I'm curious. Do RWs think AGW is a fraud simply because republicans told them it is?

[Siete]

worst co2 in the world ... China

Siete is a shining example of why the AGW cult is losing the war. Everything this ignorant twat posts is a lie. Everyone knows it and thus they also know that he is a liar of the first order.

Thank you for being such an absolute boob!

and thank you for being a DOLT. Some idiots don't understand sarcasm even when you explain it to them, ain't that right Brickwall?

LMAO

You couldn't use sarcasm if your life depended on it twerp. My 8 year old daughter understands it and uses it far better than you ever will. Get used to being a joke.

got em going over here rightwinger ... global warming/obamagas, makes NO difference. Dolts will be dolts ...

LMAO

 

[BULLDOG]

It's fraud because all the fraud that is behind it Billy Boy. Tampered data, political agendas, etc... that's what makes it a fraud. It isn't science, it's a political movement aimed at controlling people's behavior.

So you are saying that 97% of all legitimately recognized climate scientists.....world wide.......are in a massive conspiracy to spread false information? Who is controlling this conspiracy, and why?

Yeah, all 74 of them. Who owe their collective prosperity and professional reputations on the maintenance of the fraud. Add to that the politicians who wish to tax the world to fund whatever BS they want to, and scumbag companies like Goldman Sachs who hope to rake off the hundreds of billions for doing nothing but shuffling paper and you have the motive to perpetuate the biggest fraud ever perpetrated.

Ok. I'll play along for a little while, but I've got a few questions. If you can give me reasonable answers, I'll apologize and admit you are the expert that convinced me.
1. If 97% of all recognized legitimate climate scientists add up to only 74 people that means there are only 77 (rounded up) of them in the world. Is that your claim?
2 Are you saying the 97% would lose their jobs if they didn't publicly agree that climate change is real and man is making it worse?

I have a few more, but lets go slow to be precise and avoid confusion.

 

[OKTexas]

I mean aside from skewed, non-peer-reviewed studies funded by oil companies, republicans are really the only ones saying it is a scam. The rest of the world laughs at them. I don't understand why they dont realize that. Republicans are either willfully ignorant on this issue or they are protecting the interests of big business. Why do you people listen to these corrupt douche bags?

RWs like to cite small studies that conflict with the findings of the 97% global consensus on this issue, but what they fail to realize is that they really don't understand how science works. Most of the studies that conflict with AGW are small in scope and not verified by independent researchers. Without independent verification, it is easy to skew the results of the studies and draw a fallacious conclusion.

Nope, the earths climate has been constantly changing from day one, only the arrogant left can think they can change that.

 

[westwall]

It's fraud because all the fraud that is behind it Billy Boy. Tampered data, political agendas, etc... that's what makes it a fraud. It isn't science, it's a political movement aimed at controlling people's behavior.

So you are saying that 97% of all legitimately recognized climate scientists.....world wide.......are in a massive conspiracy to spread false information? Who is controlling this conspiracy, and why?

Yeah, all 74 of them. Who owe their collective prosperity and professional reputations on the maintenance of the fraud. Add to that the politicians who wish to tax the world to fund whatever BS they want to, and scumbag companies like Goldman Sachs who hope to rake off the hundreds of billions for doing nothing but shuffling paper and you have the motive to perpetuate the biggest fraud ever perpetrated.

Ok. I'll play along for a little while, but I've got a few questions. If you can give me reasonable answers, I'll apologize and admit you are the expert that convinced me.
1. If 97% of all recognized legitimate climate scientists add up to only 74 people that means there are only 77 (rounded up) of them in the world. Is that your claim?
2 Are you saying the 97% would lose their jobs if they didn't publicly agree that climate change is real and man is making it worse?

I have a few more, but lets go slow to be precise and avoid confusion.

