Remember me
▼ Content

Consensus


Consensus06-08-2019 19:01
olyz
★☆☆☆☆
(72)
Sponsorship by carbon producers is used to discredit anti-climate-change research.

Of the 95% "scientific consensus" for anthropomorphic climate change, what percentage was sponsored by pro-climate-change institutions such as govt agencies, foundations such as the Rockefeller foundation, wealthy individuals with an agenda, politicians such as Al Gore, and Academia.

Can you imagine a researcher at Harvard University finding no significant anthropomorphic climate change and getting published in Scientific American? Perhaps, but there would be a flood of scientific jargon disputing their work, or it would be totally ignored.
06-08-2019 19:42
James___
★★★★☆
(1626)
olyz wrote:
Sponsorship by carbon producers is used to discredit anti-climate-change research.

Of the 95% "scientific consensus" for anthropomorphic climate change, what percentage was sponsored by pro-climate-change institutions such as govt agencies, foundations such as the Rockefeller foundation, wealthy individuals with an agenda, politicians such as Al Gore, and Academia.

Can you imagine a researcher at Harvard University finding no significant anthropomorphic climate change and getting published in Scientific American? Perhaps, but there would be a flood of scientific jargon disputing their work, or it would be totally ignored.



I think the real problem is a depleted ozone layer. The problem with that is that it doesn't leave a historical record because it's in the upper atmosphere.
06-08-2019 20:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
James___ wrote:
olyz wrote:
Sponsorship by carbon producers is used to discredit anti-climate-change research.

Of the 95% "scientific consensus" for anthropomorphic climate change, what percentage was sponsored by pro-climate-change institutions such as govt agencies, foundations such as the Rockefeller foundation, wealthy individuals with an agenda, politicians such as Al Gore, and Academia.

Can you imagine a researcher at Harvard University finding no significant anthropomorphic climate change and getting published in Scientific American? Perhaps, but there would be a flood of scientific jargon disputing their work, or it would be totally ignored.



I think the real problem is a depleted ozone layer. The problem with that is that it doesn't leave a historical record because it's in the upper atmosphere.


The ozone layer is not depleted and never was. As long as you have sunlight and oxygen, you WILL have ozone.


The Parrot Killer
06-08-2019 20:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
olyz wrote: Sponsorship by carbon producers is used to discredit anti-climate-change research.

Because it's all a religion, ergo the warmizombies always have to point to other people who share their beliefs, and to demonize people who don't share their faith. Warmizombies cannot compete in any forum of ideas so they will not engage in any ideas that differ from their religious dogma. Research that leads to conclusions that differ from warmizombie conclusions requires that someone, or some group, be demonized as a pretext for summarily dismissing their research in question.

olyz wrote: Of the 95% "scientific consensus" for anthropomorphic climate change,

Since I don't buy any of the Global Warming crap, I started out picking apart "Anthropomorphic Global Warming" until warmizombies jumped out of the woodwork to express contempt for my insulting use of the wrong name. The correct name, they told me, was "Anthropogenic Global Warming." After rolling my eyes I simply dropped the word altogether. It's just a distraction anyway. It's not like the Anthropogenic Global Warming crowd somehow has some science supporting it.

olyz wrote: Can you imagine a researcher at Harvard University finding no significant anthropomorphic climate change and getting published in Scientific American?

Nope. Most publications have found that there's more money in catering to a target market that is desperate for validation of its religious beliefs. Actual science doesn't have the same draw.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-08-2019 23:19
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
olyz wrote:
Of the 95% "scientific consensus" for anthropomorphic climate change, what percentage


I'd like to know what portion of that 95% actually think it's a crisis. If they can answer anonymously I think it's very few.

It would be like asking a civil engineer if there were contaminants in the cities water supply but they could only say yes or no. Shouldn't you follow up with "is it a problem", "is it possible to have zero contaminants?", "Do you think it's a low level? or a dangerous level?".

Earth has a lot of humans on it. To think we have no impact in existing is a bazaar theory. To think that if we are having an impact that in of itself represents a crisis is even more bazaar.
Edited on 06-08-2019 23:21
07-08-2019 01:14
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
tmiddles wrote:Earth has a lot of humans on it. To think we have no impact in existing is a bazaar theory.

It's the only theory until we define the impact on what.

The only rational position is that humans can have absolutely no impact on that which does not exist.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
07-08-2019 05:33
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
IBdaMann wrote:humans can have absolutely no impact on that which does not exist.
.


It would also follow that other present elements in the system would have an impact.

I like the only theory on dinosaur farts!

Maybe you should post some alerts of the crisis for Earth Aura IBdaMann




Join the debate Consensus:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Scientific Consensus14126-05-2018 20:34
Consensus of Scientists and Proof30705-05-2017 20:09
Where the 97% consensus among scientists comes from3531-12-2016 12:53
THE GLOBAL COOLING CONSENSUS IN THE 1970s3414-03-2016 00:07
There is no Scientific Consensus on Global Warming4929-02-2016 14:36
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact