Climatologists, in a frenzied panic to fill the gaping holes in the Earth's climate history, are busy manufacturing models, drawings, artist renderings, and animations on the basis of the weakest evidence imaginable, superficial, conjecturous, and imaginative assumptions, which are then presented to a credulous public as founded on irrefutable scientific evidence and sold as infallible proof for climate change, when in reality no credible evidence for global warming exists at all.
How is this deception perpetuated? Well, just follow the money!
Climate science is funded almost entirely by the government and by special interest foundations with globalist leanings that control the government, such as the Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation, the Ford Foundation, The Rothchilds, and many others.
Funding and sponsorship to almost all organizations involved in climate science, such as universities, laboratories, research organizations, and peer review journals etc, is provided on the condition and mandate of maintaining the status quo and producing and supporting evidence supporting the theory of global warming.
These organizations are mandated to recruit only scientists who wholeheartedly support the theory of global warming; they are hired on the condition of being in support of the global warming hoax, and these organizations are headed up and run by individuals that are already deeply stooped and committed to maintaining the global warming propaganda paradigm.
Much of what affects the interests of the globalist agenda depends on maintaining the climate propaganda hoax in the western world.
By now you're probably thinking this sounds like a typical argument against global warming.
Now take the words "climate science" and "global warming", and replace them with "evolutionary biology" and "evolution", and the above is an actual quote from a website disputing the theory of evolution. If climate denialists are using the same arguments, word for word, as people who claim the Earth is 6000 years old, what does this tell you about the validity of such arguments?
The parallels don't end with this one example. Visit some other creationist websites, and you'll see endless attacks on Richard Dawkins, the figurehead for evolutionary biology. You'll see frequent discussion of Piltdown man, a scientific hoax that really did occur, with the implication being that it discredits an entire branch of science. The parallels here are so obvious, I don't even need to explain them. When science isn't on your side, these are the type of logical fallacies you have to resort to.
Not only do climate denialists use the same "arguments" as people denying other settled sciences, but they are dishonest about irrefutable facts. They frequently claim the Earth hasn't gotten any warmer. You can't argue with historical and present thermometer readings, which is why all scientists agree that the Earth has warmed up 1.53 degrees Fahrenheit in the last century. It's not up for debate whether thermometers are a reliable way to measure temperatures. If they're going to lie about this, why should you believe anything else they say?
Climate denialism isn't a science, and it uses the exact same "rebuttals" that are used in denying other settled scientific theories. "Climate gate" was made up merely to confuse the general public, and the scientists involved were cleared of any wrong doing. The only truth in this story is that a computer security breach occcurred. No major scientific organization disputes the theory of anthropogenic global warming. Visit a climate change website, and you'll see arguments about greenhouse gasses, radiative forcing, radioisotpes in ice core samples, and tree rings; an attempt to actually educate people. Visit a denialist website and you'll see conspiracy theories, discussions of Al Gore's hypocrisy, and outright lies. You'll never find any rebuttals to the ice core studies because the denialists don't talk about science itself. Climate denialism isn't about science, it's about manipulating public opinion to protect the profits of coal and petroleum interests.
From 2003 to 2010, fossil fuel interests spent $558 million on climate denialism. There is indeed a climate scam occurring, it's just not what you're thinking it is,and it's not what Wall Street wants you to think it is. Climate denialism is itself the only real scam going on. Not only is it funded by big oil and rejected by a vast majority of scientists, big it contradicts what science has known since the 1800's.
In 1896, the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first proposed that carbon dioxide caused a greenhouse effect on Earth. He even created a mathematical formula for how many Watts of infrared radiation would be reflected back down to Earth's surface at any given level of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is known as Arrhenius' greenhouse law and it is is still accepted as valid science today. In 1906, he used his mathematical formulas to predict that a doubling of CO2 levels would cause a 1.6 degrees celsius increase in global temperatures, a number that is in agreement with modern IPCC estimates. He even correctly predicted that the poles would warm much more than the Equator. Global warming is no hoax. Scientists have been reaching the exact same conclusions for more than a century, and the debate the debate is over.
Permission given to copy this freely with or without modifications. If you found it persuasive, please pass it along. Given the context, excerpt from liveleak is covered under fair use copyright doctrine. Everyone is entitled to their own religious beliefs about the origins of life; the purpose of these analogies is to demonstrate what is and is not considered a valid argument according to scientific methods.
Dekoda gave you a good answer, go to gov., or org. sites if you care for the facts. Forbes used a blog written by a computer analysts and you take it for fact? It was an article that also used cherry picked papers. They select the few climate change skeptics who's peers have refuted their work. Look who funds those skeptics! The American Petroleum Institute, coal interest groups, Exxon, and the Koch brothers. Even the Heartland Institute who was caught doctoring their documents on global warming!