The claim that 97% of the worlds scientists agree that AGW exists was promulgated from a survey that was sent out to thousands of scientists. The writers of the survey culled out anyone who hadn't had a climatology paper published in "X" amount of years. Then, they had another criteria which I no longer recall, that reduced it down to 79 climatologists who responded to a two question survey.

Out of that 79 person population only 74 actually agreed with the very poorly worded survey. That's where the meme of the 97% comes from.

Then, Cook and Co. decided to double down on the 97% meme so they generated a new "paper" that supposedly supported it.

Here is a small extract of just one of the many essays that eviscerated Cooks paper.

But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming. [We fell from “97%” to 1.6% pretty fast]

Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.

The 8220 97 of climate scientists agree 8221 meme is 100 false A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"I'm curious. Do RWs think AGW is a fraud simply because republicans told them it is?"

Most conservatives seek to discredit it as a consequence of their unwarranted fear that to address the problem will adversely effect their quality of life and standard of living – which, needless to say, is idiocy.

 

[Siete]

For Pawlenty’s second claim -- that there is dispute about the causes of climate change -- we decided to look at the opinions of world scientists about the issue

A 2010 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - the official publication of the United States National Academy of Sciences - found that out of 1,372 climate researchers surveyed, approximately 97 to 98 percent of those actively publishing in the field said they believe human beings are causing the climate change, which they term anthropogenic (i.e., man-made) climate change. It also concluded that "the relative climate expertise and
scientific prominence" of the researchers unconvinced of man-made climate change are "substantially below that of the convinced researchers."

Based upon the preponderance of evidence we conclude that Tim Pawlenty’s claims are both incorrect and misleading to the public, who may not be familiar with the science behind climate change. It is not "fair to say the science is in dispute," as if there are good arguments on both sides. Rather, there is significant scientific consensus that human beings are contributing to global warming. We rate his statement False

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Funniest part of the OP is linking Billy and "think"

 

[Little-Acorn]

I'm curious.

No, you're trolling.

Do RWs think AGW is a fraud simply because republicans told them it is?

No.

They know it's a fraud, because the global-warming hysterics still haven't proven man has any influence on climate, or can do anything to change it in the future.

In fact, Manmade Global Warming has no factual backing whatsoever.

In truth, climates frequently change.

Sometimes the climate gets warmer.

And sometimes it gets colder.

That's been going on for as long as the planet has been orbiting the Sun. Or, as long as it's had a climate, at least.

And man has never had the slightest influence on it.

Even the leftist hysterics who scream about how we have to use government to change everything, force everyone to go back to the stone age, etc., to prevent some unknown catastrophe, have never been able to come up with even ONE study or example that backs up their claims.

What's funny is that, when they do name some study, it invariably turns out to be nothing but a bunch of long-winded claims which, finally, refer to some other "study" for proof. And what is in that other "study"? You guessed it - more long-winded claims, and eventually a reference to yet another study. And you can guess what is in that one, too.

The leftist global-whatever loons have been insisting on impending doom, and the urgent need to give government massive powers to change every bit of our lives to "avoid" that doom, for at least 40 years by my count. Literally billions of dollars have changed hands - usually into their hands - all over the world. And they still haven't come up with one shred of proof that man has had the least bit of influence on the climate changes that happen regularly around us. Nor is there any proof that man can do anything to change it.

***40 YEARS*** of screaming, caterwauling, and doomsaying. All without the slightest proof. Just references to references to references, ad infinitum. And demands that they be given complete power over all of us, to change what they cannot change.

Is this a record?

But thanks for asking!

 

[BULLDOG]

It's fraud because all the fraud that is behind it Billy Boy. Tampered data, political agendas, etc... that's what makes it a fraud. It isn't science, it's a political movement aimed at controlling people's behavior.

So you are saying that 97% of all legitimately recognized climate scientists.....world wide.......are in a massive conspiracy to spread false information? Who is controlling this conspiracy, and why?

