

For those of you who are deluded about this "settled science" issue -- you haven't been working hard enough to see how complex this "denier" bashing can be.. You NEED to start seeing this campaign unravel..

Cookies must be enabled. The Australian


AUSTRALIA’S peak body of earth scientists has declared itself unable to publish a position statement on climate change due to the deep divisions within its membership on the issue.

After more than five years of debate and two false starts, Geological Society of Australia president Laurie Hutton said a statement on climate change was too difficult to achieve.

Mr Hutton said the issue “had the potential to be too divisive and would not serve the best interests of the society as a whole.”

The backdown, published in the GSA quarterly newsletter, is the culmination of two rejected position statements and years of furious correspondence among members. Some members believe the failure to make a strong statement on climate change is an embarrassment that puts Australian earth scientists at odds with their international peers.

Certainly NOT an embarrassment. It's an unraveling of the well orchestrated soci-political-economic campaign that has been infesting science and misrepresenting it to the public. These guys/gals ARE doing their job and upholding their profession

 

[Old Rocks]

This is a portion of the statement of the Geological Society of America, of which I am a member, and I totally endorse it.

The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Climate Change

Climate Change
Adopted in October 2006; revised April 2010; March 2013; April 2015

Position Statement
Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013) and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (Melillo et al., 2014) that global climate has warmed in response to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases. The concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are now higher than they have been for many thousands of years. Human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s (IPCC, 2013). If the upward trend in greenhouse-gas concentrations continues, the projected global climate change by the end of the twenty-first century will result in significant impacts on humans and other species. The tangible effects of climate change are already occurring. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.

Purpose
This position statement (1) summarizes the scientific basis for the conclusion that human activities are the primary cause of recent global warming; (2) describes the significant effects on humans and ecosystems as greenhouse-gas concentrations and global climate reach projected levels; and (3) provides information for policy decisions guiding mitigation and adaptation strategies designed to address the current and future impacts of anthropogenic warming.

 

[Old Rocks]

The American Geophysical Union, the scientific society with the most climatologists in it, also has released an unequivocal statement concerning AGW.

http://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2013/07/AGU-Climate-Change-Position-Statement_August-2013.pdf

Human‐Induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action

Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years.
Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes. Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat‐trapping greenhouse gases have increased
sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate
system for millennia.

Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These observations show large‐scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers, snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with long‐understood physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to
human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences.

Climate models predict that global temperatures will continue to rise, with the amount of warming primarily determined by the level of emissions. Higher emissions of greenhouse gases will lead to larger warming, and greater risks to society and ecosystems. Some additional warming is unavoidable due to past emissions.

 

[Liminal]

I'd bury my head and ass in the sand before I decide on issues depending on WHO is on a particular side. What if we decided justice that same way? (( and I WOULD like an answer on that one))

Science issues are decided by how many are on a particular side, not who, a consensus. Justice is decided the same way, a jury or a panel. HTH.

I'd bury my head and ass in the sand before I decide on issues depending on WHO is on a particular side. What if we decided justice that same way? (( and I WOULD like an answer on that one))

Science issues are decided by how many are on a particular side, not who, a consensus. Justice is decided the same way, a jury or a panel. HTH.

We would LIKE justice to work that way. But unfortunately "authority" figures like a crooked coroner or a desperate D.A can arrange to infect the jury with flawed evidence.

And in science, it's not voting that determines truth, it's debate and ability to defend your hypotheses against qualified challenges. If there is a sense that there ARE NO qualified challenges, it stops becoming science. But the media/politicians/Pope are complicit in serving that impression.. And the vast sums of money tagged for "MAN-MADE" Climate Change (not good generic Climate Studies") also gives the false impression of "consensus". AND stifles workers in the field from attempting debate and dissent.

By contrast, what kind of impressions do you suppose multi national energy corporations are complicit in creating?

They don't need to create impressions for the large part. They are too busy keeping the lights on and serving customers. They DEFEND themselves when attacked or the stupidity level grows to the point where CO2 is a pollutant more dangerous than radioactive coal ash.

If they evaluate renewables and think it's actually the better way -- -- they often invest and try to become a market factor. "Bout 15 years ago --- BP was the largest systems integrator of solar power on the planet. Billions in research sunk into biofuels, creating and using carbon credits, etc...

Of course, with billions of dollars in profits at stake, why would they waste any time trying to shape the narrative.

 

[Old Rocks]

Had the energy corporations something real to say, their scientists would be publishing in peer reviewed scientific journals. Instead, they have hired exactly the same people used by the tobacco companies to spread doubt as to the scientific finding concerning tobacco. Remember the 7 top CEO's of the tobacco testifying in front of Congress, and claiming that nicotine was in no way addictive? What we have here is exactly the same kind of denial on the part of the energy corporations.

