They don't need to tell me that my climate is changing (I accepted that as a fact a long time ago when I was a kid), but then again, all Governments act as a separate entity (person) and try to find ways to be of some importance to its "governed" (the "simple" difference between a liberal and a conservative is the "simple" interpretation of what "governing" means).
The IP CC is an extension of the United Nations which has successfully "governed" its way into people's lives in many unwelcomed ways. The "runaway greenhouse effect" use to be what they were concerned about, but now any change in the weather is considered a reason to maintain their status in the world. 25 years (IP CC established in 1988) is enough for me to be convinced that they no longer need to be funded. They have served their purpose and need to be dissolved IMO.
So will this be the usual empty denier statement or can you actually supply some solid examples to back your claim and quoting Betrand Russell is not really a point. Given what he was actually talking about, this is the source of the quote from 1929
Marriage and Morals (1929) ch. 5, perhaps you would like to claim this is a book about climate or even science, that should be fun to watch.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Marriage_an...
Science is based on through research backed by thousands of peer reviewed papers, you know, those things deniers can never quite manage to get, unless they create their own journal (E&E) We are way passed this childish game of deniers pretending the science is flawed, deniers have tried hundreds of theories going back a decade and the only thing that has fallen apart are those denier theories.
And frankly lies like this don't help your case
"Plus these 'scientists' if you could call them that were highly selected for their viewpoints."
Given the sheer number of scientists involved in both the IPCC reports, there are multiple sections and different groups of scientists from the appropriate fields reporting on each.
fields that ranges from solar activity, sea level, glacial ice, meteorology and atmosphere.
Each field has it's own journals where those scientists work is in turn read and follow up work done with further papers either supporting that previous work or showing how it was wrong, that's really how peer review works, a point denier continue to fail to understand as they also fail to wonder where all the absurd claims they push in blogs are if they had an ounce of credibility why are they not published, simple answer they can't pass even the simplest of checks they are aimed at a public audience in blogs, that have little real understanding of science, as deniers here continue to demonstrate.
This is why there is not one science body that disputes AGW or supports denier BS, you only have to attend a climate conference to see this in reality, the scientists, deniers claim to have, simply don't exist, it's a shell game they have been playing for years and in those years they have never been able to show any real support from the science community. They claim 31,000 (probably more now) yet in a decade have not been able to get even one percent of that number to appear at any climate conference, and deniers continue to simple not question that, does that really sound like any type of skeptic.
Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process. And in one study this "selection" you talk about is that the scientist made a statement in their published peer reviewed paper regarding AGW [1]
You claim that C forgives people of their past sins, you accuse C of following the teachings of Christ and your god (Matthew 6:14-15, Isaiah 1:18) And that Dodo birds were smarter then Jesus and your god?
However I do agree with Bertrand Russell [2], unlike CO2, which is a proven greenhouse gas, there is no evidence for the existence of any of the gods. Your hypothesis that your creator god [3] has his hand on the thermostat" (and fries children if the parents don't give the god enough money or bow deep enough to the god) has not passed peer review.
Last week you once again claimed that my "opposition to murder and the death penalty" is "loving death" No sane person would come to that conclusion. So it leaves me wondering, are you insane, are you lying, or both? Then again no sane person would advocate to "Execute all those (65,915,796 Americans) who voted for OBAMA"
Just for a moment consider that we may need to actually reduce carbon dioxide emissions for legitimate reasons. Can you think of a way that we could do that without the commie pinkos taking over? Let's get creative (pun intended)
How does your complete ignorance of science qualify you know what things should outrage scientists?
>>“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.” <<
Russell was referring to Christian religious belief, not empirical evidence and scientific knowledge. He could just as well have been talking about Deniers, however.
======
Hey Dook is spot on.