You should probably read some of the rebuttals to the article.
You should also note that the Forbes article calls the blogger from PopTech an "investigative journalist" when he is a Computer Analyst. And PopTech is pretty much a one man show. He is also notorious for misrepresenting what articles say about global warming.
Trust science, not people who have an agenda.
"Using our paper to support skepticism of anthropogenic global warming is misleading."
-- Professor Richard Zeebe, University of Hawaii
"This is not an accurate representation of my work and I've said so many times to them and in print."
-- Professor Peter deMenocal, of the Earth Institute, Columbia University
"It said nothing about long-term warming trends, and in fact, in the last sentence of the paper, we state, 'This response also cannot be used to explain recent global warming because the 11-year solar cycle has not shown a measurable trend over the past 30 years.'"
-- Gerald Meehl, of the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
There is a strong consensus among scientist that there is climate change and we are at fault. Look around and you have proof.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/0...
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
http://www.realclimate.org/
http://img.youtube.com/vi/ojrw23X63Lw/hq...
Not really.
My first clue would be just looking around.
We've dug out entire mountains, changed the course of rivers or damned them up so they no longer flow as they should, caused wild fires in California (and likely other parts of the world) to happen so often that local plant life can't keep up, destroyed so many miles of rainforests that we likely can't even keep up, turned mass parts of lakes and even parts of the ocean into dead zones, destroyed some of the largest lakes in the world (which are now deserts) and continue to spit out so much smog that some cities can't be seen for it.
Really, it doesn't take much of an einstein to understand that man made climate change is very real. We've done as much damage as many natural disasters, and we're applying it the world over.
Not to mention, there's the little point of the counter-argument.
One that is mostly made up of "Oh, it snowed! Where's your climate change now!"
As well as "A bunch of millionairs and mega corporations say climate change isn't real! Prove them wrong!"
Honestly, I had been wondering about man kinds impact on the world's enviroment as a whole long before it became the major issue it is today. You can't watch but so many of those television shows that applaud coal mines litterallly digging out entire mountains, and so many pictures of boats left stranded in vast deserts before you begin to wonder.
You mean *consensus?
I don't question the existence of climate change because scientists have to be objective in their findings and are the ones to critique and review each other's work before findings can be published.
This is the most pressing reason I believe climate change in contrast to the yet to be proven god.
Here's some reading.
~Aizen
I love it when people use Andrew from PopTech (or whatever his name du jour is) as some sort of credible source. Oh, the irony. Not to mention and article by fossil fuels funded Joseph Bast and James Taylor (or the Canadian "Friends of Science" for that matter) or a creationist meteorologist with a blog.
Science is debated and/or debunked in scientific literature; not in über-conservative blogs/op-eds by fossil fuels funded 'experts'.
Definitely. Are you saying that there isn't one? *Reads links*
Oh, a survey of engineers and geoscientists... How is this relevant to the 97% claim?
No
I was raised in NYC .5 mi from the Atlantic and now I live in FL 3 mi. from the Gulf
Fact
Sea Levels ARE rising and it doesn't matter to me whether or not the cause is natural or man-made
What whole thing?
Cannot access the Wall Street Journal article, BTW
Did you mean consensus? If so, that will not happen, but if it did, I would reconsider. Because I live in a world of facts.
you are such a sheep..why don't you stand on your own two feet for once in your f****** life instead of being a partisan douchebag prick? I'm a minarchist aka a libertarian (not that it matters) and climate change is a scientific fact. if you want to be a partisan douchebag that's your business but don't expect people to treat you like a competent human being because you're not.
No because I don't trust them with my life.
Prpbably, depending on the details of the pro/con.
of course, I always weigh both sides before making a decision & am open to changing my mind given new evidence
it's just that you haven't presented any
who should i believe? people who say it is a hoax that just happen to be paid by the oil and coal industry ( like you ) ? or dedicated scientists who have studied the atmosphere their entire career and make no profit either way .
Yes, because to liberals science is a popularity contest.
Hate to nitpick, but "concusses"??? Jesus dude. That's not even close.
No, they would start by teaching you to spell....consensus ( not concusses)
I try to avoid the opinions of people who are frequently concussed.
Now, I know you probably don't know how this works because you are trying to use science to disprove science, but use .gov or .org sites if you want any credibility. Anyone can write garbage on the internet.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/
http://climatechange.procon.org/#backgro...
http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change...
http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change...
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-conse...
That is your lesson for today. Now read.
NO CLAMTE HSCHANGE IS MAN MADE SHUT HY G ODS I CANT HEAR U OVER THE ICE MELTING
They will never abandon their religion. They will continue to advance it with a fervor that rivals muslim extremists
no, they'd mock and belittle the study!..which is what they are doing NOW!
Your if is full of holes.
no they are sheeple and live in fear constantly!
this question concusses me.