 

[flacaltenn]

Wow.. GoldiRocks. Did you VOTE on that statement? Was it ever up for comment by the membership? Glad YOU like it..

Tell ya what dude --- You get the GSA to vote the membership on that statement and I'll pay attention...

 

[Old Rocks]

The officers of the Society are up for vote. And, as we saw with the AAPG, members can, indeed, change the positions of the society.

 

[flacaltenn]

The officers of the Society are up for vote. And, as we saw with the AAPG, members can, indeed, change the positions of the society.

There ya go.. However the discounts on rentals are probably more important than some activists getting elected huh?

Seriously man -- wanna really convince folks? Put it up for a vote. And let me know how you voted.. Or better yet -- UPDATE IT -- start from scratch and let the membership choose and comment.

Otherwise -- all ya really got is the equivalent of a HallMark card..

 

[Old Rocks]

In other words, no real reply at all. Talking to the professors of science at the university that I attend, I have yet to hear one state that AGW is not real.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Ignore these people that deny Global Warming. Their agenda is one that works against the best interest of the human race. They aren't interested in fact, they are interested in mud. Muddying the waters to make it appear there is 'a debate'.

There is no debate. The debate on whether Global Warming is real ended in the scientific community 15 years ago.

In the 15 years since then the fossil fuel industry and others have poured a billion dollars into a massive disinformation campaign to present the false 'well there's a debate' lie.

There is no debate.

Ignore the deniers and go talk to someone at your local University. Global Warming is rather easy to explain and once explained you will understand just how low these people are that are acting against humanity's best interests for money.

 

[jc456]

Scientific proof is being beaten over the head by empirical knowledge to the point of submission.

Science does not do 'proof', it does evidence.

What's the difference?

 

[jc456]

This is called basic empirical evidence science.

No, that is called cherry pickings cut short to avoid embarrassment and with no source. This is evidence.

Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis Analysis Graphs and Plots

You no those grass are falsified data right? Can you say for sure it is all raw data?

 

[jc456]

Still clinging to that myth that the consensus is a myth? Educate yourself. Read something that doesn't have an agenda tied around the RNC or the fossil fuel industry.

The hockey stick isn't a graph. It's what the Earth's temperatures have done. As such, it ain't gonna go away.

it's a myth on the consensus, it was researching papers by over zealous man made climate change cult members, they never asked them personally, quit lying, the ones in question didn't even know they were part of the survey.

So the consensus was does the earth warm yes or no and does Man contribute CO2 to the atmosphere yes or no. What would you say to those two questions when you agree

 

[Billy_Bob]

This is called basic empirical evidence science.

No, that is called cherry pickings cut short to avoid embarrassment and with no source. This is evidence.

Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis Analysis Graphs and Plots

Data that has been put through the GISS black box... Twisted, Homogenized, And Data infilled....

ITS ADJUSTED CRAP!

And they hide WHY they make the adjustments, fighting FOIA requests for all of their Data, Methods, Computer Modeling, and JUSTIFICATION.

No ethical scientist will do what these people are doing.

 

[Billy_Bob]

In other words, no real reply at all. Talking to the professors of science at the university that I attend, I have yet to hear one state that AGW is not real.

BWHAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Over 50% of staff where I am employed question it or outright laugh at 100% of all the bull shit predictions. You probably attend a place which is heavily federally funded. Failure to toe the line will result in libs loosing their jobs.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Ignore these people that deny Global Warming. Their agenda is one that works against the best interest of the human race. They aren't interested in fact, they are interested in mud. Muddying the waters to make it appear there is 'a debate'.

There is no debate. The debate on whether Global Warming is real ended in the scientific community 15 years ago.

In the 15 years since then the fossil fuel industry and others have poured a billion dollars into a massive disinformation campaign to present the false 'well there's a debate' lie.

There is no debate.

Ignore the deniers and go talk to someone at your local University. Global Warming is rather easy to explain and once explained you will understand just how low these people are that are acting against humanity's best interests for money.

Ignore fools like this one.. ^^^^^^^^^

They think that science is over and they have all the answers before any of the real questions have been answered. And they deny empirical evidence showing their fallacy is a lie.

 

[Crick]

Billy Boy, scientists are the ones telling us that, among scientists, there is no longer any debate. That is not the same as saying "that science is over".

Billy, do you think the science is settled on gross human anatomy? How about heat transfer? Fluid dynamics? The physical characteristics of the Solar System? The Carnot Cycle? Plant transpiration? The diet of chimpanzees? Animal husbandry? Is there any topic of the natural sciences that you'd agree lacks significant debate among the cognoscenti? I have to assume the answer to that question is "yes". So... please explain why, with a 97% consensus, you think any significant debate still exists regarding AGW.