National Academy of Sciences: A bunch of fakes!!!

[orogenicman]

The opinion of an individual is NOT the opinion of a scientific organization. Your post is irrelevant.

it is amazing what happens when these folks get away from the money eh? then the truth is exposed. thank you Mr. Koonin!!!! Setting the orangeman down.

Isn't it amazing that when confronted with a challenge to their conspiracy theories, they soil their pants? Name a reputable scientific organization that doesn't acknowledge global warming. Can't do it? Of course you cannot.

dude, you know that isn't the argument. so stick with the correct one. strawman. As has been said too many times in here, the earth has been warming for one million years. Now, prove that adding 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to that warming. That s0n is the argument. now stay on track here, I know you have too many ideas of all of our bathroom habits.

And s0n, I created a thread where you can put that little ole experiment for us all to review.

The crickets are getting louder.

I know, so it proves my point, your side has no factual test that proves the hypothesis you claim. That s0n is LoSiNg big fnnnnn time.

 

[orogenicman]

The crickets are getting louder.

You know darn good and well that the organizations are not going to deny it because of their grant funding from their governments.
IT can only be individual scientists that can do it and then they risk their own funding for their individual grants.

Yeah, we know your argument: its all a friggin conspiracy. There are, in fact, legitimate skeptics within the scientific community. And they aren't afraid to use the system to make their point across, via peer reviewed scientific research. You people aren't skeptics. You aren't even scientists. You are hard core right wing AGW deniers.

Oh, and by the way, it is good to see you admit that you can't name one reputable scientific organization that doesn't acknowledge AGW.

It is not a conspiracy it is a fact, that university funding comes from the government and to keep that grant going they have to come up with studies that continue with what the government wants to hear.
I saw it happen for myself in the University of Denver and the University of Arizona research labs.
Those grants are very specific and detailed in what they are looking for and if you don't go by the rules they ask for, you don't get that grant.

That is not and never has been the way it works. Have you ever applied for a scientific grant? No? of course you haven't. I have.

The crickets are getting louder.

You know darn good and well that the organizations are not going to deny it because of their grant funding from their governments.
IT can only be individual scientists that can do it and then they risk their own funding for their individual grants.

Yeah, we know your argument: its all a friggin conspiracy. There are, in fact, legitimate skeptics within the scientific community. And they aren't afraid to use the system to make their point across, via peer reviewed scientific research. You people aren't skeptics. You aren't even scientists. You are hard core right wing AGW deniers.

Oh, and by the way, it is good to see you admit that you can't name one reputable scientific organization that doesn't acknowledge AGW.

It is not a conspiracy it is a fact, that university funding comes from the government and to keep that grant going they have to come up with studies that continue with what the government wants to hear.
I saw it happen for myself in the University of Denver and the University of Arizona research labs.
Those grants are very specific and detailed in what they are looking for and if you don't go by the rules they ask for, you don't get that grant.

Crickets.

Yes I have done grants.
You will not find a gov. grant for natural vs manmade climate change studies. If you have any post them.
Look it up on the web site.
Here is one example
Search Grants GRANTS.GOV warming
They are looking for green energy on this one.

The ones that you find that says there is not enough data to say it is manmade are from private funding.

 

[jc456]

 

[peach174]

You know darn good and well that the organizations are not going to deny it because of their grant funding from their governments.
IT can only be individual scientists that can do it and then they risk their own funding for their individual grants.

Yeah, we know your argument: its all a friggin conspiracy. There are, in fact, legitimate skeptics within the scientific community. And they aren't afraid to use the system to make their point across, via peer reviewed scientific research. You people aren't skeptics. You aren't even scientists. You are hard core right wing AGW deniers.

Oh, and by the way, it is good to see you admit that you can't name one reputable scientific organization that doesn't acknowledge AGW.

It is not a conspiracy it is a fact, that university funding comes from the government and to keep that grant going they have to come up with studies that continue with what the government wants to hear.
I saw it happen for myself in the University of Denver and the University of Arizona research labs.
Those grants are very specific and detailed in what they are looking for and if you don't go by the rules they ask for, you don't get that grant.

That is not and never has been the way it works. Have you ever applied for a scientific grant? No? of course you haven't. I have.

You know darn good and well that the organizations are not going to deny it because of their grant funding from their governments.
IT can only be individual scientists that can do it and then they risk their own funding for their individual grants.

Yeah, we know your argument: its all a friggin conspiracy. There are, in fact, legitimate skeptics within the scientific community. And they aren't afraid to use the system to make their point across, via peer reviewed scientific research. You people aren't skeptics. You aren't even scientists. You are hard core right wing AGW deniers.

Oh, and by the way, it is good to see you admit that you can't name one reputable scientific organization that doesn't acknowledge AGW.

