Junk science? And your source is what ... Mad Magazine?

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."

 

Climate Change: Consensus

Must be the leading scientists that got stuck in the ice that wasn't supposed to be there. Even Mad Magazine can't write something that hilariously stupid. :lol2:

I'm down to less than 6 years before my house is under water. I need to start on that dyke, shouldn't I?

 

Do you dike? Otherwise, I'm not sure what to think.

Must be the leading scientists that got stuck in the ice that wasn't supposed to be there. Even Mad Magazine can't write something that hilariously stupid. :lol2:

So far your insightful analysis has cited "junk science," "control" and "follow-the-money." Care to offer any specifics? I really don't know what you're talking about, and I wonder whether you do either.

Junk science? And your source is what ... Mad Magazine?

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."

 

Climate Change: Consensus

 

There is no consensus in science, only results. Results that support a hypothesis or results that do not support a hypothesis.

There is no consensus in science, only results. Results that support a hypothesis or results that do not support a hypothesis.

So you're saying that the 97 percent scientist majority is wrong? (My link is to NASA's website -- not some nut-case website.)

So far your insightful analysis has cited "junk science," "control" and "follow-the-money." Care to offer any specifics? I really don't know what you're talking about, and I wonder whether you do either.

Unlike you, I don't subscribe to the "let's just believe whomever shouts the loudest" mindset. I've read, for years now, both sides of the argument. The articles are there, you just have to be willing to do a little work, many were posted on here over the years. I've come to the conclusion that we have climate change that is, for the extreme most, natural cycles. Those that claim there is a consensus don't understand what's posted in post # 34.

The reason it's junk science is, simply put, is no one is saying man doesn't contribute, it's the extent of human influence that is in dispute, and that's where politics come in and the money trail begins.

So you're saying that the 97 percent scientist majority is wrong? (My link is to NASA's website -- not some nut-case website.)

Do you think that would be a first?

Unlike you, I don't subscribe to the "let's just believe whomever shouts the loudest" mindset. I've read, for years now, both sides of the argument. The articles are there, you just have to be willing to do a little work, many were posted on here over the years. I've come to the conclusion that we have climate change that is, for the extreme most, natural cycles. Those that claim there is a consensus don't understand what's posted in post # 34.

The reason it's junk science is, simply put, is no one is saying man doesn't contribute, it's the extent of human influence that is in dispute, and that's where politics come in and the money trail begins.

Let's just cut through the shinola. Provide a link to a recent study (2013) in which a serious scientist lays out a valid argument why the 97 percent is wrong.

Let's just cut through the shinola. Provide a link to a recent study (2013) in which a serious scientist lays out a valid argument why the 97 percent is wrong.

Wrong in what? That man plays a part? What degree? Ah, yeah, that's right, that's the shinola and still being disputed.

So far your insightful analysis has cited "junk science," "control" and "follow-the-money." Care to offer any specifics? I really don't know what you're talking about, and I wonder whether you do either.

 

How about this one? NASA Said this too...

 

"New data shows that in fact the Earth has not warmed at all over the last 15 years. In fact, the Daily Mail reports that the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, after taking data from nearly 30,000 stations around the world, have found that the earth stopped warming in 1997. The report suggests we are headed toward a new solar cycle, Cycle 25, which NASA scientists have predicted will be significantly cooler than Cycle 24 which we are in now. This data largely contradicts the accepted theory among the public that carbon dioxide pollution is causing global warming and even proposes that we are actually heading toward global cooling."

 

A Really Inconvenient Truth: Global Warming is Not Real - PolicyMic

 

Al Gore led the charge because he saw big money.

Global warming because of humans? Seems the only logical solution is to decrease the surplus population!

 

I don't recall George Warshington talking about global warming at valley forge, and he is an American hero. Seems to me that everyone who talks about global warming is a liar or a communist. Al Gore can kiss my dead red behind and fly to the moon all I care.

 

What's wrong with the earth being warmer anyway? There'd be more beaches, and beaches are good for the economy.

I stopped believing NASA scientiest once I found out that they had lied to us about Pluto being a planet.

After the Feds take your guns away, they're coming after your SUVs.

I know this 5 degree weather can sure get you going in the morning, who needs caffeine with these conditions? The last cold spell we had a couple of weeks ago I woke up one morning to go to work and thought to myself, wow it actually feels pretty good out here this morning. Started my car, it was 27 degrees. It's pretty bad when it can still be below freezing and you start to think it's warm. Definitely glad I don't live in Alaska, sounds good in theory but not when you factor in the weather.

As for the argument.....

 

I also feel that everything is cyclical, that's how the universe and more specifically our planet works. Everything is about life cycles, the climate change is no different. Hence the reason we have had multiple ice ages and multiple era's of vast warmth. Everything will cycle back around eventually and the planet will endure another ice age, however it takes tens of thosands of years for these cycles to run their course. Mankind has attributed to certain alterations and deficincies but not to the extent it is led to believe. The weather patterns are more to do with mother nature and the universe than it is what we are doing.

 

But with that said the tinkering our world goverments are doing with the weather is serving no favors to the climate system. With agencies such as HAARP, and other less documented groups their end all outcome may be more detrimental than it is positive (speaking to future generations). Mankind has no business trying to effect or alter the weather or weather patterns. The more we try to influence it ourselves the more it will backfire in the end. Cloud seeding and other weather manipulations will disrupt the natural cycle and could potentially cause the cycle to collapse. I am far more worried about these recent trends than I am a little CO2 in the atmosphere, thats for sure. Mother nature was designed to take care of everything itself, just let it work.