Yeah, all 74 of them. Who owe their collective prosperity and professional reputations on the maintenance of the fraud. Add to that the politicians who wish to tax the world to fund whatever BS they want to, and scumbag companies like Goldman Sachs who hope to rake off the hundreds of billions for doing nothing but shuffling paper and you have the motive to perpetuate the biggest fraud ever perpetrated.

Ok. I'll play along for a little while, but I've got a few questions. If you can give me reasonable answers, I'll apologize and admit you are the expert that convinced me.
1. If 97% of all recognized legitimate climate scientists add up to only 74 people that means there are only 77 (rounded up) of them in the world. Is that your claim?
2 Are you saying the 97% would lose their jobs if they didn't publicly agree that climate change is real and man is making it worse?

I have a few more, but lets go slow to be precise and avoid confusion.

The claim that 97% of the worlds scientists agree that AGW exists was promulgated from a survey that was sent out to thousands of scientists. The writers of the survey culled out anyone who hadn't had a climatology paper published in "X" amount of years. Then, they had another criteria which I no longer recall, that reduced it down to 79 climatologists who responded to a two question survey.

Out of that 79 person population only 74 actually agreed with the very poorly worded survey. That's where the meme of the 97% comes from.

Then, Cook and Co. decided to double down on the 97% meme so they generated a new "paper" that supposedly supported it.

Here is a small extract of just one of the many essays that eviscerated Cooks paper.

But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming. [We fell from “97%” to 1.6% pretty fast]

Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.

The 8220 97 of climate scientists agree 8221 meme is 100 false A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics

Ok. Actually it would be only 93.6% who fell in that category if the numbers in your link are correct. I suspect other things might be wrong with that link as well. However, you did answer the question, and we'll go with that for now, even if I'm not convinced of that yet. You didn't answer my other question though. Do you believe those scientists would lose their jobs if they had another opinion? Exactly what do you think is being used to force them to say what they say, and why?

 

[BULLDOG]

Funniest part of the OP is linking Billy and "think"

Oh great.......I need another stupid statement from you for my sig line. Say something .

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

I mean aside from skewed, non-peer-reviewed studies funded by oil companies, republicans are really the only ones saying it is a scam. The rest of the world laughs at them. I don't understand why they dont realize that. Republicans are either willfully ignorant on this issue or they are protecting the interests of big business. Why do you people listen to these corrupt douche bags?

RWs like to cite small studies that conflict with the findings of the 97% global consensus on this issue, but what they fail to realize is that they really don't understand how science works. Most of the studies that conflict with AGW are small in scope and not verified by independent researchers. Without independent verification, it is easy to skew the results of the studies and draw a fallacious conclusion.

I can't speak for right wingers but objective people realize that loud shouting and consensus are not scientific terms.
Objective laymen yield to experts regardless of numbers and the experts are split on the issue with the most heavily subsidized and propagated on the AGW side. The suspicion that reality raises puts the pragmatists on the side opposing AGW alarmism.

 

[BULLDOG]

Funniest part of the OP is linking Billy and "think"

Never mind I found something.

 

[westwall]

It's fraud because all the fraud that is behind it Billy Boy. Tampered data, political agendas, etc... that's what makes it a fraud. It isn't science, it's a political movement aimed at controlling people's behavior.

So you are saying that 97% of all legitimately recognized climate scientists.....world wide.......are in a massive conspiracy to spread false information? Who is controlling this conspiracy, and why?

Yeah, all 74 of them. Who owe their collective prosperity and professional reputations on the maintenance of the fraud. Add to that the politicians who wish to tax the world to fund whatever BS they want to, and scumbag companies like Goldman Sachs who hope to rake off the hundreds of billions for doing nothing but shuffling paper and you have the motive to perpetuate the biggest fraud ever perpetrated.

