I'm curious. Do RWs think AGW is a fraud simply because republicans told them it is?

[westwall]

Or this down to a tenth of a degree?

Back in the old days they measured in fahrenheit which is far more precise than celsius. There are 180 gradations between boiling point and freezing in fahrenheit while there are just 100 on the celsius scale.

Add to that error bars, and yes, the old analog systems were more precise than the current digital celsius thermometers.

 

[westwall]

Do you really ******* think 120 years ago a guy reading a thermometer and recording it op is just as accurate as a computer print out from this?

Depends on who was doing the measuring, and who is doing the programming now doesn't it.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Do you really ******* think 120 years ago a guy reading a thermometer and recording it op is just as accurate as a computer print out from this?

Depends on who was doing the measuring, and who is doing the programming now doesn't it.

Thermocouples dont lie

 

[Wyatt earp]

Post pictures of a few , when I start my shift in a few hours, plus you have to be ISO certified to be a 2nd tier company, ours is calibrated/verified by a outside source

 

[BULLDOG]

Ok. I'll play along for a little while, but I've got a few questions. If you can give me reasonable answers, I'll apologize and admit you are the expert that convinced me.
1. If 97% of all recognized legitimate climate scientists add up to only 74 people that means there are only 77 (rounded up) of them in the world. Is that your claim?
2 Are you saying the 97% would lose their jobs if they didn't publicly agree that climate change is real and man is making it worse?

I have a few more, but lets go slow to be precise and avoid confusion.

The claim that 97% of the worlds scientists agree that AGW exists was promulgated from a survey that was sent out to thousands of scientists. The writers of the survey culled out anyone who hadn't had a climatology paper published in "X" amount of years. Then, they had another criteria which I no longer recall, that reduced it down to 79 climatologists who responded to a two question survey.

Out of that 79 person population only 74 actually agreed with the very poorly worded survey. That's where the meme of the 97% comes from.

Then, Cook and Co. decided to double down on the 97% meme so they generated a new "paper" that supposedly supported it.

Here is a small extract of just one of the many essays that eviscerated Cooks paper.

But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming. [We fell from “97%” to 1.6% pretty fast]

Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.

The 8220 97 of climate scientists agree 8221 meme is 100 false A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics

Ok. Actually it would be only 93.6% who fell in that category if the numbers in your link are correct. I suspect other things might be wrong with that link as well. However, you did answer the question, and we'll go with that for now, even if I'm not convinced of that yet. You didn't answer my other question though. Do you believe those scientists would lose their jobs if they had another opinion? Exactly what do you think is being used to force them to say what they say, and why?

The overwhelming majority of funding for climatologists comes from taxpayers. Politicians fund the grants that pay the climatologists. If there is nothing to fear, then there is no money. Do you see the motivation now?

Then, to take it even further, the politicians wish to tax carbon to further fund their programs that keep getting them elected. So they have a huuuuge incentive to pass legislation to further their political goals. Add to that the scumbag companies like Goldman Sachs (who according to a Rolling Stone article, are responsible more than any other for the multiple balloon bust cycles we've been through) who will get to rake in hundreds of billions from a scheme like that and the motive becomes crystal clear.

As much as I don't like Big Oil....and i really don't, they do at least provide an essential product for the money we give them. Goldman is set to make hundreds of billions for merely shuffling paper from one side of the room to the other.

The most recent IPCC report estimates the cost to change over society to a "renewable" energy system is 76 trillion dollars. That's more than the GDP of the planet by several times. And all along the way wealthy bankers, politicians, bureaucrats and companies who are friends of the politicians involved get to steal your money and the whole stated goal of all of this money redistribution is the lowering of global temperatures by ONE degree in 100 years. Maybe.

Do you really think that a 76 trillion dollar investment, and the reordering of society, all so the super wealthy can become the ridiculously wealthy, with all of the attendant death and destruction that that will cause, is worth it?

Here's the link to the official UN report so you can't say I'm making it up. Feel free to read it.

http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess.pdf

While all that other stuff might be interesting to discuss, we were discussing climate scientists. Try to stay on subject as much as you can.
So you think the only climate scientists in that group are paid by the US government, and that funding will be cut off if they say anything different? What about the ones in other countries? There are lots of them. Does our government fund all the climate research in the world?

