CDZ I AM NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST AND NEITHER ARE YOU.

[Toddsterpatriot]

how else would you describe 97% sticking with their original assessment?

What is the original assessment you feel the 97% agreed with?
97% of how many? Got a link?

That climate change is real, and man is affecting it.

That climate change is real,

Of course climate change is real. 15000 years ago, there was a mile of ice on this very spot.

and man is affecting it

This gets back to my questions on the other thread.
The ones you avoided.
How much is man affecting it?
If the temperature is going to increase 2 degrees in the next 100 years but we're only responsible for 0.02 degrees of that rise, how much money should we spend to keep the planet cooler?

Again, not what this thread is about. Conservatives say the opinion of the vast majority of climate scientists is wrong. The cost is a totally different subject. Are they saying it is wrong because they think it might cost money? If so that is disingenuous. Cost is certainly worthwhile to discuss, but it has nothing to do with what the facts of climate change are.

Conservatives say the opinion of the vast majority of climate scientists is wrong.

I've never heard the opinions of the vast majority. I have seen a couple of ready silly surveys though.
I'm more concerned about the cost of the policy recommendations.
Warmer is better. Why spend trillions to make it cooler?

Cost is certainly worthwhile to discuss, but it has nothing to do with what the facts of climate change are.

If we were just discussing climate, I'd agree.
But we're really talking about giving bozos like Obama trillions of dollars to shovel to their supporters to fix a "problem" that might not exist and might not be a problem if it did.

Ok. If you think the vast majority of climate scientists don't join in that belief, then by all means tell me about it. There are lots of threads to discuss Obama, or cost of policy recommendations. This isn't one of them.

If you think the vast majority of climate scientists don't join in that belief,

I'm not making a claim about the majority of climate scientists, you are.
And you still can't find the backup for your 97% claim.

 

[BULLDOG]

The people who control the money are the ones who have the most to gain.

Every alleged scientist who tells the President what he wants to hear about climate change, does so because he or she does not want their funding to dry up.

You speak of oil company research and dismiss it because you think their is some kind of conflict of interest. However, when those who push this bad drug of human affected climate change, they do so because it is in their own interest.

As always, follow the money.

That's exactly what I am interested in finding out. Of course Obama doesn't control funding for all the scientists around the world who agree with the climate statements accepted by so many groups. How do you think all those other scientists are being manipulated?

 

[BULLDOG]

That climate change is real, and man is affecting it.

That climate change is real,

Of course climate change is real. 15000 years ago, there was a mile of ice on this very spot.

and man is affecting it

This gets back to my questions on the other thread.
The ones you avoided.
How much is man affecting it?
If the temperature is going to increase 2 degrees in the next 100 years but we're only responsible for 0.02 degrees of that rise, how much money should we spend to keep the planet cooler?

Again, not what this thread is about. Conservatives say the opinion of the vast majority of climate scientists is wrong. The cost is a totally different subject. Are they saying it is wrong because they think it might cost money? If so that is disingenuous. Cost is certainly worthwhile to discuss, but it has nothing to do with what the facts of climate change are.

Conservatives say the opinion of the vast majority of climate scientists is wrong.

I've never heard the opinions of the vast majority. I have seen a couple of ready silly surveys though.
I'm more concerned about the cost of the policy recommendations.
Warmer is better. Why spend trillions to make it cooler?

Cost is certainly worthwhile to discuss, but it has nothing to do with what the facts of climate change are.

If we were just discussing climate, I'd agree.
But we're really talking about giving bozos like Obama trillions of dollars to shovel to their supporters to fix a "problem" that might not exist and might not be a problem if it did.

Ok. If you think the vast majority of climate scientists don't join in that belief, then by all means tell me about it. There are lots of threads to discuss Obama, or cost of policy recommendations. This isn't one of them.

If you think the vast majority of climate scientists don't join in that belief,

I'm not making a claim about the majority of climate scientists, you are.
And you still can't find the backup for your 97% claim.