Ok. I'll play along for a little while, but I've got a few questions. If you can give me reasonable answers, I'll apologize and admit you are the expert that convinced me.
1. If 97% of all recognized legitimate climate scientists add up to only 74 people that means there are only 77 (rounded up) of them in the world. Is that your claim?
2 Are you saying the 97% would lose their jobs if they didn't publicly agree that climate change is real and man is making it worse?

I have a few more, but lets go slow to be precise and avoid confusion.

The claim that 97% of the worlds scientists agree that AGW exists was promulgated from a survey that was sent out to thousands of scientists. The writers of the survey culled out anyone who hadn't had a climatology paper published in "X" amount of years. Then, they had another criteria which I no longer recall, that reduced it down to 79 climatologists who responded to a two question survey.

Out of that 79 person population only 74 actually agreed with the very poorly worded survey. That's where the meme of the 97% comes from.

Then, Cook and Co. decided to double down on the 97% meme so they generated a new "paper" that supposedly supported it.

Here is a small extract of just one of the many essays that eviscerated Cooks paper.

But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming. [We fell from “97%” to 1.6% pretty fast]

Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.

The 8220 97 of climate scientists agree 8221 meme is 100 false A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics

Ok. Actually it would be only 93.6% who fell in that category if the numbers in your link are correct. I suspect other things might be wrong with that link as well. However, you did answer the question, and we'll go with that for now, even if I'm not convinced of that yet. You didn't answer my other question though. Do you believe those scientists would lose their jobs if they had another opinion? Exactly what do you think is being used to force them to say what they say, and why?

The overwhelming majority of funding for climatologists comes from taxpayers. Politicians fund the grants that pay the climatologists. If there is nothing to fear, then there is no money. Do you see the motivation now?

Then, to take it even further, the politicians wish to tax carbon to further fund their programs that keep getting them elected. So they have a huuuuge incentive to pass legislation to further their political goals. Add to that the scumbag companies like Goldman Sachs (who according to a Rolling Stone article, are responsible more than any other for the multiple balloon bust cycles we've been through) who will get to rake in hundreds of billions from a scheme like that and the motive becomes crystal clear.

As much as I don't like Big Oil....and i really don't, they do at least provide an essential product for the money we give them. Goldman is set to make hundreds of billions for merely shuffling paper from one side of the room to the other.

The most recent IPCC report estimates the cost to change over society to a "renewable" energy system is 76 trillion dollars. That's more than the GDP of the planet by several times. And all along the way wealthy bankers, politicians, bureaucrats and companies who are friends of the politicians involved get to steal your money and the whole stated goal of all of this money redistribution is the lowering of global temperatures by ONE degree in 100 years. Maybe.

Do you really think that a 76 trillion dollar investment, and the reordering of society, all so the super wealthy can become the ridiculously wealthy, with all of the attendant death and destruction that that will cause, is worth it?

Here's the link to the official UN report so you can't say I'm making it up. Feel free to read it.

http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess.pdf

 

[BULLDOG]

So you are saying that 97% of all legitimately recognized climate scientists.....world wide.......are in a massive conspiracy to spread false information? Who is controlling this conspiracy, and why?

Yeah, all 74 of them. Who owe their collective prosperity and professional reputations on the maintenance of the fraud. Add to that the politicians who wish to tax the world to fund whatever BS they want to, and scumbag companies like Goldman Sachs who hope to rake off the hundreds of billions for doing nothing but shuffling paper and you have the motive to perpetuate the biggest fraud ever perpetrated.

Ok. I'll play along for a little while, but I've got a few questions. If you can give me reasonable answers, I'll apologize and admit you are the expert that convinced me.
1. If 97% of all recognized legitimate climate scientists add up to only 74 people that means there are only 77 (rounded up) of them in the world. Is that your claim?
2 Are you saying the 97% would lose their jobs if they didn't publicly agree that climate change is real and man is making it worse?

I have a few more, but lets go slow to be precise and avoid confusion.