They're all inter-related though. Can't discuss one without the other. ALL climatologists get their money from taxpayers. Some (like Mueller from BEST) get additional funding from corporate interests, or wealthy donors. They produce nothing other than paper however. Whether it be from the US or their own countries that is the simple reality. To date the climatologists of the world have received over 100 billion dollars in funding. Far outstripping the amount that Big Oil has spent on countering the fraud.
And, more to the point the US gives grants to scientists all over the world. Phil Jones of East Anglia fame has received millions of US taxpayer dollars over the years.

Sorry, but I don't see what Goldman Sachs, oil companies, or the cost to completely change the entire country to an alternate energy source has to do with our discussion. I'm aware that right wingers have trouble staying on subject, but please try.
Your claim was that there are only 74 climate scientists who support climate change, and now you are bringing up a lot more. I found over 200 science organizations who have put out statements agreeing with it. There are thousands of credible scientists represented by these organizations. These are not just some ex employees of each group, but the official statements by the most recognized scientific groups in the world. Are you saying all those groups and the thousands of scientists represented by those groups are all funded by the US government, and they would cease to exist as organizations or that the individual scientists would all lose their jobs if they said differently? If the US government isn't funding and controlling all those groups, who do you think is forcing them to put out statements that you imply are obviously false statements? Who exactly do you think is in charge of this massive conspiracy to defraud the public?

 

[Billy000]

The claim that 97% of the worlds scientists agree that AGW exists was promulgated from a survey that was sent out to thousands of scientists. The writers of the survey culled out anyone who hadn't had a climatology paper published in "X" amount of years. Then, they had another criteria which I no longer recall, that reduced it down to 79 climatologists who responded to a two question survey.

Out of that 79 person population only 74 actually agreed with the very poorly worded survey. That's where the meme of the 97% comes from.

Then, Cook and Co. decided to double down on the 97% meme so they generated a new "paper" that supposedly supported it.

Here is a small extract of just one of the many essays that eviscerated Cooks paper.

But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming. [We fell from “97%” to 1.6% pretty fast]

Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.

The 8220 97 of climate scientists agree 8221 meme is 100 false A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics

Ok. Actually it would be only 93.6% who fell in that category if the numbers in your link are correct. I suspect other things might be wrong with that link as well. However, you did answer the question, and we'll go with that for now, even if I'm not convinced of that yet. You didn't answer my other question though. Do you believe those scientists would lose their jobs if they had another opinion? Exactly what do you think is being used to force them to say what they say, and why?

The overwhelming majority of funding for climatologists comes from taxpayers. Politicians fund the grants that pay the climatologists. If there is nothing to fear, then there is no money. Do you see the motivation now?

Then, to take it even further, the politicians wish to tax carbon to further fund their programs that keep getting them elected. So they have a huuuuge incentive to pass legislation to further their political goals. Add to that the scumbag companies like Goldman Sachs (who according to a Rolling Stone article, are responsible more than any other for the multiple balloon bust cycles we've been through) who will get to rake in hundreds of billions from a scheme like that and the motive becomes crystal clear.

As much as I don't like Big Oil....and i really don't, they do at least provide an essential product for the money we give them. Goldman is set to make hundreds of billions for merely shuffling paper from one side of the room to the other.

The most recent IPCC report estimates the cost to change over society to a "renewable" energy system is 76 trillion dollars. That's more than the GDP of the planet by several times. And all along the way wealthy bankers, politicians, bureaucrats and companies who are friends of the politicians involved get to steal your money and the whole stated goal of all of this money redistribution is the lowering of global temperatures by ONE degree in 100 years. Maybe.

Do you really think that a 76 trillion dollar investment, and the reordering of society, all so the super wealthy can become the ridiculously wealthy, with all of the attendant death and destruction that that will cause, is worth it?

Here's the link to the official UN report so you can't say I'm making it up. Feel free to read it.

http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess.pdf

While all that other stuff might be interesting to discuss, we were discussing climate scientists. Try to stay on subject as much as you can.
So you think the only climate scientists in that group are paid by the US government, and that funding will be cut off if they say anything different? What about the ones in other countries? There are lots of them. Does our government fund all the climate research in the world?

