It is obvious to anyone open minded and unbiased, that main stream media and science journals are totally one sided, even the BBC said it no longer needs to allow opposing views on climate change subjects, it is ridiculous totally propaganda, okay maybe the science is correct, but without letting skeptics have a say how can the science be proved.
Top AGW scientists and politicians refuse to debate in public when challenged, that has to tell you something, while Stanford scientist come out with rubbish like 10xfaster warming through climate change (do they live in the same world as us)
It is only because of the internet and blogs do skeptics have a say, everything else is censored.
AGW started (and still is) as an accusation. Media has made the world look much smaller than it really is and tries to control many issues. The mere accusation from a non-scientist Al Gore that the Seas will rise 20 feet by now caused an even bigger scare. He based his science on someone else's science.
It is up to science to prove that humans are causing the planet to warm. They say that there is compelling evidence, yet there is more compelling evidence that nature has its ebbs and flows when it concerns average Global temperatures. This was clearly shown by climate scientists during the Super El Nino Period of 1997-1998 when the temperatures rose by 1C in just over a year. All scientists agree that most of that warming was natural. So what does that say about how responsive the Planet is to natural events?
Trevor: <3A) When challenged, which side produces evidence that supports their claims and 3B) which side tends to change the subject or fail to respond?> Ha! Ha! Coming from you that is hilarious.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...
I have called this question to your attention several times. Did you 'produce evidence to support your claim'? Absolutely not, in fact I PROVED to you that Mickey Mouse was not on the list of 31,000 scientists. I proved the opposite of your claim.
So even by your own standards, you have proven yourself to be a phony.
In direct answer to your question: This can easily be answered by, "Who get's the taxpayer's money? If AGW or ACC didn't exist, who would be out of a fat paying salaried job?"
Quote by James Spann, American Meteorological Society-certified meteorologist: "Billions of dollars of grant money [over $50 billion] are flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story."
Some1: Richard Muller was never a denialist. If you would know Richard you would never say that unless you were Richard himself.
I think you can probably best answer the question by looking at the available evidence rather than asking for opinions – which may be biased one way or another.
Try taking a completely neutral and rational look at the evidence put forward by both sides and the respective claims they make.
? 1) Which side is able to validate their claims best using real-world evidence, observations, demonstrations, scientific principles, established facts etc?
? 2) Which side relies most heavily on opinions as opposed to facts. For example, getting information form journalists and blogs, neither of which have any verification procedures in place and can say pretty much what they want without impunity?
? 3A) When challenged, which side produces evidence that supports their claims and 3B) which side tends to change the subject or fail to respond?
? 4A) Which side turns mostly to the scientists and academics for it’s information. 4B) Which side gets a large amount of the arguments non-scientific sources.
? 5) Which side can put forward the most arguments that the other side consistently fails to refute, and quite often doesn’t make any attempt to do so.
? 6A) Of the different types of argumentative techniques, which side generally opts for the lowest and weakest techniques such as ad-hominem attacks, politicisation, name-calling and criticism of tone rather than 6B) the strongest techniques of refuting the argument and providing sound counterarguments?
You may wish to get a third party to do the comparisons for you, someone who has no opinion about global warming. Show them representative arguments from each side of the debate, let them validate the claims that are being made and they can tell you where the deceit predominantly lies.
EDIT: I’ve now numbered the six points above, I’d be interested to know which of the two sides you consider best fit each of the descriptors.
Trevor, your side failed on all 6 counts IMO. You think you have proved that humans have caused the warming and based on your previous posts, you think that humans have caused warming even recently which is apparently masked by natural cooling, and you think that CO2 has a residence in the atmosphere of 113 years (if memory serves, give or take a little bit). In fact, you don't know and skeptics are correct to be skeptical. Alarmists have to pretend to know things they don't, which is nothing short of deception, because if they expressed doubts and were honest about what is known and what is not known, it would be harder to push their cause.
Hi Rio It's not hard to find out what's really going on with the weather. http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/docum... And this is what they are using now as a tool to amplify and block the jet stream http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/... Here's what Australia is carrying out http://www.australianrain.com.au/trials/... I guess there was a real need to sign this back in the 70's http://www.scribd.com/doc/3436120/UN-197... .The lack of discussion on this mater by climate scientists shows what they are protecting . Cheers
It's all about preparedness. Bush is ready for siege and others aren't. The fact is that day in day out our enjoyed freedoms seem to vanish. Our privacy has become terrorist actions. Social media is now on the floor for debate whether our posts will be subject to government inspection and if found guilty it's prison but there are petitions out there. One is Avaaz.org. Stop CIPA before it's too late.
Your question is hinged on failed logic.
Is a person an alarmist when they warn you that the brakes on your car are badly worn and that they will fail if you do not repair them? Is a person an alarmist when they tell you what the scientific evidence is on adding greenhouse gases to our atmosphere? Scientific evidence that is based on The Laws of Physics, Chemistry and Thermodynamics.
Richard Muller was once a skeptic of the temperature data. He questioned as to how reliable the temperature data would be due to site locations and the heat island effect. He was never in denial of the AGWT. He was just skeptical of the temperature data itself. Richard Muller headed a Berkley Earth study on the temperature data. This study was named the Berkley Earth Surface Temperature project (BEST). The Koch brothers helped to partially fund this project. This had Anthony Watts making the claim that he would stand behind what the BEST project would find in its study. After all, how could he lose on this study? Richard Muller was a well known skeptic of the temperature data and the Koch brothers are well known supporters of any psuedo-science that is used to disclaim the AGWT as a valid theory of science. Are you familiar with the BEST project findings? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Ea... As it turns out, the project discovered that siting showed no real deviations in the temperature data in that poorly sited stations are showing the same degree of warming as well sited stations are. ... Anthony Watts immediately backtracked and remains in denial to this very day.
Now, do you see the difference between what qualifies a person as being a skeptic and what qualifies a person as just being in denial of all of the evidence presented to them?
there is a TON if proof that global warming exists. co2 has the property to cause the greenhouse effect and yes, people are burning way too much fuel. i mean, we already used like half of the earths total supply, which is hundreds of millions worth of of fuel. another proof is the temperature averages from year to year is getting closer and closer to o celsius. you know that right a that tenperature, ice melts, right? RIGHT when it reaches that temperature, a huge chunks of the ocean gets dispersed to the rest of the world. the only ones denying it are christians that still believe a book from 2 millenium ago that says babylonians didnt exist, says you arent allowed to eat fruit, and that you cant use the restroom or youll burn forever in a firey pit of death. they think that global waeming doesnt exist because 'were petty humans that cant make a difference' like seriously?
It isn't so much that alarmist's tell the odd lie, it's more the fact that they do nothing but lie.
Or is it skeptics have the need to succeed? I use that as a hinged comparison...all alarmist call skeptics Deniers.
Its the only way . Alarmist are friends of Stalin and Marxism .
No it's the denialists. I've never seen them use a single fact. Just ad hominems and lies
I'm not deccieving anyone, GW does not exist.