It is not a conspiracy it is a fact, that university funding comes from the government and to keep that grant going they have to come up with studies that continue with what the government wants to hear.
I saw it happen for myself in the University of Denver and the University of Arizona research labs.
Those grants are very specific and detailed in what they are looking for and if you don't go by the rules they ask for, you don't get that grant.

Crickets.

Yes I have done grants.
You will not find a gov. grant for natural vs manmade climate change studies. If you have any post them.
Look it up on the web site.
Here is one example
Search Grants GRANTS.GOV warming
They are looking for green energy on this one.

The ones that you find that says there is not enough data to say it is manmade are from private funding.

You are the one that is silent with crickets,
Put up government funded study grants that studies natural global warming.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Yeah, we know your argument: its all a friggin conspiracy. There are, in fact, legitimate skeptics within the scientific community. And they aren't afraid to use the system to make their point across, via peer reviewed scientific research. You people aren't skeptics. You aren't even scientists. You are hard core right wing AGW deniers.

Oh, and by the way, it is good to see you admit that you can't name one reputable scientific organization that doesn't acknowledge AGW.

It is not a conspiracy it is a fact, that university funding comes from the government and to keep that grant going they have to come up with studies that continue with what the government wants to hear.
I saw it happen for myself in the University of Denver and the University of Arizona research labs.
Those grants are very specific and detailed in what they are looking for and if you don't go by the rules they ask for, you don't get that grant.

That is not and never has been the way it works. Have you ever applied for a scientific grant? No? of course you haven't. I have.

Yeah, we know your argument: its all a friggin conspiracy. There are, in fact, legitimate skeptics within the scientific community. And they aren't afraid to use the system to make their point across, via peer reviewed scientific research. You people aren't skeptics. You aren't even scientists. You are hard core right wing AGW deniers.

Oh, and by the way, it is good to see you admit that you can't name one reputable scientific organization that doesn't acknowledge AGW.

It is not a conspiracy it is a fact, that university funding comes from the government and to keep that grant going they have to come up with studies that continue with what the government wants to hear.
I saw it happen for myself in the University of Denver and the University of Arizona research labs.
Those grants are very specific and detailed in what they are looking for and if you don't go by the rules they ask for, you don't get that grant.

Crickets.

Yes I have done grants.
You will not find a gov. grant for natural vs manmade climate change studies. If you have any post them.
Look it up on the web site.
Here is one example
Search Grants GRANTS.GOV warming
They are looking for green energy on this one.

The ones that you find that says there is not enough data to say it is manmade are from private funding.

You are the one that is silent with crickets,
Put up government funded study grants that studies natural global warming.

I agree..I believe that grants should be given to people that put up good science, no matter the way it leans. Understanding our climate is something every civilization should do so it can consider where not to build.

 

[Old Rocks]

Peach, you are a silly girl. Why don't you choose a harder question?

Government funded study that studies natural warming. What is a satellite that studies the sun and takes data on the Total Solar Irridiance? For the study of the sun's output is the study of the natural source of heat on the Earth. The other study of natural global warming would be the affect of GHGs on the temperature of the atmosphere.

On the first, solar output, the TSI has actually been declining slightly for the last few years. On the second, we have added 43% more CO2, and 250% more CH4. Now we know that the natural amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was 280 ppm. And that kept the planet at the temperture was about the same as it had been for the last 10,000 years. However, today, that level is over 400 ppm. So we cannot study natural global warming. We can study natural input, TSI, but the natural retention of the heat created on Earth by the sun, is not longer natural. It is a factor of the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere, and that has been changed in a major way by mankinds burning of fossil fuels.

 

[orogenicman]

Yeah, we know your argument: its all a friggin conspiracy. There are, in fact, legitimate skeptics within the scientific community. And they aren't afraid to use the system to make their point across, via peer reviewed scientific research. You people aren't skeptics. You aren't even scientists. You are hard core right wing AGW deniers.

Oh, and by the way, it is good to see you admit that you can't name one reputable scientific organization that doesn't acknowledge AGW.

It is not a conspiracy it is a fact, that university funding comes from the government and to keep that grant going they have to come up with studies that continue with what the government wants to hear.
I saw it happen for myself in the University of Denver and the University of Arizona research labs.
Those grants are very specific and detailed in what they are looking for and if you don't go by the rules they ask for, you don't get that grant.

That is not and never has been the way it works. Have you ever applied for a scientific grant? No? of course you haven't. I have.

Yeah, we know your argument: its all a friggin conspiracy. There are, in fact, legitimate skeptics within the scientific community. And they aren't afraid to use the system to make their point across, via peer reviewed scientific research. You people aren't skeptics. You aren't even scientists. You are hard core right wing AGW deniers.