They're all inter-related though. Can't discuss one without the other. ALL climatologists get their money from taxpayers. Some (like Mueller from BEST) get additional funding from corporate interests, or wealthy donors. They produce nothing other than paper however. Whether it be from the US or their own countries that is the simple reality. To date the climatologists of the world have received over 100 billion dollars in funding. Far outstripping the amount that Big Oil has spent on countering the fraud.
And, more to the point the US gives grants to scientists all over the world. Phil Jones of East Anglia fame has received millions of US taxpayer dollars over the years.

Sorry, but I don't see what Goldman Sachs, oil companies, or the cost to completely change the entire country to an alternate energy source has to do with our discussion. I'm aware that right wingers have trouble staying on subject, but please try.
Your claim was that there are only 74 climate scientists who support climate change, and now you are bringing up a lot more. I found over 200 science organizations who have put out statements agreeing with it. There are thousands of credible scientists represented by these organizations. These are not just some ex employees of each group, but the official statements by the most recognized scientific groups in the world. Are you saying all those groups and the thousands of scientists represented by those groups are all funded by the US government, and they would cease to exist as organizations or that the individual scientists would all lose their jobs if they said differently? If the US government isn't funding and controlling all those groups, who do you think is forcing them to put out statements that you imply are obviously false statements? Who exactly do you think is in charge of this massive conspiracy to defraud the public?

He's gonna want a link. Shut him down with it.

 

[Nyvin]

The Senate just voted overwhelmingly that Climate Change is NOT a hoax

 

[westwall]

The claim that 97% of the worlds scientists agree that AGW exists was promulgated from a survey that was sent out to thousands of scientists. The writers of the survey culled out anyone who hadn't had a climatology paper published in "X" amount of years. Then, they had another criteria which I no longer recall, that reduced it down to 79 climatologists who responded to a two question survey.

Out of that 79 person population only 74 actually agreed with the very poorly worded survey. That's where the meme of the 97% comes from.

Then, Cook and Co. decided to double down on the 97% meme so they generated a new "paper" that supposedly supported it.

Here is a small extract of just one of the many essays that eviscerated Cooks paper.

But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming. [We fell from “97%” to 1.6% pretty fast]

Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.

The 8220 97 of climate scientists agree 8221 meme is 100 false A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics

Ok. Actually it would be only 93.6% who fell in that category if the numbers in your link are correct. I suspect other things might be wrong with that link as well. However, you did answer the question, and we'll go with that for now, even if I'm not convinced of that yet. You didn't answer my other question though. Do you believe those scientists would lose their jobs if they had another opinion? Exactly what do you think is being used to force them to say what they say, and why?

The overwhelming majority of funding for climatologists comes from taxpayers. Politicians fund the grants that pay the climatologists. If there is nothing to fear, then there is no money. Do you see the motivation now?

Then, to take it even further, the politicians wish to tax carbon to further fund their programs that keep getting them elected. So they have a huuuuge incentive to pass legislation to further their political goals. Add to that the scumbag companies like Goldman Sachs (who according to a Rolling Stone article, are responsible more than any other for the multiple balloon bust cycles we've been through) who will get to rake in hundreds of billions from a scheme like that and the motive becomes crystal clear.

As much as I don't like Big Oil....and i really don't, they do at least provide an essential product for the money we give them. Goldman is set to make hundreds of billions for merely shuffling paper from one side of the room to the other.

The most recent IPCC report estimates the cost to change over society to a "renewable" energy system is 76 trillion dollars. That's more than the GDP of the planet by several times. And all along the way wealthy bankers, politicians, bureaucrats and companies who are friends of the politicians involved get to steal your money and the whole stated goal of all of this money redistribution is the lowering of global temperatures by ONE degree in 100 years. Maybe.

Do you really think that a 76 trillion dollar investment, and the reordering of society, all so the super wealthy can become the ridiculously wealthy, with all of the attendant death and destruction that that will cause, is worth it?

Here's the link to the official UN report so you can't say I'm making it up. Feel free to read it.

http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess.pdf

While all that other stuff might be interesting to discuss, we were discussing climate scientists. Try to stay on subject as much as you can.
So you think the only climate scientists in that group are paid by the US government, and that funding will be cut off if they say anything different? What about the ones in other countries? There are lots of them. Does our government fund all the climate research in the world?

