Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I have hundreds and hundreds more. You took not even the time to read what they say, and no time at all researching any of them, to find out who they are. Many of them were IPCC members, dipshit.Yeah, they're only "credible" if they fall in line. The ones who aren't afraid to speak out? Who haven't had their careers, their reputations, their very lives threatened? The ones who are no longer being funded to lie?well why don't we take a look at what over 90% of the worlds credible scientists are saying shall we?
These guys and gals? And thousands of others you never hear about?
I am a skeptic Global warming has become a new religion. - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly .As a scientist I remain skeptical. - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.
"Warming fears are the worst scientific scandal in history When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists. - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesnt listen to others. It doesnt have open minds I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists, - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity. - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico
It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who dont buy into anthropogenic global warming. - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will. . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment comparing skeptics to Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet. - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact. - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined. - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.
Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning. - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another .Every scientist knows this, but it doesnt pay to say so Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the drivers seat and developing nations walking barefoot. - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds. - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.
Can you research these and get back to us on their credibility?
no doubt they are credible in the sense that they are educated enough to have an opinion on the subject but I am quite sure that the money that talks has gathered the 5 to 8 % and compiled their opinions as shown here.... and for the other 90%+? - I guess they are just full of shit right?
Choice B is........Let's see... who am I going to take seriously on this subject? -
A. some poster on a message board.
B. over 90% of the worlds credible scientists
it's a tough choice folks.... but I think I'm going with choice B.
Science depends on a majority vote now?I'm sure you do ....and I don't care what they are members of when the majority of their peers hold a different opinion.
Science depends on a majority vote now?I'm sure you do ....and I don't care what they are members of when the majority of their peers hold a different opinion.
You are a complete fucking idiot dupe. But you did get one thing right when you said "I don't care."
Answer this yes or no: Would you like to see Al Gore debate Lord Monckton? If no, why?
I posted more than that, and ha. But then, or course you're deflecting, dodging my question which was:Science depends on a majority vote now?I'm sure you do ....and I don't care what they are members of when the majority of their peers hold a different opinion.
You are a complete fucking idiot dupe. But you did get one thing right when you said "I don't care."
do you have anything better than just your opinion?
You actually don't know what the majority are saying.'Answer this yes or no: Would you like to see Al Gore debate Lord Monckton? If no, why?"
right....I'm deflecting. I will play though.....the answer is no because I could give two shits about Gore and his crusade - I am only interested in what the majority of the scientists are saying and strangely enough I am going to stick with their appraisal of the situation.
The link you posted WAS politics. It wasn't science.I posted a link for you to read. You stick with the politics and I will stick with the science.
Didn't read the linked piece in the OP that covered the research of a scientist, did you?
Didn't think so.
I read it, Jethro.
And that's GlobalClimateWarmerCoolering TRUTHER to you, punkinhead.
Might as well go for all the semantic disparagement gusto you can.
Who said anything about Hayek?
Forget to take your Ritalin, or something?
