"Consensus" of the 97% of climate scientists that 'some' alarmists claim allegiance to the CAGW theory is really made up of scientists who believe that humans only have an impact on the climate. Only about a third of that consensus actually adhere to the catastrophic impact and of those scientists, there are varying degrees of catastrophes. A majority of the consensus (2/3rds) do not adhere and are considered "non-conformists" to the alarmist's viewpoint. IMO most of the 1/3rd that do believe in CAGW are environmental extremists. Bengtsson is not an environmental extremist it seems.
Skepticism is based on the catastrophic aspect of "Climate Change/Global Warming" and the majority of people do not believe that catastrophes are on the horizon. It is a well-known fact that "Global Warming" (not climate change) was initiated as a political objective for Great Britain in order to gain "energy security" from the oil cartels and coal miner's union so they wouldn't control energy costs. Margaret Thatcher challenged the "Royal Society" to prove CO2 was causing "Global Warming" (not climate change). She wanted nuclear energy as GBs main energy source. The challenge continues in proving that "CO2 is a catastrophic GHG and now causes "Climate Change" and "Global Warming" through the heavily political IP CC via the highly political United Nations.
No. Believe it or not, scientists do not have to state the conclusion they will reach before they apply for research funding. They make a proposal of what they will study and why, how much it will cost, and where that money will be spent. They compete against others and an independent panel decides who wins the funding.
Nowhere in the scientific funding process does a climatologists have to say 'and after this research I will agree with AGW'. The fact that scientists do seem to agree that AGW is occurring could actually be due to the fact that they think the evidence supports that conclusion.
No that it total bullsh*t Spiegel is a denier site that will not present the truth and the author ai a diehard denier who isn't worth reading Use your head if it's still attached
Zip....Most scientists aren't alarmists In fact they would prefer not to pro cast catastrophic results.but unfortunately folks like you will cry foul is they don't cry wolf and it does come true The fact that truthful protections may hold dire results, you think are alarmist, are only one version of reality You don't have to subscribe to it but you can't accept reality at any rate
There wont be any funding for climate change and our Satelite reports confirmed end of Global Warming 11/28/2012. Have a nice day. Mike
You guys are still obsessing on Bengsston. How many times are you going to ask the same question?
No, just the ranting of a naive and old scientist, amplified by the deniers.
Of course not.
The politicians in power mostly deny AGW.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integri...
http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/when-...
And scientists who question AGW have no problem finding support networks.
http://heartland.org/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
Here is one that didn't and you never hear of him.
Quote by Will Happer, Princeton University physicist, former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy: “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism....I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect....Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.”
The only ones you hear of are the ones towing the line. That is because the lie has to be maintained and the truth has to be quashed.
Quote by Ross Gelbsan, former journalist: “Not only do journalists not have a responsibility to report what skeptical scientists have to say about global warming. They have a responsibility not to report what these scientists say.”
Quote by Charles Alexander, Time Magazine science editor: “I would freely admit that on [global warming] we have crossed the boundary from news reporting to advocacy.”
So you see the majority of media types hawk GW or climate change and ignore anyone who opposes it.
Joseph Goebbels,
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
No
but cons in the media receive money to say it's not happening and if it is it's natural
‘Cosmos’ Explains How Corporations Fund Science Denial
April 22, 2014 http://billmoyers.com/2014/04/22/the-lat...
and watch Cosmos this Sunday and prepare to have your mind blown
My guess is that this is true.....especially if a scientist is young and not yet tenured.
Toeing the CAGW line is what gains revenue (taxpayer-provided grant money) for scientists and universities.
Always follow the money.
As everyone already realizes, if all taxpayer grants and subsidies were to be pulled, Catastropic, Man-caused, Global Warming would instantly disappear........ Guaranteed!
Isn't it simply amazing that the Alarmist Hippies always resort to ad hominem attacks when an individual or publication disagrees with them? Reminds me of a spoiled brat who holds his breath or throws a tantrum when Mommy won't give him another Twinkie.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/climate-scientists-mixed-over-controversy-surrounding-respected-researcher-a-971033.html