The claim that 97% of the worlds scientists agree that AGW exists was promulgated from a survey that was sent out to thousands of scientists. The writers of the survey culled out anyone who hadn't had a climatology paper published in "X" amount of years. Then, they had another criteria which I no longer recall, that reduced it down to 79 climatologists who responded to a two question survey.

Out of that 79 person population only 74 actually agreed with the very poorly worded survey. That's where the meme of the 97% comes from.

Then, Cook and Co. decided to double down on the 97% meme so they generated a new "paper" that supposedly supported it.

Here is a small extract of just one of the many essays that eviscerated Cooks paper.

But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming. [We fell from “97%” to 1.6% pretty fast]

Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.

The 8220 97 of climate scientists agree 8221 meme is 100 false A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics

Ok. Actually it would be only 93.6% who fell in that category if the numbers in your link are correct. I suspect other things might be wrong with that link as well. However, you did answer the question, and we'll go with that for now, even if I'm not convinced of that yet. You didn't answer my other question though. Do you believe those scientists would lose their jobs if they had another opinion? Exactly what do you think is being used to force them to say what they say, and why?

The overwhelming majority of funding for climatologists comes from taxpayers. Politicians fund the grants that pay the climatologists. If there is nothing to fear, then there is no money. Do you see the motivation now?

Then, to take it even further, the politicians wish to tax carbon to further fund their programs that keep getting them elected. So they have a huuuuge incentive to pass legislation to further their political goals. Add to that the scumbag companies like Goldman Sachs (who according to a Rolling Stone article, are responsible more than any other for the multiple balloon bust cycles we've been through) who will get to rake in hundreds of billions from a scheme like that and the motive becomes crystal clear.

As much as I don't like Big Oil....and i really don't, they do at least provide an essential product for the money we give them. Goldman is set to make hundreds of billions for merely shuffling paper from one side of the room to the other.

The most recent IPCC report estimates the cost to change over society to a "renewable" energy system is 76 trillion dollars. That's more than the GDP of the planet by several times. And all along the way wealthy bankers, politicians, bureaucrats and companies who are friends of the politicians involved get to steal your money and the whole stated goal of all of this money redistribution is the lowering of global temperatures by ONE degree in 100 years. Maybe.

Do you really think that a 76 trillion dollar investment, and the reordering of society, all so the super wealthy can become the ridiculously wealthy, with all of the attendant death and destruction that that will cause, is worth it?

Here's the link to the official UN report so you can't say I'm making it up. Feel free to read it.

http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess.pdf

While all that other stuff might be interesting to discuss, we were discussing climate scientists. Try to stay on subject as much as you can.
So you think the only climate scientists in that group are paid by the US government, and that funding will be cut off if they say anything different? What about the ones in other countries? There are lots of them. Does our government fund all the climate research in the world?

 

[DriftingSand]

CO2

You emit CO2 when you exhale. Stop breathing if you think it's bad.

Better yet, breathe on a plant. They love the stuff.

All these GW nuts emit CO2 when they exhale. Imagine if they all voluntarily stopped breathing to prove they believe what they claim CO2 does.

It would certainly be a lot quieter.

Don't count on it happening. Liberals aren't willing to prove with actions what they claim. It's the same with the bleeding hearts and social programs. They're all about helping just with someone else's money.

They just LOVE spending someone else's money.

 

[Avatar4321]

It's a fraud because the temperatures aren't going up and haven't been for a while. Why do you think they changed the name to climate change?

 

[Wyatt earp]

What's more accurate this 1950 analog piece of shit technology

 

[Wyatt earp]

Or this down to a tenth of a degree?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Do you really fucking think 120 years ago a guy reading a thermometer and recording it op is just as accurate as a computer print out from this?

 

[westwall]

Yeah, all 74 of them. Who owe their collective prosperity and professional reputations on the maintenance of the fraud. Add to that the politicians who wish to tax the world to fund whatever BS they want to, and scumbag companies like Goldman Sachs who hope to rake off the hundreds of billions for doing nothing but shuffling paper and you have the motive to perpetuate the biggest fraud ever perpetrated.

