Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

[Redfish]

There will be no recovery for the right. They don't believe in science. They think education is for snobs. They aren't qualified for anything. It's why they desperately try to stop any real recovery. They know they won't be part of it.

No, actually the right is for education, what we are against is the liberal indoctrination of our kids, and also teaching social issues instead of math and english.

And yet, it's "open minded" people who make the best inventors and researchers. People willing to look at things from different viewpoints. Republicans want to limit the ability of intellectuals to "evolve". Oops, there goes that word again.

totally wrong on all counts, "tis a talk told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing" did Shakespere know your ancestors?

 

[Missourian]

Never fear...Global Warming Hoaxer's will now claim voraciously a peer reviewed consensus means absolutely nothing.

 

[PredFan]

The right will stop at nothing to prevent good people from finding a solution to the problems that will be wrought by climate change. They are prone to denying data and don't know what "empirical" means. There is no point in arguing with them.

When a sustainable system is developed to counteract the consequences of global warming across the globe, regardless of what the root cause was, the right will have only the left to thank.

Here is what will happen nit wit.

The Global Warming threat will not materialize (because it doesn't really exist) and the left will claim that it was only their adherance to the virtuous fight against it that stopped it.

And people like you will believe it.

 

[PredFan]

Apparently, the thawing of the permafrost, receding glaciers and polar ice cap, are figments of our imagination.

No, they are figmentsd of the left wing propaganda.

Glaciers recede and advance, have been for millenia. The polar ice cap does the same, always has. Probably the same with the permafrost.

 

[Foxfyre]

From the linked article in the OP:

Yes it was a peer reviewed study:

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

And the conclusion:

People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

So yes, perhaps those conservative think tanks and petroleum funded studies have had an effect in actually educating people who once had mostly the leftwing AGW religionists feeding them constant opinion, speculation, and jury-rigged fancy charts and graphs laid at the feet of the great AGW gods? God forbid that both sides of the debate be heard and that anybody be influenced by opposing arguments and choose the better one.

How come those who self righteously accuse studies funded by oil companies or conservative think tanks never question who funds the pro-AGW studies or why they fund them?

When I find scientists who do not personally profit from research or studies favoring AGW who agree that the preponderance of the evidence supports AGW, I will start believing that the AGW religionists have the better argument. As such scientists (that is scientistS (plural)) do not seem to exist, however, I will continue to be skeptical myself.

Skepticism is not denial, however much the religonists wish to portray it that way. Skepticism is the result of considering all available information and evidence and drawing a conclusion that is not supported by those pushing a particular dogma or concept as the whole truth, the real truth, the absolute truth.

 

[PredFan]

Der global warming is a natural cycle der der there's nothing we can do der der der. Guess what righties? EVERYONE FUCKING KNOWS THAT. YOU ARE NOT MAGICALLY ENDOWED WITH THIS GIFT OF KNOWLEDGE.

The cycles of climate coincide with cycles of carbon in the atmoshphere? Huh??? What??? And we are putting carbon in the atmosphere? Excuse me??? No, no I don't see any connection.

It has been proven dozens of times that carbon dioxide FOLLOWS rising temperature, it doesn't precede it.

 

[emptystep]

The right will stop at nothing to prevent good people from finding a solution to the problems that will be wrought by climate change. They are prone to denying data and don't know what "empirical" means. There is no point in arguing with them.

When a sustainable system is developed to counteract the consequences of global warming across the globe, regardless of what the root cause was, the right will have only the left to thank.

Well you know that is not true. Thank the left? When global warming starts the get counteracted the right will say they pushed for it the whole time and that the left is doing it too slowly. And the same brainwashed righties will be posting from the same slanted sources.

 

[PredFan]

From the linked Article:

the rise in disagreement may be a result of increased funding of sceptics by fossil fuel industries, conservative foundations and think tanks

Hilarious! Fucking Hilarious! No wonder right wingers don't like to post links. People like me go READ them.

Should I put that in my signature line? Hmmmm.

Nobody cares dean. fact.

 

[Foxfyre]

P.S. This thread belongs in the environment forum.

 

[lynn63]

Climate is changing all over the world and it is due to all of the activities of living entities on the planet but this has always been the case since the beginning of life. What we can control is the pollution that we are constantly exposed to every day and do something about that. If everyone did this climate change will adjust to those changes too.

