Exactly. Those fatcat grad students, lighting their cigars with $100 bills, living in luxury in their penthouses while the poor, penniless Exxon executives scrimp and save to try to afford an apartment! It's a tragedy I tell you, all that money going to scientists instead of oil and gas companies.
Here is the article and the methodology used to collect the data for the pie chart. But don't let facts or data influence your predetermined beliefs.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
And here is an article that trashes the consensus cult. But don't let facts or data influence your predetermined beliefs.
No, that's what you think the article does. You think this because you want to be able to discount the possibility that humans can change the environment. Human history does, however, contain just that: changes to the environment. Initially these were caused by fires, and we were using fire as a hunting tool a really long time ago. Unfortunately (for a lot of other animals), we weren't very good at "controlled burns" and a lot of collateral damage was done to the local environment as well. So, to claim that humans are incapable of changing the environment (which includes the climate), is just wrong. History (if it is any kind of consensus), says otherwise. As to the link provided, it does not appear to support one side or the other of the debate. If it trashes the consensus cult, it trashes equally the denialist cult. The article you reference trashes without fear or favour. It's an equal opportunity article, re the trashing.
Could you please explain what is ambigeous about: Interesting, would you be so kind to provide some substantiation. Thanks. Personally I think that the "denialist cult" is explained best by Richard Feynman, it's also known as the scientific method. I wonder if anybody can demonstrate how it was used to substantiate global warming. To explain the consensus cult further, maybe have a look at the memeplex of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.
This is the subtitle of your document. Can you point to where in the paper the scientific explanation is? By "scientific" I mean actual data, collected by reliable sources, and by "explanation" I mean the actual equations, forecasts and so on based on, at least, the laws of thermodynamics. You trust the science of thermodynamics, I assume? From the SpringerLink article: "Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education."
What's ambiguous about it (what is actually intentionally misleading) is that the author later redefines that .3% to mean "scientists who think AGW is dangerous." From the press release for the paper: "The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”. " Which, of course, is a completely different issue.
You'll have to try harder than this. You can be spotted a mile off. How come you can spell hilarious but not spamming? "Pllution dont have nothing with global warming." There are many people in the world who have to speak like that, because they are stupid, or ignorant. Do you think it is amusing to mimic them?
chlorofluorocarbons ( AKA CFCs) are a direct cause of the holes in our ozone layer. i am not aware of ANY naturally occurring CFCs. it's my opinion that most, the overwhelming majority in fact, global warming is caused by humanity and its activities.
Yes I wanted to post one link which debunk consensus yet Im not able due anti spamming politic of forum. Thanks on link.
I read once that all peer review work who support AGW theory was done by 74 scientists. If true that tells a lot.
And what do they predict now? Because monetary incentives and penalties are generally the quickest and easiest way to modify peoples behaviour. Global warming has a number of flow-on effects, on eof the reasons for the name change - because it was quickly realized that calling it 'global warming' paints too simple a picture. Indeed, why not clean the rivers? Were you aware that the incidence of forest fires in the amazon appears to be increasing, that the amazon appears to be drying out, and that it appears to be related to climate change? I'll try and track down a link when I have more time. That's been attempted, with varying degrees of success. There are governments doing exactly that (Norway and Japan). Also, you might want to look into the Sea Shepherd Conserv Rising sea temperatures and ocean acidification are predicted to cause an increase in coral bleaching. Again, there are actually governments that are tackling both of these issues. This sounds like paranoid fantasy to me. Just as well the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis doesn't rely on consensus then. It relies on Physics such as the conservation of mass, the conservation of energy, the Beer-Lambert Law, simple harmonic motion (and consequently, quantum mechanics), the Rayleigh-Jeans law, and the Stefan-Boltzman law, to name a few. Every argument I have seen put forward by opponents of AGW has been examined and discarded over the last hundred years since the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis was first put forward. That increasing the amount of CO[sub]2[/sub] in the atmosphere will cause warming is an inescapable consequence of the laws of physics. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't understand the physics behind the predictions. The only room for debate is how much of that rise in CO[sub]2[/sub] is caused by humans, and how much of that extra heat energy is going to be used to perform work rather than cause warming. If you're going to attempt to employ the Heartland Institutes wedge strategy, you would be better off starting from a plausable start point. Just as well it isn't then. And? Solar variability is accounted for in climate change models. Increased solar activity warms the upper atmosphere, it's true, during periods of elevated solar activity the upper atmosphere expands. Planners at NASA rely on this to deal with defunct satelites. This, however, is not the mechanism by which solar variability is anticipated to influence the climate. Increased sunspot count leads to an increase in the number of bright spots called Faculae, seen as white in this image: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Solar Faculae actually increase the suns output during active periods, but, historically this variation has been measured at only a few p A handful of scientists protested it loudly, among which was Peter Monckton, who isn't actually a scientist. Yes there is. Did you know that the amount of Oxygen in the atmosphere is decreasing as the amount of CO[sub]2[/sub] increases? It's a natural consequence of the conservation of mass as we continue to burn fossil fuels. What you're invoking here is called an "Appeal to nature". Yes, it's always changed, but the fact that it has always changed is not mutually exclusive with the fact that we are causing change. This is just the same as the fact that we are changing the climate is not mutually exclusive with the presence of natural signals in the climate. I've read some of the NIPCC's work and I was not impressed. Were you aware that the NIPCC is funded largely by Tobacco and Oil companies? Is it? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Solar activity peaked in the '60s (Solar cycle 19), has been on the decline since then, with Solar Cycle 24 widely predicted to be a fizzer and falling short of those predictions: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The hypothetical link between GCRs and clouds has never been proven and appears to be missing curcial causal steps. Then why is it warmer now than it was in the '60s? It's more than a working hypothesis, it's what's predicted by the combination of several laws of physics, besides which, climate change models account for solar variability - they take solar input recieved by the earth as their starting point.
If it is accidental, then I apologise. As you read and post more on here, your grammar will improve greatly. But you must at least use an English spelling checker straight away. "Pllution dont have nothing with global warming." The correct way to state this is: "Pollution doesn't have anything to do with global warming"