The difference between Flat Earthers and AGW Deniers is that we have limited documentation on the individual names and statements of most Flat Earthers. However, future generations will know Denier’s names and will be able to see their lies and witness their stupidity. Deniers will achieve immortality by living on in the jokes and laughter of future generations of school children and adults, and as the subject of university courses (and scientific studies) on the pro-stupid political activism of the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
=====
Billy---
Boy, do you have the wrong guy. I am part of no movement; I’ve never been part of any movement; I’ll never be part of any movement. I do not have them temperament for anything that involves any kind of group – real or virtual.
My life is a testimony to my inability to play well with others. I played pee-wee football and little league baseball for one year, each. I tried Cub Scouts for one year and Boy Scouts for one year. When I was 13 years old, I told my parents that I could not stand another minute of church nonsense. In high school, it was one year of wrestling and one year of tennis. In college, it was one year of lacrosse and I managed to stay in a fraternity for exactly two weeks before quitting. I have never attended a rally or political speech, signed a petition, donated one penny to any group or in support of any cause, and I have never voted for anyone running for anything – ever.
No that is there Bible. The illusion of peer reviewed scientists. Hand pick 95% followers and repeaters and leave 5% to chance thus creating the illusion of "all scientist agree". This one made me laugh because they claim "many 1st time scientists were involved" a lot of new names. Well I'm hear to tell you that is garbage. As all authors of this "new group" are simply working for or under the same names and organizations of the other authors in the past. It would be like writing a consensus paper of baseball and which team is most loved and recycling through Cubs fans at the cubs convention. Wonder what the consensus will be?
Also climate science has one claim to fame. If your a climate scientist and your proving AGW false your hurting the game. This is like a baseball player admitting they are using steroids. We know 80% of them are on steroids but only the ones who don't cover their tracks get caught. In AGW science you have people in a small box sticking to the script. How many people have written books and challenge scientific theories such as how the moon came or how we came to be? What happens to them when they do? They are condemned and laughed at by NASA and the media. No one wants to be the fat kid in class, or at least seen as the fat kid in class. It takes a special breed to stand up and support a different opinion. It is much easier in life to follow the status quo. People gave a false ideology that to be successful and to be liked you simply need to agree. However sometimes a hero comes along and challenges the status quo with his extraordinary amount of research and understanding. He will be condemned hard and will be put in the "bad box" by the masses but eventually if you stay strong and continue your journey you will be heard and loved. Those who are challenging the status quo, growing by the day, are the real heroes of society and eventually we will be the status quo and we will have freedom, real freedom.
David Rockefeller is a major big Whig in AGW, he is spreading the propaganda and funding. He is Obama's puppet master. What are his views on fascism and creating world government. This quote is from his book titled "memoirs".
"For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will.?If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."?
GARY F- You are entitled to your opinion, I will accept it. Just so you know your movement will not succeed and eventually you will come to realize that you have been controlled by the illuminati from cradle to grave. I will fight for you Gary F and will have no remorse and will give you no shame when we are victorious. I feel bad for you and understand you have been manipulated by the illuminati control system which I recently posted again in Chem Flunky's question. Just so you know the good will always prevail. People are waking up like crazy. When I first started posting on YA! everyone told me I am an idiot. Now only 70% of the people say I am an idiot but I have noticed more and more waking up. Jim Z and Sagebrush are prime examples of this, they have evolved. I use to get thumbs down on every answer, talking about the same illuminati "garbage" but now people are giving me thumbs up. This awakening is happening because people are beginning to see the tyranny right in front of their eyes.
The "outrage" at your spending your dotage spouting one dumb copy cat anti-science lie after another here, will come from your descendants. Except that most of them will probably find it more convenient to deny your whole pitiful charade.
Its a We demand you give your soventry to the UN report
to save the Earth garbage.
The climate scientists might want their money back, because the report allows for the possibility of 1.5C temperature gain, and disavows tipping points and extreme weather.
The report was based on a consensus of scientist. It HAS to be correct. Or does consensus only work when it confirms YOUR ideology?
Living in the past instead of becoming aware in the present isn't that like a denier
That report was so juvenile that it wouldn't fool any good sixth grade science class. Shouldn't we be at least asking for our money back? Where is the outrage?
Which part?
No