Well, there is always this.
Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Consensus

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well, there is always this.
Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Consensus

Is that a link to your survey?

 

[Judicial review]

Where's the snow? Oh, yeah it's coming this weekend.

 

[Darkwind]

The people who control the money are the ones who have the most to gain.

Every alleged scientist who tells the President what he wants to hear about climate change, does so because he or she does not want their funding to dry up.

You speak of oil company research and dismiss it because you think their is some kind of conflict of interest. However, when those who push this bad drug of human affected climate change, they do so because it is in their own interest.

As always, follow the money.

That's exactly what I am interested in finding out. Of course Obama doesn't control funding for all the scientists around the world who agree with the climate statements accepted by so many groups. How do you think all those other scientists are being manipulated?

If you look, every scientist who has joined the consensus, work for government agencies, and many get funds from their grants, also controlled by government or universities.. The rest just go along to get along because they see the amount of hatred directed at those who have the audacity of questioning an un-provable theory.

Think about it. Its a ready made money machine. Climate change has been going on for at least 2 billion years. Any kind of weather related (and some not even weather related) disaster is a pump primer for more funds and another 20 year research grant.

Sweet deal if you can get the work.

 

[Cosmos]

You're the one who posited a conspiracy. If you think there is one, document it for us.

I don't think there is one, but many right wingers claim there is. Without specific education in climate science, I, and the vast majority of people have no way to evaluate if the scientists claims are valid or not. I keep hearing "follow the money" as an explanation of why so many scientists stick with their claims when right wingers claim they have been discredited. I don't know if they have been discredited or not. Neither do you. So who is in charge of the conspiracy?

Uh.......what conspiracy?

If the results of their research has been disproven, as you claim, how else would you describe 97% sticking with their original assessment?

I've made no such claim. Seriously, I think maybe you should have made this thread in the taunting area.

So are you admitting that the assessments of all those climate scientists that climate change is real, and man is part of the cause is true? I understand you would rather taunt someone than have an actual discussion, so perhaps you should go there.

You started out by claiming some sort of conspiracy exists, and then when asked to document it, you run away. That's hardly an actual discussion. You appear to be more in need of ridicule and teasing than actual discussion if you can't even outline your own OP with some facts.

 

[BULLDOG]

The people who control the money are the ones who have the most to gain.

Every alleged scientist who tells the President what he wants to hear about climate change, does so because he or she does not want their funding to dry up.

You speak of oil company research and dismiss it because you think their is some kind of conflict of interest. However, when those who push this bad drug of human affected climate change, they do so because it is in their own interest.

As always, follow the money.

That's exactly what I am interested in finding out. Of course Obama doesn't control funding for all the scientists around the world who agree with the climate statements accepted by so many groups. How do you think all those other scientists are being manipulated?

If you look, every scientist who has joined the consensus, work for government agencies, and many get funds from their grants, also controlled by government or universities.. The rest just go along to get along because they see the amount of hatred directed at those who have the audacity of questioning an un-provable theory.

Think about it. Its a ready made money machine. Climate change has been going on for at least 2 billion years. Any kind of weather related (and some not even weather related) disaster is a pump primer for more funds and another 20 year research grant.

Sweet deal if you can get the work.

Ok. Is it just our government and universities doing this or governments and universities all around the world? Scientific opinion is pretty much world wide,

 

[BULLDOG]

I don't think there is one, but many right wingers claim there is. Without specific education in climate science, I, and the vast majority of people have no way to evaluate if the scientists claims are valid or not. I keep hearing "follow the money" as an explanation of why so many scientists stick with their claims when right wingers claim they have been discredited. I don't know if they have been discredited or not. Neither do you. So who is in charge of the conspiracy?

Uh.......what conspiracy?

If the results of their research has been disproven, as you claim, how else would you describe 97% sticking with their original assessment?

I've made no such claim. Seriously, I think maybe you should have made this thread in the taunting area.

So are you admitting that the assessments of all those climate scientists that climate change is real, and man is part of the cause is true? I understand you would rather taunt someone than have an actual discussion, so perhaps you should go there.

You started out by claiming some sort of conspiracy exists, and then when asked to document it, you run away. That's hardly an actual discussion. You appear to be more in need of ridicule and teasing than actual discussion if you can't even outline your own OP with some facts.

No. I did not claim any conspiracy actually existed. I said that the right wing discounts the opinions of 97% of climate scientists because they say those scientists are prevented from any dissenting opinions under threat of job or funding loss. Since our government doesn't supply the funding for most of the scientists in that 97%, who is threatening all those other scientists? If those constraints are used against scientists worldwide, it would certainly be a conspiracy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Uh.......what conspiracy?

If the results of their research has been disproven, as you claim, how else would you describe 97% sticking with their original assessment?

I've made no such claim. Seriously, I think maybe you should have made this thread in the taunting area.

So are you admitting that the assessments of all those climate scientists that climate change is real, and man is part of the cause is true? I understand you would rather taunt someone than have an actual discussion, so perhaps you should go there.

You started out by claiming some sort of conspiracy exists, and then when asked to document it, you run away. That's hardly an actual discussion. You appear to be more in need of ridicule and teasing than actual discussion if you can't even outline your own OP with some facts.

No. I did not claim any conspiracy actually existed. I said that the right wing discounts the opinions of 97% of climate scientists because they say those scientists are prevented from any dissenting opinions under threat of job or funding loss. Since our government doesn't supply the funding for most of the scientists in that 97%, who is threatening all those other scientists? If those constraints are used against scientists worldwide, it would certainly be a conspiracy.

I said that the right wing discounts the opinions of 97% of climate scientists

I discount the claim that 97% of climate scientists agree about climate change in any meaningful way.

 

[BULLDOG]

If the results of their research has been disproven, as you claim, how else would you describe 97% sticking with their original assessment?

I've made no such claim. Seriously, I think maybe you should have made this thread in the taunting area.

So are you admitting that the assessments of all those climate scientists that climate change is real, and man is part of the cause is true? I understand you would rather taunt someone than have an actual discussion, so perhaps you should go there.

You started out by claiming some sort of conspiracy exists, and then when asked to document it, you run away. That's hardly an actual discussion. You appear to be more in need of ridicule and teasing than actual discussion if you can't even outline your own OP with some facts.

No. I did not claim any conspiracy actually existed. I said that the right wing discounts the opinions of 97% of climate scientists because they say those scientists are prevented from any dissenting opinions under threat of job or funding loss. Since our government doesn't supply the funding for most of the scientists in that 97%, who is threatening all those other scientists? If those constraints are used against scientists worldwide, it would certainly be a conspiracy.

I said that the right wing discounts the opinions of 97% of climate scientists

I discount the claim that 97% of climate scientists agree about climate change in any meaningful way.

Ok, if you believe that number to be wrong, what percentage do you think there are?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I've made no such claim. Seriously, I think maybe you should have made this thread in the taunting area.

So are you admitting that the assessments of all those climate scientists that climate change is real, and man is part of the cause is true? I understand you would rather taunt someone than have an actual discussion, so perhaps you should go there.

You started out by claiming some sort of conspiracy exists, and then when asked to document it, you run away. That's hardly an actual discussion. You appear to be more in need of ridicule and teasing than actual discussion if you can't even outline your own OP with some facts.

No. I did not claim any conspiracy actually existed. I said that the right wing discounts the opinions of 97% of climate scientists because they say those scientists are prevented from any dissenting opinions under threat of job or funding loss. Since our government doesn't supply the funding for most of the scientists in that 97%, who is threatening all those other scientists? If those constraints are used against scientists worldwide, it would certainly be a conspiracy.

I said that the right wing discounts the opinions of 97% of climate scientists

I discount the claim that 97% of climate scientists agree about climate change in any meaningful way.

Ok, if you believe that number to be wrong, what percentage do you think there are?

I have no opinion on what percentage would answer in the affirmative the individual questions that were dishonestly conflated to reach the 97% number.

 

[BULLDOG]

So are you admitting that the assessments of all those climate scientists that climate change is real, and man is part of the cause is true? I understand you would rather taunt someone than have an actual discussion, so perhaps you should go there.

You started out by claiming some sort of conspiracy exists, and then when asked to document it, you run away. That's hardly an actual discussion. You appear to be more in need of ridicule and teasing than actual discussion if you can't even outline your own OP with some facts.

No. I did not claim any conspiracy actually existed. I said that the right wing discounts the opinions of 97% of climate scientists because they say those scientists are prevented from any dissenting opinions under threat of job or funding loss. Since our government doesn't supply the funding for most of the scientists in that 97%, who is threatening all those other scientists? If those constraints are used against scientists worldwide, it would certainly be a conspiracy.

I said that the right wing discounts the opinions of 97% of climate scientists

I discount the claim that 97% of climate scientists agree about climate change in any meaningful way.

Ok, if you believe that number to be wrong, what percentage do you think there are?

I have no opinion on what percentage would answer in the affirmative the individual questions that were dishonestly conflated to reach the 97% number.

Ok. If, as you say, there is not a large majority of climate scientists who hold this view, who is foisting what you seem to think is misinformation on the entire world? Is it only the US government or a wider group?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You started out by claiming some sort of conspiracy exists, and then when asked to document it, you run away. That's hardly an actual discussion. You appear to be more in need of ridicule and teasing than actual discussion if you can't even outline your own OP with some facts.

No. I did not claim any conspiracy actually existed. I said that the right wing discounts the opinions of 97% of climate scientists because they say those scientists are prevented from any dissenting opinions under threat of job or funding loss. Since our government doesn't supply the funding for most of the scientists in that 97%, who is threatening all those other scientists? If those constraints are used against scientists worldwide, it would certainly be a conspiracy.

I said that the right wing discounts the opinions of 97% of climate scientists

I discount the claim that 97% of climate scientists agree about climate change in any meaningful way.

Ok, if you believe that number to be wrong, what percentage do you think there are?

I have no opinion on what percentage would answer in the affirmative the individual questions that were dishonestly conflated to reach the 97% number.

Ok. If, as you say, there is not a large majority of climate scientists who hold this view, who is foisting what you seem to think is misinformation on the entire world? Is it only the US government or a wider group?

Ok. If, as you say, there is not a large majority of climate scientists who hold this view

Hold what specific view?

 

[BULLDOG]

No. I did not claim any conspiracy actually existed. I said that the right wing discounts the opinions of 97% of climate scientists because they say those scientists are prevented from any dissenting opinions under threat of job or funding loss. Since our government doesn't supply the funding for most of the scientists in that 97%, who is threatening all those other scientists? If those constraints are used against scientists worldwide, it would certainly be a conspiracy.

I said that the right wing discounts the opinions of 97% of climate scientists

I discount the claim that 97% of climate scientists agree about climate change in any meaningful way.

Ok, if you believe that number to be wrong, what percentage do you think there are?

I have no opinion on what percentage would answer in the affirmative the individual questions that were dishonestly conflated to reach the 97% number.

Ok. If, as you say, there is not a large majority of climate scientists who hold this view, who is foisting what you seem to think is misinformation on the entire world? Is it only the US government or a wider group?

Ok. If, as you say, there is not a large majority of climate scientists who hold this view

Hold what specific view?

I have lots of patience. I can play this game as long as you want. The belief that climate change is real and that man has a strong effect on it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I said that the right wing discounts the opinions of 97% of climate scientists

I discount the claim that 97% of climate scientists agree about climate change in any meaningful way.

Ok, if you believe that number to be wrong, what percentage do you think there are?

I have no opinion on what percentage would answer in the affirmative the individual questions that were dishonestly conflated to reach the 97% number.

Ok. If, as you say, there is not a large majority of climate scientists who hold this view, who is foisting what you seem to think is misinformation on the entire world? Is it only the US government or a wider group?

Ok. If, as you say, there is not a large majority of climate scientists who hold this view

Hold what specific view?

I have lots of patience. I can play this game as long as you want. The belief that climate change is real and that man has a strong effect on it.

The belief that climate change is real

Since there is no longer a mile thick sheet of ice on top of my neighborhood, I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that the climate changes.

and that man has a strong effect on it.

Now this is where there will always be plenty of disagreement.

 

[Cosmos]

I said that the right wing discounts the opinions of 97% of climate scientists

I discount the claim that 97% of climate scientists agree about climate change in any meaningful way.

Ok, if you believe that number to be wrong, what percentage do you think there are?

I have no opinion on what percentage would answer in the affirmative the individual questions that were dishonestly conflated to reach the 97% number.

Ok. If, as you say, there is not a large majority of climate scientists who hold this view, who is foisting what you seem to think is misinformation on the entire world? Is it only the US government or a wider group?

Ok. If, as you say, there is not a large majority of climate scientists who hold this view

Hold what specific view?

I have lots of patience. I can play this game as long as you want. The belief that climate change is real and that man has a strong effect on it.

Yeah, but it would be more fun in the taunting area where I could make fun of you. No fair putting a silly meaningless thread here, based on nothing other than something you said. The least you could have done is post a link to some weird blogger in a basement someplace. Anyway, good luck on your conspiracy.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm not a physicists but I can discuss relativity. Odd that climate "science" can only be discussed by other decline hiders

Sure, you can discuss it, but if you claim to be able to disprove the theory of relativity with a couple of charts, it's doubtful if you would be able to convince people who really understand that theory.

That's not what's happening at all. You're trying to "Prove" your silly Global Warming theory (What is your theory anyway) by saying you have "Consensus" and anyone who asks for proof is a "DENIER!!!"

It's your stupid theory, you have to offer proof

 

[JoeMoma]

I suspect that Man does contribute to climate change. I wonder why the libs aren't hollering about the millions of square miles of asphalt. I wouldn't be surprise if this has at least as great of an effect on climate change as CO2.

Just look at the land mass that was once covered by forests that are now cities. This has to have some effect on the environment. It could also explain much of the Global warning if a large number of the temperature readings come from urbanized zones.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The right claims there is a massive conspiracy by 97% of climate scientists to defraud the public. I simply ask who is in charge of this conspiracy, and what do the people in charge of it have to gain. I'm not asking about the validity of the research from either side of the spectrum because I am not qualified to look at a chart or graph and evaluate it in relationship to all the years of research that has been done by real Climate scientists, because


I AM NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST AND NEITHER ARE YOU.


I'm not asking for your charts or graphs, or some experiment that was done in the early 1900's. I've asked my questions in other threads, and am covered with information from instant right wing experts whose climate expertise began with a report from fox news, and consists of charts and graphs from oil company funded web sites that supposedly disprove legitimate climate research. Those are all off subject here because


I AM NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST AND NEITHER ARE YOU.


One poster who likes to pretend he is extremely educated tried to tell me there are only 79 climate scientists in the world, and Obama will fire the 74 who agree climate change is real if they change their mind. I'll leave that to you to decide if that is worth considering, but if you can shed some light on who might be in charge of this claimed world wide conspiracy, or what they might gain by it, please present your evidence.

Obama has increased government spending less than any president in at least a generation.

Neither am I but four things I have is :

1. Been outside since 1965
2. Common sence
3. I passed the 2nd grade when they were talking about ice ages, how the climate changed over earths history, plus I read a lot of non fiction, love watching P.B.S.
4. I have been dealing with Temperture Measuring equipment at work for 30 years, from the analogs of the 60s to the digital of today

This is what they had and recorded Temperture in the 1900s could you read it to a half a degree?