 

[Redfish]

The right will stop at nothing to prevent good people from finding a solution to the problems that will be wrought by climate change. They are prone to denying data and don't know what "empirical" means. There is no point in arguing with them.

When a sustainable system is developed to counteract the consequences of global warming across the globe, regardless of what the root cause was, the right will have only the left to thank.

Well you know that is not true. Thank the left? When global warming starts the get counteracted the right will say they pushed for it the whole time and that the left is doing it too slowly. And the same brainwashed righties will be posting from the same slanted sources.

LOL,, you really buy the algore crap don't you? why did the AGW people change from "global warming" to "climate change" ? Because even they realized that the earth is not warming. Now, if they will only realize that man has no affect on the climate of the earth.

look up in the sky, see that big ball of fire called the sun? That is what controlls the earth's climate, not some soccer mom driving an SUV

 

[rdean]

No, actually the right is for education, what we are against is the liberal indoctrination of our kids, and also teaching social issues instead of math and english.

And yet, it's "open minded" people who make the best inventors and researchers. People willing to look at things from different viewpoints. Republicans want to limit the ability of intellectuals to "evolve". Oops, there goes that word again.

totally wrong on all counts, "tis a talk told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing" did Shakespere know your ancestors?

Open mindedness. Evolution of an intellectual. Of course that sounds ridiculous. To Republicans.

Texas GOP rejects ?critical thinking? skills. Really. - The Answer Sheet - The Washington Post

Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

Yes, you read that right. The party opposes the teaching of “higher order thinking skills” because it believes the purpose is to challenge a student’s “fixed beliefs” and undermine “parental authority.”

----------------------------------------------------

Most important to right wingers are "fixed beliefs". And they call me an "idiot". Hilarious!

There is no where to begin. They are walled off from Common Sense.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

From the linked Article:

the rise in disagreement may be a result of increased funding of sceptics by fossil fuel industries, conservative foundations and think tanks

Hilarious! Fucking Hilarious! No wonder right wingers don't like to post links. People like me go READ them.

Yup. I backtrack their posted images to the original source, too. That one graphic on a different thread about the U.K. having the highest rate of "violent crimes" in the world....Daily Mail...sort of like Britiain's version of The Enquirer.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

From the linked Article:

the rise in disagreement may be a result of increased funding of sceptics by fossil fuel industries, conservative foundations and think tanks

Hilarious! Fucking Hilarious! No wonder right wingers don't like to post links. People like me go READ them.

Should I put that in my signature line? Hmmmm.

If one has the money, one can hire any variety of "experts" to produce information that one wants to put forth as proof, data, statistics, etc. Note the operative word here is "hire". When someone is paid to produce data, it is unlikely that they will produce data that is not to the liking of the customer.

So that is why we have to rely on tangible information, such as a satellite photo showing the natural gas flares emanating from the Bakken Field in North Dakota.
Almost as bright and the major metro areas of NY and LA. Take a look at this area on a regular Rand McNally map. It's quite remote. But nah, ....none of this fracking and drilling is impacting our atmosphere....not at all....Here's proof:

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

The right will stop at nothing to prevent good people from finding a solution to the problems that will be wrought by climate change. They are prone to denying data and don't know what "empirical" means. There is no point in arguing with them.

When a sustainable system is developed to counteract the consequences of global warming across the globe, regardless of what the root cause was, the right will have only the left to thank.

Well you know that is not true. Thank the left? When global warming starts the get counteracted the right will say they pushed for it the whole time and that the left is doing it too slowly. And the same brainwashed righties will be posting from the same slanted sources.

LOL,, you really buy the algore crap don't you? why did the AGW people change from "global warming" to "climate change" ? Because even they realized that the earth is not warming. Now, if they will only realize that man has no affect on the climate of the earth.

look up in the sky, see that big ball of fire called the sun? That is what controlls the earth's climate, not some soccer mom driving an SUV

Then why did the sun melt Muir Glacier in Alaska? DID IT GET WARM BY ANY CHANCE? I am sorry scientists didn't stick to global warming, but idiots like yourself couldn't handle it.
Image on the left is from 1891. The right image is 2005.