Oh, and by the way, it is good to see you admit that you can't name one reputable scientific organization that doesn't acknowledge AGW.

It is not a conspiracy it is a fact, that university funding comes from the government and to keep that grant going they have to come up with studies that continue with what the government wants to hear.
I saw it happen for myself in the University of Denver and the University of Arizona research labs.
Those grants are very specific and detailed in what they are looking for and if you don't go by the rules they ask for, you don't get that grant.

Crickets.

Yes I have done grants.
You will not find a gov. grant for natural vs manmade climate change studies. If you have any post them.
Look it up on the web site.
Here is one example
Search Grants GRANTS.GOV warming
They are looking for green energy on this one.

The ones that you find that says there is not enough data to say it is manmade are from private funding.

You are the one that is silent with crickets,
Put up government funded study grants that studies natural global warming.

I suggest you survey the peer reviewed literature, because there are literally hundreds of papers on the subject. You didn't know this? huh.

 

[peach174]

It is not a conspiracy it is a fact, that university funding comes from the government and to keep that grant going they have to come up with studies that continue with what the government wants to hear.
I saw it happen for myself in the University of Denver and the University of Arizona research labs.
Those grants are very specific and detailed in what they are looking for and if you don't go by the rules they ask for, you don't get that grant.

That is not and never has been the way it works. Have you ever applied for a scientific grant? No? of course you haven't. I have.

It is not a conspiracy it is a fact, that university funding comes from the government and to keep that grant going they have to come up with studies that continue with what the government wants to hear.
I saw it happen for myself in the University of Denver and the University of Arizona research labs.
Those grants are very specific and detailed in what they are looking for and if you don't go by the rules they ask for, you don't get that grant.

Crickets.

Yes I have done grants.
You will not find a gov. grant for natural vs manmade climate change studies. If you have any post them.
Look it up on the web site.
Here is one example
Search Grants GRANTS.GOV warming
They are looking for green energy on this one.

The ones that you find that says there is not enough data to say it is manmade are from private funding.

You are the one that is silent with crickets,
Put up government funded study grants that studies natural global warming.

I suggest you survey the peer reviewed literature, because there are literally hundreds of papers on the subject. You didn't know this? huh.

Yes I do know and have read quite a few of them
I put the web link up.
It's up to you now to find a gov. grant study for natural vs manmade climate change studies.

 

[westwall]

I think it's typical for someone from the Right to be against science and what it stands for.

Didn't read the article did ya!

 

[westwall]

It is not a conspiracy it is a fact, that university funding comes from the government and to keep that grant going they have to come up with studies that continue with what the government wants to hear.
I saw it happen for myself in the University of Denver and the University of Arizona research labs.
Those grants are very specific and detailed in what they are looking for and if you don't go by the rules they ask for, you don't get that grant.

That is not and never has been the way it works. Have you ever applied for a scientific grant? No? of course you haven't. I have.

It is not a conspiracy it is a fact, that university funding comes from the government and to keep that grant going they have to come up with studies that continue with what the government wants to hear.
I saw it happen for myself in the University of Denver and the University of Arizona research labs.
Those grants are very specific and detailed in what they are looking for and if you don't go by the rules they ask for, you don't get that grant.

Crickets.

Yes I have done grants.
You will not find a gov. grant for natural vs manmade climate change studies. If you have any post them.
Look it up on the web site.
Here is one example
Search Grants GRANTS.GOV warming
They are looking for green energy on this one.

The ones that you find that says there is not enough data to say it is manmade are from private funding.

You are the one that is silent with crickets,
Put up government funded study grants that studies natural global warming.

I suggest you survey the peer reviewed literature, because there are literally hundreds of papers on the subject. You didn't know this? huh.

And how many of those are "Pal" reviewed? Face it olfraud, the climatologists have so corrupted the peer review process that very few thinking people pay them any mind at all any more.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I was one of those who isn't worried...... LOL. Your education is showing. LOL

and your ignorance is for you as well..

 

[Billy_Bob]

The opinion of an individual is NOT the opinion of a scientific organization. Your post is irrelevant.

So why do you let a small group of individuals MISREPRESENT the majority of those in the group?

 

[Old Rocks]

Now show where the opinion of the people that make the policy of the AGU or GSA is not the opinion of the majority of scientists in those organizations.

 

[Old Rocks]

That is not and never has been the way it works. Have you ever applied for a scientific grant? No? of course you haven't. I have.
Crickets.

Yes I have done grants.
You will not find a gov. grant for natural vs manmade climate change studies. If you have any post them.
Look it up on the web site.
Here is one example
Search Grants GRANTS.GOV warming
They are looking for green energy on this one.

The ones that you find that says there is not enough data to say it is manmade are from private funding.

You are the one that is silent with crickets,
Put up government funded study grants that studies natural global warming.

I suggest you survey the peer reviewed literature, because there are literally hundreds of papers on the subject. You didn't know this? huh.

And how many of those are "Pal" reviewed? Face it olfraud, the climatologists have so corrupted the peer review process that very few thinking people pay them any mind at all any more.

So you say, pretender. That is not what I see at the university.

 

[orogenicman]

That is not and never has been the way it works. Have you ever applied for a scientific grant? No? of course you haven't. I have.
Crickets.

Yes I have done grants.
You will not find a gov. grant for natural vs manmade climate change studies. If you have any post them.
Look it up on the web site.
Here is one example
Search Grants GRANTS.GOV warming
They are looking for green energy on this one.

The ones that you find that says there is not enough data to say it is manmade are from private funding.

You are the one that is silent with crickets,
Put up government funded study grants that studies natural global warming.

I suggest you survey the peer reviewed literature, because there are literally hundreds of papers on the subject. You didn't know this? huh.

Yes I do know and have read quite a few of them
I put the web link up.
It's up to you now to find a gov. grant study for natural vs manmade climate change studies.

Who do you think paid for all those solar satellites and ice cores? Who do you think is paying for the solar?Earth satellite that was launched last week?

 

[orogenicman]

That is not and never has been the way it works. Have you ever applied for a scientific grant? No? of course you haven't. I have.
Crickets.

Yes I have done grants.
You will not find a gov. grant for natural vs manmade climate change studies. If you have any post them.
Look it up on the web site.
Here is one example
Search Grants GRANTS.GOV warming
They are looking for green energy on this one.

The ones that you find that says there is not enough data to say it is manmade are from private funding.

You are the one that is silent with crickets,
Put up government funded study grants that studies natural global warming.

I suggest you survey the peer reviewed literature, because there are literally hundreds of papers on the subject. You didn't know this? huh.

And how many of those are "Pal" reviewed? Face it olfraud, the climatologists have so corrupted the peer review process that very few thinking people pay them any mind at all any more.

I have to assume that you believe that you are the only "thinking person" on the planet, because every published scientist uses the peer review process. You are deluding yourself, and fooling no one. I also have to assume that because you are a moderator, you believe that you are above the rules of the forum. You are not.

 

[orogenicman]

The opinion of an individual is NOT the opinion of a scientific organization. Your post is irrelevant.

So why do you let a small group of individuals MISREPRESENT the majority of those in the group?

Who said I have the power to suppress someone's speech? Are you suggesting that we dump the 1st amendment?

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes I have done grants.
You will not find a gov. grant for natural vs manmade climate change studies. If you have any post them.
Look it up on the web site.
Here is one example
Search Grants GRANTS.GOV warming
They are looking for green energy on this one.

The ones that you find that says there is not enough data to say it is manmade are from private funding.

You are the one that is silent with crickets,
Put up government funded study grants that studies natural global warming.

I suggest you survey the peer reviewed literature, because there are literally hundreds of papers on the subject. You didn't know this? huh.

And how many of those are "Pal" reviewed? Face it olfraud, the climatologists have so corrupted the peer review process that very few thinking people pay them any mind at all any more.

I have to assume that you believe that you are the only "thinking person" on the planet, because every published scientist uses the peer review process. You are deluding yourself, and fooling no one. I also have to assume that because you are a moderator, you believe that you are above the rules of the forum. You are not.

If Westwall has a Phd, I imagine it has been a half century since he has published anything. And, as a mod, he has created more of a rebellion than any other that I have been aware of.

 

[skookerasbil]

FaKeS

These frauds barely carry GED's!!!

Who knew?

Ive been on this forum a few years.......never had my jaw drop that far reading any link associated with climate science. Have read these frauds referenced in here for years............The National Academy of Sciences........to go-to mention by every hard core climate crusader. Turns out I have virtually the same amount of education as these beanheads.

 

[skookerasbil]

In case anybody missed it..........



In contrast to the AMS survey, where all respondents are AMS meteorologists, a majority have Ph.D.s and fully 80% have a Ph.D. or Masters Degree, position statements by organizational bureaucracies carry little scientific weight. For example, a position statement recently published by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and frequently cited as the “definitive” indication of scientific consensus on global warming was authored by a mere 23 persons. Of those 23 persons, only five had Ph.D.s in a field closely related to climate science, an equal number (5) were staffers for environmental activist groups, two were politicians, one was the EPA general counsel under the Clinton administration and 19 of the 23 had already spoken out on behalf of global warming alarmism prior to being chosen for the panel. Clearly the scientific weight of the NAS statement pales in comparison to the AMS meteorologist survey.