Ok. I'll play along for a little while, but I've got a few questions. If you can give me reasonable answers, I'll apologize and admit you are the expert that convinced me.
1. If 97% of all recognized legitimate climate scientists add up to only 74 people that means there are only 77 (rounded up) of them in the world. Is that your claim?
2 Are you saying the 97% would lose their jobs if they didn't publicly agree that climate change is real and man is making it worse?

I have a few more, but lets go slow to be precise and avoid confusion.

The claim that 97% of the worlds scientists agree that AGW exists was promulgated from a survey that was sent out to thousands of scientists. The writers of the survey culled out anyone who hadn't had a climatology paper published in "X" amount of years. Then, they had another criteria which I no longer recall, that reduced it down to 79 climatologists who responded to a two question survey.

Out of that 79 person population only 74 actually agreed with the very poorly worded survey. That's where the meme of the 97% comes from.

Then, Cook and Co. decided to double down on the 97% meme so they generated a new "paper" that supposedly supported it.

Here is a small extract of just one of the many essays that eviscerated Cooks paper.

But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming. [We fell from “97%” to 1.6% pretty fast]

Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.

The 8220 97 of climate scientists agree 8221 meme is 100 false A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics

Ok. Actually it would be only 93.6% who fell in that category if the numbers in your link are correct. I suspect other things might be wrong with that link as well. However, you did answer the question, and we'll go with that for now, even if I'm not convinced of that yet. You didn't answer my other question though. Do you believe those scientists would lose their jobs if they had another opinion? Exactly what do you think is being used to force them to say what they say, and why?

The overwhelming majority of funding for climatologists comes from taxpayers. Politicians fund the grants that pay the climatologists. If there is nothing to fear, then there is no money. Do you see the motivation now?

Then, to take it even further, the politicians wish to tax carbon to further fund their programs that keep getting them elected. So they have a huuuuge incentive to pass legislation to further their political goals. Add to that the scumbag companies like Goldman Sachs (who according to a Rolling Stone article, are responsible more than any other for the multiple balloon bust cycles we've been through) who will get to rake in hundreds of billions from a scheme like that and the motive becomes crystal clear.

As much as I don't like Big Oil....and i really don't, they do at least provide an essential product for the money we give them. Goldman is set to make hundreds of billions for merely shuffling paper from one side of the room to the other.

The most recent IPCC report estimates the cost to change over society to a "renewable" energy system is 76 trillion dollars. That's more than the GDP of the planet by several times. And all along the way wealthy bankers, politicians, bureaucrats and companies who are friends of the politicians involved get to steal your money and the whole stated goal of all of this money redistribution is the lowering of global temperatures by ONE degree in 100 years. Maybe.

Do you really think that a 76 trillion dollar investment, and the reordering of society, all so the super wealthy can become the ridiculously wealthy, with all of the attendant death and destruction that that will cause, is worth it?

Here's the link to the official UN report so you can't say I'm making it up. Feel free to read it.

http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess.pdf

While all that other stuff might be interesting to discuss, we were discussing climate scientists. Try to stay on subject as much as you can.
So you think the only climate scientists in that group are paid by the US government, and that funding will be cut off if they say anything different? What about the ones in other countries? There are lots of them. Does our government fund all the climate research in the world?

They're all inter-related though. Can't discuss one without the other. ALL climatologists get their money from taxpayers. Some (like Mueller from BEST) get additional funding from corporate interests, or wealthy donors. They produce nothing other than paper however. Whether it be from the US or their own countries that is the simple reality. To date the climatologists of the world have received over 100 billion dollars in funding. Far outstripping the amount that Big Oil has spent on countering the fraud.
And, more to the point the US gives grants to scientists all over the world. Phil Jones of East Anglia fame has received millions of US taxpayer dollars over the years.