 

[Missourian]

Well you know that is not true. Thank the left? When global warming starts the get counteracted the right will say they pushed for it the whole time and that the left is doing it too slowly. And the same brainwashed righties will be posting from the same slanted sources.

LOL,, you really buy the algore crap don't you? why did the AGW people change from "global warming" to "climate change" ? Because even they realized that the earth is not warming. Now, if they will only realize that man has no affect on the climate of the earth.

look up in the sky, see that big ball of fire called the sun? That is what controlls the earth's climate, not some soccer mom driving an SUV

Then why did the sun melt Muir Glacier in Alaska? DID IT GET WARM BY ANY CHANCE? I am sorry scientists didn't stick to global warming, but idiots like yourself couldn't handle it.
Image on the left is from 1891. The right image is 2005.

Ever heard of the Ice Age?

How did that happen?

And what melted that ice?

Prehistoric anthropomorphic global warming?

Fred Flintstone's carbon footprint?

Woolly Mammoth farts?

 

[Redfish]

Well you know that is not true. Thank the left? When global warming starts the get counteracted the right will say they pushed for it the whole time and that the left is doing it too slowly. And the same brainwashed righties will be posting from the same slanted sources.

LOL,, you really buy the algore crap don't you? why did the AGW people change from "global warming" to "climate change" ? Because even they realized that the earth is not warming. Now, if they will only realize that man has no affect on the climate of the earth.

look up in the sky, see that big ball of fire called the sun? That is what controlls the earth's climate, not some soccer mom driving an SUV

Then why did the sun melt Muir Glacier in Alaska? DID IT GET WARM BY ANY CHANCE? I am sorry scientists didn't stick to global warming, but idiots like yourself couldn't handle it.
Image on the left is from 1891. The right image is 2005.

So you think that Betty Sue driving her SUV and Wang Chung industries in China buring coal in its boilers caused that glacier to recede. Were those things going on when the last ice age ended? The whole AGW thing is just foolish. No one with a lick of common sense buys that crap.

We all agree that climate is changing, that is obvious. but there is absolutely no proof that man has anything to do with it.

 

[bripat9643]

Open mindedness. Evolution of an intellectual. Of course that sounds ridiculous. To Republicans.

Texas GOP rejects ?critical thinking? skills. Really. - The Answer Sheet - The Washington Post

Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

Yes, you read that right. The party opposes the teaching of “higher order thinking skills” because it believes the purpose is to challenge a student’s “fixed beliefs” and undermine “parental authority.”

----------------------------------------------------

Most important to right wingers are "fixed beliefs". And they call me an "idiot". Hilarious!

There is no where to begin. They are walled off from Common Sense.

If things bore any resemblance to the names that liberals gave them, you might have a point. However, we all know that the labels liberals apply to their schemes are bald faced lies.

 

[Redfish]

From the linked Article:

the rise in disagreement may be a result of increased funding of sceptics by fossil fuel industries, conservative foundations and think tanks

Hilarious! Fucking Hilarious! No wonder right wingers don't like to post links. People like me go READ them.

Should I put that in my signature line? Hmmmm.

If one has the money, one can hire any variety of "experts" to produce information that one wants to put forth as proof, data, statistics, etc. Note the operative word here is "hire". When someone is paid to produce data, it is unlikely that they will produce data that is not to the liking of the customer.

So that is why we have to rely on tangible information, such as a satellite photo showing the natural gas flares emanating from the Bakken Field in North Dakota.
Almost as bright and the major metro areas of NY and LA. Take a look at this area on a regular Rand McNally map. It's quite remote. But nah, ....none of this fracking and drilling is impacting our atmosphere....not at all....Here's proof:

are you saying that bunch of light is changing the climate of the earth? is that your claim?

 

[Old Rocks]

Interesting. Yet there is not one Scientific Society that states that AGW is not a fact. In fact, virtually all state that it is a fact and that it is also a clear and present danger. And there is not even one National Academy of Science that does not state that AGW is a fact, and is changing our climate. Even the National Academy of Sciences of Suadi Arabia states that. Nor is there a single major university that does not state that AGW is a fact.

The American Geophyical Union has more scientists that study climate and it's effects than any other organization in the world. So what is their policy on AGW?

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

Human Impacts on Climate

Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate