Are Scientists Preparing for a FlipFlop Back to Global Cooling Predictions?

[JimBowie1958]

Virtually all the Scientific Societies in the world, all the National Academy of Sciences, and all the major Universities in the world have policy statements that say that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

As they once said about an Earth centric universe, dude.

Science is not settled by popular vote nor how many scientific associations agree.

 

[JimBowie1958]

 

[JimBowie1958]

 

[JimBowie1958]

 

[JimBowie1958]

 

[JimBowie1958]

 

[Old Rocks]

Virtually all the Scientific Societies in the world, all the National Academy of Sciences, and all the major Universities in the world have policy statements that say that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

As they once said about an Earth centric universe, dude.

Science is not settled by popular vote nor how many scientific associations agree.

Very stupid thing to say. The church killed some early natural philosophers for stating that the Earth was not the center of the universe. And at the time that you are referring to, there were no scientific societies, just individual people like Galileo and Copernicus.

 

[Old Rocks]

How about links to the sources of those graphs? Or are you ashamed to post the sources?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Regardless, it doesn't hurt to get all that chemical shit out of our atmosphere. If we can eliminate it, why not?

You are talking about CO2, the shyt that plants put into the atmosphere.

Now think about that; how do we get rid of all that chemical shyt unless we....get rid of all the god damned plants?

Plants remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

Please read more scientific journals and less politically-motivated internet "science".

 

[Coloradomtnman]

The oil and coal execs are making much more than a 70-90K a year climatologist. You`re an easily played sucker for the fossil fuel industry. You think? Ever?

Dude, $90k annually is about what an engineer makes.

CEO of all companies/corporations across the board are making far more than $200k, dude.

roflmao

Exactly. Scientists earn much less than oil company execs.

So who has more of a vested interest in lying to the public?

Remember tobacco company execs lying to Congress in an attempt to undermine how science showed that their products caused harm? Lead company execs also attemted to undermine the science showing the harm their product did.

Who is more credible? Scientists whose work must pass rigorous checks before being published, whose motivations are passion and knowledge instead of money, some of whom are liberal and some of whom are conservative, whose results and conclusions are nearly uniform around the globe despite what kind of government grants them their money, whose results have remained consistent whether there was a liberal or conservative government.

Or, CEOs of oil companies whose products scientists have shown to cause harm, who make more money than any other industry, who are business people and not scientists, and whose stances on AGW are not consistent. Some oil companies publicly accept the science.

Or, politicians whose campaigns are funded by oil companies, who have no scientific education, whose views on this subject must reflect that of their constituents or risk destroying their careers. Who have political motivations, and who may very well be corrupt.

Whose more credible?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Virtually all the Scientific Societies in the world, all the National Academy of Sciences, and all the major Universities in the world have policy statements that say that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

As they once said about an Earth centric universe, dude.

Science is not settled by popular vote nor how many scientific associations agree.

Very stupid thing to say. The church killed some early natural philosophers for stating that the Earth was not the center of the universe. And at the time that you are referring to, there were no scientific societies, just individual people like Galileo and Copernicus.

Nothing stupid about it, ignoramus. In the late middle ages and early modern period MOST scientists were in the church in some capacity.

Good greif, ejumakate yerself, bimbo.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The oil and coal execs are making much more than a 70-90K a year climatologist. You`re an easily played sucker for the fossil fuel industry. You think? Ever?

Dude, $90k annually is about what an engineer makes.

CEO of all companies/corporations across the board are making far more than $200k, dude.

roflmao

Exactly. Scientists earn much less than oil company execs.

So who has more of a vested interest in lying to the public?

Remember tobacco company execs lying to Congress in an attempt to undermine how science showed that their products caused harm? Lead company execs also attemted to undermine the science showing the harm their product did.

Who is more credible? Scientists whose work must pass rigorous checks before being published, whose motivations are passion and knowledge instead of money, some of whom are liberal and some of whom are conservative, whose results and conclusions are nearly uniform around the globe despite what kind of government grants them their money, whose results have remained consistent whether there was a liberal or conservative government.

Or, CEOs of oil companies whose products scientists have shown to cause harm, who make more money than any other industry, who are business people and not scientists, and whose stances on AGW are not consistent. Some oil companies publicly accept the science.

Or, politicians whose campaigns are funded by oil companies, who have no scientific education, whose views on this subject must reflect that of their constituents or risk destroying their careers. Who have political motivations, and who may very well be corrupt.

Whose more credible?

Or government scientists who are the tip of the spear for using Climate 'Science' as a propaganda excuse for giving the government control of every aspect of your life, which leftwing politicians are all about.

But of course, actual science would say to look at the facts and not try to telepathically read the minds and hearts of those that do the research, dude.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Regardless, it doesn't hurt to get all that chemical shit out of our atmosphere. If we can eliminate it, why not?

You are talking about CO2, the shyt that plants put into the atmosphere.

Now think about that; how do we get rid of all that chemical shyt unless we....get rid of all the god damned plants?

Plants remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

Please read more scientific journals and less politically-motivated internet "science".

Yes, plants take in CO2, and animals release it.

Either way it is a product of LIVING ORGANISMS, not man made pollution or 'chemical shit' we need to scrub from our atmosphere.

 

[JimBowie1958]

'Rapid cooling' underway: Big Drop In Earth’s June Temperatures According To Satellites

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Regardless, it doesn't hurt to get all that chemical shit out of our atmosphere. If we can eliminate it, why not?

You are talking about CO2, the shyt that plants put into the atmosphere.

Now think about that; how do we get rid of all that chemical shyt unless we....get rid of all the god damned plants?

Plants remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

Please read more scientific journals and less politically-motivated internet "science".

Yes, plants take in CO2, and animals release it.

Either way it is a product of LIVING ORGANISMS, not man made pollution or 'chemical shit' we need to scrub from our atmosphere.

You're right - to a degree. The issue isn't that there is any CO2 in the atmosphere, but that with fossil fuels being burnt at modern rates the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is causing rapidly accelerating warming. The speed at which the warming is happening is a big part of the concerns over climate.