They're all inter-related though. Can't discuss one without the other. ALL climatologists get their money from taxpayers. Some (like Mueller from BEST) get additional funding from corporate interests, or wealthy donors. They produce nothing other than paper however. Whether it be from the US or their own countries that is the simple reality. To date the climatologists of the world have received over 100 billion dollars in funding. Far outstripping the amount that Big Oil has spent on countering the fraud.
And, more to the point the US gives grants to scientists all over the world. Phil Jones of East Anglia fame has received millions of US taxpayer dollars over the years.

Sorry, but I don't see what Goldman Sachs, oil companies, or the cost to completely change the entire country to an alternate energy source has to do with our discussion. I'm aware that right wingers have trouble staying on subject, but please try.
Your claim was that there are only 74 climate scientists who support climate change, and now you are bringing up a lot more. I found over 200 science organizations who have put out statements agreeing with it. There are thousands of credible scientists represented by these organizations. These are not just some ex employees of each group, but the official statements by the most recognized scientific groups in the world. Are you saying all those groups and the thousands of scientists represented by those groups are all funded by the US government, and they would cease to exist as organizations or that the individual scientists would all lose their jobs if they said differently? If the US government isn't funding and controlling all those groups, who do you think is forcing them to put out statements that you imply are obviously false statements? Who exactly do you think is in charge of this massive conspiracy to defraud the public?

You can shove your condescension up your ass silly person. If you're too blind to see what has been patiently laid out for you then so be it. You can waste your time all you wish. Not mine.

 

[BULLDOG]

Or this down to a tenth of a degree?

Back in the old days they measured in fahrenheit which is far more precise than celsius. There are 180 gradations between boiling point and freezing in fahrenheit while there are just 100 on the celsius scale.

Add to that error bars, and yes, the old analog systems were more precise than the current digital celsius thermometers.

Wow....If you think a simple conversion from Celsius to Fahrenheit introduces error, you need to get a 5th grader to do the measurement for you, and 1/1000 of a degree is not a problem for digital industrial thermometers. You won't find them on the shelf at Walmart though

 

[westwall]

Do you really ******* think 120 years ago a guy reading a thermometer and recording it op is just as accurate as a computer print out from this?

Depends on who was doing the measuring, and who is doing the programming now doesn't it.

Thermocouples dont lie

No, they don't intentionally, they're inanimate after all. But they do suffer from calibration drift all the time. Go ahead look it up.

 

[blackhawk]

No, THINKING people know it's a fraud because there is zero empirical data to support the "CO2 drives the global temp theory." Period. Everything you clowns cite is based on computer models. EVERYTHING. Come back when you actually have some real data.

You do know what "data" is...right?

No they think it's a character from Star Trek the next generation.

 

[westwall]

Or this down to a tenth of a degree?

Back in the old days they measured in fahrenheit which is far more precise than celsius. There are 180 gradations between boiling point and freezing in fahrenheit while there are just 100 on the celsius scale.

Add to that error bars, and yes, the old analog systems were more precise than the current digital celsius thermometers.

Wow....If you think a simple conversion from Celsius to Fahrenheit introduces error, you need to get a 5th grader to do the measurement for you, and 1/1000 of a degree is not a problem for digital industrial thermometers. You won't find them on the shelf at Walmart though

That's not what I said at all. What did I really say or are you as incapable of telling the truth as you are with having a legitimate conversation?

 

[BULLDOG]

Ok. Actually it would be only 93.6% who fell in that category if the numbers in your link are correct. I suspect other things might be wrong with that link as well. However, you did answer the question, and we'll go with that for now, even if I'm not convinced of that yet. You didn't answer my other question though. Do you believe those scientists would lose their jobs if they had another opinion? Exactly what do you think is being used to force them to say what they say, and why?

The overwhelming majority of funding for climatologists comes from taxpayers. Politicians fund the grants that pay the climatologists. If there is nothing to fear, then there is no money. Do you see the motivation now?

Then, to take it even further, the politicians wish to tax carbon to further fund their programs that keep getting them elected. So they have a huuuuge incentive to pass legislation to further their political goals. Add to that the scumbag companies like Goldman Sachs (who according to a Rolling Stone article, are responsible more than any other for the multiple balloon bust cycles we've been through) who will get to rake in hundreds of billions from a scheme like that and the motive becomes crystal clear.

As much as I don't like Big Oil....and i really don't, they do at least provide an essential product for the money we give them. Goldman is set to make hundreds of billions for merely shuffling paper from one side of the room to the other.

The most recent IPCC report estimates the cost to change over society to a "renewable" energy system is 76 trillion dollars. That's more than the GDP of the planet by several times. And all along the way wealthy bankers, politicians, bureaucrats and companies who are friends of the politicians involved get to steal your money and the whole stated goal of all of this money redistribution is the lowering of global temperatures by ONE degree in 100 years. Maybe.

Do you really think that a 76 trillion dollar investment, and the reordering of society, all so the super wealthy can become the ridiculously wealthy, with all of the attendant death and destruction that that will cause, is worth it?

Here's the link to the official UN report so you can't say I'm making it up. Feel free to read it.

http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess.pdf

While all that other stuff might be interesting to discuss, we were discussing climate scientists. Try to stay on subject as much as you can.
So you think the only climate scientists in that group are paid by the US government, and that funding will be cut off if they say anything different? What about the ones in other countries? There are lots of them. Does our government fund all the climate research in the world?

They're all inter-related though. Can't discuss one without the other. ALL climatologists get their money from taxpayers. Some (like Mueller from BEST) get additional funding from corporate interests, or wealthy donors. They produce nothing other than paper however. Whether it be from the US or their own countries that is the simple reality. To date the climatologists of the world have received over 100 billion dollars in funding. Far outstripping the amount that Big Oil has spent on countering the fraud.
And, more to the point the US gives grants to scientists all over the world. Phil Jones of East Anglia fame has received millions of US taxpayer dollars over the years.

Sorry, but I don't see what Goldman Sachs, oil companies, or the cost to completely change the entire country to an alternate energy source has to do with our discussion. I'm aware that right wingers have trouble staying on subject, but please try.
Your claim was that there are only 74 climate scientists who support climate change, and now you are bringing up a lot more. I found over 200 science organizations who have put out statements agreeing with it. There are thousands of credible scientists represented by these organizations. These are not just some ex employees of each group, but the official statements by the most recognized scientific groups in the world. Are you saying all those groups and the thousands of scientists represented by those groups are all funded by the US government, and they would cease to exist as organizations or that the individual scientists would all lose their jobs if they said differently? If the US government isn't funding and controlling all those groups, who do you think is forcing them to put out statements that you imply are obviously false statements? Who exactly do you think is in charge of this massive conspiracy to defraud the public?

He's gonna want a link. Shut him down with it.

Not yet. I want to be fair and give him every chance to present his viewpoint. I was serious. I'm open to the possibility I could be wrong. I just haven't seen the evidence for that.

 

[westwall]

The Senate just voted overwhelmingly that Climate Change is NOT a hoax

As soon as the scientific method mentions "voting" as on of it's precepts, I'll give a shit what politicians have to say.

 

[Billy000]

The overwhelming majority of funding for climatologists comes from taxpayers. Politicians fund the grants that pay the climatologists. If there is nothing to fear, then there is no money. Do you see the motivation now?

Then, to take it even further, the politicians wish to tax carbon to further fund their programs that keep getting them elected. So they have a huuuuge incentive to pass legislation to further their political goals. Add to that the scumbag companies like Goldman Sachs (who according to a Rolling Stone article, are responsible more than any other for the multiple balloon bust cycles we've been through) who will get to rake in hundreds of billions from a scheme like that and the motive becomes crystal clear.

As much as I don't like Big Oil....and i really don't, they do at least provide an essential product for the money we give them. Goldman is set to make hundreds of billions for merely shuffling paper from one side of the room to the other.

The most recent IPCC report estimates the cost to change over society to a "renewable" energy system is 76 trillion dollars. That's more than the GDP of the planet by several times. And all along the way wealthy bankers, politicians, bureaucrats and companies who are friends of the politicians involved get to steal your money and the whole stated goal of all of this money redistribution is the lowering of global temperatures by ONE degree in 100 years. Maybe.

Do you really think that a 76 trillion dollar investment, and the reordering of society, all so the super wealthy can become the ridiculously wealthy, with all of the attendant death and destruction that that will cause, is worth it?

Here's the link to the official UN report so you can't say I'm making it up. Feel free to read it.

http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess.pdf

While all that other stuff might be interesting to discuss, we were discussing climate scientists. Try to stay on subject as much as you can.
So you think the only climate scientists in that group are paid by the US government, and that funding will be cut off if they say anything different? What about the ones in other countries? There are lots of them. Does our government fund all the climate research in the world?

They're all inter-related though. Can't discuss one without the other. ALL climatologists get their money from taxpayers. Some (like Mueller from BEST) get additional funding from corporate interests, or wealthy donors. They produce nothing other than paper however. Whether it be from the US or their own countries that is the simple reality. To date the climatologists of the world have received over 100 billion dollars in funding. Far outstripping the amount that Big Oil has spent on countering the fraud.
And, more to the point the US gives grants to scientists all over the world. Phil Jones of East Anglia fame has received millions of US taxpayer dollars over the years.

Sorry, but I don't see what Goldman Sachs, oil companies, or the cost to completely change the entire country to an alternate energy source has to do with our discussion. I'm aware that right wingers have trouble staying on subject, but please try.
Your claim was that there are only 74 climate scientists who support climate change, and now you are bringing up a lot more. I found over 200 science organizations who have put out statements agreeing with it. There are thousands of credible scientists represented by these organizations. These are not just some ex employees of each group, but the official statements by the most recognized scientific groups in the world. Are you saying all those groups and the thousands of scientists represented by those groups are all funded by the US government, and they would cease to exist as organizations or that the individual scientists would all lose their jobs if they said differently? If the US government isn't funding and controlling all those groups, who do you think is forcing them to put out statements that you imply are obviously false statements? Who exactly do you think is in charge of this massive conspiracy to defraud the public?

He's gonna want a link. Shut him down with it.

Not yet. I want to be fair and give him every chance to present his viewpoint. I was serious. I'm open to the possibility I could be wrong. I just haven't seen the evidence for that.

Christ there's no way you are wrong.

 

[westwall]

The overwhelming majority of funding for climatologists comes from taxpayers. Politicians fund the grants that pay the climatologists. If there is nothing to fear, then there is no money. Do you see the motivation now?

Then, to take it even further, the politicians wish to tax carbon to further fund their programs that keep getting them elected. So they have a huuuuge incentive to pass legislation to further their political goals. Add to that the scumbag companies like Goldman Sachs (who according to a Rolling Stone article, are responsible more than any other for the multiple balloon bust cycles we've been through) who will get to rake in hundreds of billions from a scheme like that and the motive becomes crystal clear.

As much as I don't like Big Oil....and i really don't, they do at least provide an essential product for the money we give them. Goldman is set to make hundreds of billions for merely shuffling paper from one side of the room to the other.

The most recent IPCC report estimates the cost to change over society to a "renewable" energy system is 76 trillion dollars. That's more than the GDP of the planet by several times. And all along the way wealthy bankers, politicians, bureaucrats and companies who are friends of the politicians involved get to steal your money and the whole stated goal of all of this money redistribution is the lowering of global temperatures by ONE degree in 100 years. Maybe.

Do you really think that a 76 trillion dollar investment, and the reordering of society, all so the super wealthy can become the ridiculously wealthy, with all of the attendant death and destruction that that will cause, is worth it?

Here's the link to the official UN report so you can't say I'm making it up. Feel free to read it.

http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess.pdf

While all that other stuff might be interesting to discuss, we were discussing climate scientists. Try to stay on subject as much as you can.
So you think the only climate scientists in that group are paid by the US government, and that funding will be cut off if they say anything different? What about the ones in other countries? There are lots of them. Does our government fund all the climate research in the world?

They're all inter-related though. Can't discuss one without the other. ALL climatologists get their money from taxpayers. Some (like Mueller from BEST) get additional funding from corporate interests, or wealthy donors. They produce nothing other than paper however. Whether it be from the US or their own countries that is the simple reality. To date the climatologists of the world have received over 100 billion dollars in funding. Far outstripping the amount that Big Oil has spent on countering the fraud.
And, more to the point the US gives grants to scientists all over the world. Phil Jones of East Anglia fame has received millions of US taxpayer dollars over the years.

Sorry, but I don't see what Goldman Sachs, oil companies, or the cost to completely change the entire country to an alternate energy source has to do with our discussion. I'm aware that right wingers have trouble staying on subject, but please try.
Your claim was that there are only 74 climate scientists who support climate change, and now you are bringing up a lot more. I found over 200 science organizations who have put out statements agreeing with it. There are thousands of credible scientists represented by these organizations. These are not just some ex employees of each group, but the official statements by the most recognized scientific groups in the world. Are you saying all those groups and the thousands of scientists represented by those groups are all funded by the US government, and they would cease to exist as organizations or that the individual scientists would all lose their jobs if they said differently? If the US government isn't funding and controlling all those groups, who do you think is forcing them to put out statements that you imply are obviously false statements? Who exactly do you think is in charge of this massive conspiracy to defraud the public?

He's gonna want a link. Shut him down with it.

Not yet. I want to be fair and give him every chance to present his viewpoint. I was serious. I'm open to the possibility I could be wrong. I just haven't seen the evidence for that.

Your condescension belies that statement. There is plenty of evidence out there that counters the AGW theory. I suggest you look at something other than the AGW supporters. You have a one sided view of the world and are woefully ignorant of the facts.

 

[westwall]

While all that other stuff might be interesting to discuss, we were discussing climate scientists. Try to stay on subject as much as you can.
So you think the only climate scientists in that group are paid by the US government, and that funding will be cut off if they say anything different? What about the ones in other countries? There are lots of them. Does our government fund all the climate research in the world?

They're all inter-related though. Can't discuss one without the other. ALL climatologists get their money from taxpayers. Some (like Mueller from BEST) get additional funding from corporate interests, or wealthy donors. They produce nothing other than paper however. Whether it be from the US or their own countries that is the simple reality. To date the climatologists of the world have received over 100 billion dollars in funding. Far outstripping the amount that Big Oil has spent on countering the fraud.
And, more to the point the US gives grants to scientists all over the world. Phil Jones of East Anglia fame has received millions of US taxpayer dollars over the years.

Sorry, but I don't see what Goldman Sachs, oil companies, or the cost to completely change the entire country to an alternate energy source has to do with our discussion. I'm aware that right wingers have trouble staying on subject, but please try.
Your claim was that there are only 74 climate scientists who support climate change, and now you are bringing up a lot more. I found over 200 science organizations who have put out statements agreeing with it. There are thousands of credible scientists represented by these organizations. These are not just some ex employees of each group, but the official statements by the most recognized scientific groups in the world. Are you saying all those groups and the thousands of scientists represented by those groups are all funded by the US government, and they would cease to exist as organizations or that the individual scientists would all lose their jobs if they said differently? If the US government isn't funding and controlling all those groups, who do you think is forcing them to put out statements that you imply are obviously false statements? Who exactly do you think is in charge of this massive conspiracy to defraud the public?

He's gonna want a link. Shut him down with it.

Not yet. I want to be fair and give him every chance to present his viewpoint. I was serious. I'm open to the possibility I could be wrong. I just haven't seen the evidence for that.

Christ there's no way you are wrong.

well, you're consistent with your religious nuttery.

 

[BULLDOG]

While all that other stuff might be interesting to discuss, we were discussing climate scientists. Try to stay on subject as much as you can.
So you think the only climate scientists in that group are paid by the US government, and that funding will be cut off if they say anything different? What about the ones in other countries? There are lots of them. Does our government fund all the climate research in the world?

They're all inter-related though. Can't discuss one without the other. ALL climatologists get their money from taxpayers. Some (like Mueller from BEST) get additional funding from corporate interests, or wealthy donors. They produce nothing other than paper however. Whether it be from the US or their own countries that is the simple reality. To date the climatologists of the world have received over 100 billion dollars in funding. Far outstripping the amount that Big Oil has spent on countering the fraud.
And, more to the point the US gives grants to scientists all over the world. Phil Jones of East Anglia fame has received millions of US taxpayer dollars over the years.

Sorry, but I don't see what Goldman Sachs, oil companies, or the cost to completely change the entire country to an alternate energy source has to do with our discussion. I'm aware that right wingers have trouble staying on subject, but please try.
Your claim was that there are only 74 climate scientists who support climate change, and now you are bringing up a lot more. I found over 200 science organizations who have put out statements agreeing with it. There are thousands of credible scientists represented by these organizations. These are not just some ex employees of each group, but the official statements by the most recognized scientific groups in the world. Are you saying all those groups and the thousands of scientists represented by those groups are all funded by the US government, and they would cease to exist as organizations or that the individual scientists would all lose their jobs if they said differently? If the US government isn't funding and controlling all those groups, who do you think is forcing them to put out statements that you imply are obviously false statements? Who exactly do you think is in charge of this massive conspiracy to defraud the public?

He's gonna want a link. Shut him down with it.

Not yet. I want to be fair and give him every chance to present his viewpoint. I was serious. I'm open to the possibility I could be wrong. I just haven't seen the evidence for that.

Your condescension belies that statement. There is plenty of evidence out there that counters the AGW theory. I suggest you look at something other than the AGW supporters. You have a one sided view of the world and are woefully ignorant of the facts.

Ok. I might have been a little short with you when you kept trying to change the subject, but I really am willing to consider legitimate reasonable evidence. I am inclined to believe what I understand to be the majority of experts. If they are not the majority, or they are distributing false information, I want to know. If you have that information, I would gladly accept it with reasonable reason. I don't see where it helps anybody for me to be wrong.....especially me.

 

[BULLDOG]

They're all inter-related though. Can't discuss one without the other. ALL climatologists get their money from taxpayers. Some (like Mueller from BEST) get additional funding from corporate interests, or wealthy donors. They produce nothing other than paper however. Whether it be from the US or their own countries that is the simple reality. To date the climatologists of the world have received over 100 billion dollars in funding. Far outstripping the amount that Big Oil has spent on countering the fraud.
And, more to the point the US gives grants to scientists all over the world. Phil Jones of East Anglia fame has received millions of US taxpayer dollars over the years.

Sorry, but I don't see what Goldman Sachs, oil companies, or the cost to completely change the entire country to an alternate energy source has to do with our discussion. I'm aware that right wingers have trouble staying on subject, but please try.
Your claim was that there are only 74 climate scientists who support climate change, and now you are bringing up a lot more. I found over 200 science organizations who have put out statements agreeing with it. There are thousands of credible scientists represented by these organizations. These are not just some ex employees of each group, but the official statements by the most recognized scientific groups in the world. Are you saying all those groups and the thousands of scientists represented by those groups are all funded by the US government, and they would cease to exist as organizations or that the individual scientists would all lose their jobs if they said differently? If the US government isn't funding and controlling all those groups, who do you think is forcing them to put out statements that you imply are obviously false statements? Who exactly do you think is in charge of this massive conspiracy to defraud the public?

He's gonna want a link. Shut him down with it.

Not yet. I want to be fair and give him every chance to present his viewpoint. I was serious. I'm open to the possibility I could be wrong. I just haven't seen the evidence for that.

Christ there's no way you are wrong.

well, you're consistent with your religious nuttery.

Not sure what religion has to do with it, but OK. Does this mean you no longer care to back up your statements about man made climate change?

 

[Vandalshandle]

Sorry, but I don't see what Goldman Sachs, oil companies, or the cost to completely change the entire country to an alternate energy source has to do with our discussion. I'm aware that right wingers have trouble staying on subject, but please try.
Your claim was that there are only 74 climate scientists who support climate change, and now you are bringing up a lot more. I found over 200 science organizations who have put out statements agreeing with it. There are thousands of credible scientists represented by these organizations. These are not just some ex employees of each group, but the official statements by the most recognized scientific groups in the world. Are you saying all those groups and the thousands of scientists represented by those groups are all funded by the US government, and they would cease to exist as organizations or that the individual scientists would all lose their jobs if they said differently? If the US government isn't funding and controlling all those groups, who do you think is forcing them to put out statements that you imply are obviously false statements? Who exactly do you think is in charge of this massive conspiracy to defraud the public?

He's gonna want a link. Shut him down with it.

Not yet. I want to be fair and give him every chance to present his viewpoint. I was serious. I'm open to the possibility I could be wrong. I just haven't seen the evidence for that.

Christ there's no way you are wrong.

well, you're consistent with your religious nuttery.

Not sure what religion has to do with it, but OK. Does this mean you no longer care to back up your statements about man made climate change?

Silly rabbit! Why would anyone think that 7 billion tons of greenhouse gasses released every year should have any negative impact on our atmosphere and climate?

Every year almost 7 billion tons of carbon dioxide is released into the a - Pastebin.com