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

[Old Rocks]

The American Institute of Physics is the single largest scientific society on earth. It is a Scientific Society made up of Scientific Societies. Here is their site that addresses the history of the discovery of the effects of GHGs on climate.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

And here is a site that has traced the warming of the earth from satellites since 1979;

UAH Global Temperature Update for January, 2013: +0.51 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

 

[Old Rocks]

And then there is the volume of the Arctic Ice.

Polar Science Center » Arctic Sea Ice Volume Anomaly, version 2

 

[Old Rocks]

A real scientists presentation to other scientists.

A23A

And another scientist presenting known effects of the loss of summer ice in the Arctic.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtRvcXUIyZg]Weather and Climate Summit - Day 5, Jennifer Francis - YouTube[/ame]

You see, sometimes it is best to go to real scientists to see what is being said, rather then what somebody says they are saying.

 

[AmericanFirst]

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.

...so says the village idiot. You are misled completely by your adherence to the liberal bullshit that substantiates the claim that common sense has gone out the window.

When liberalism is the only thing left...I will shoot myself!

What I'm saying is not "liberalism". It's common sense. If what I was saying were "untrue", surely, you could explain why.

A liberal with common sense is as mythical as a unicorn in fairy land.

 

[Freewill]

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.

That is such a huge lie it is amazing that there is anyone so self-righteous to even post it. The left wing is the one that argues out of opinion. You know saying could be is means it could also not be the reason equally.

 

[Old Rocks]

We don't get our science from an obese junkie on the radio. We prefer to see what the working scientists are saying for themselves. But that means reading peer reviewed journals, and the words there at times have more than two syllables, obviously something a 'Conservative' is going to avoid.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

That is such a huge lie it is amazing that there is anyone so self-righteous to even post it. The left wing is the one that argues out of opinion. You know saying could be is means it could also not be the reason equally.

The fossil fuel industry hired exactly the same people that the tobacco companies hired to spread lies, as they had a excellant track record in that department.

 

[Freewill]

A real scientists presentation to other scientists.

A23A

And another scientist presenting known effects of the loss of summer ice in the Arctic.

You see, sometimes it is best to go to real scientists to see what is being said, rather then what somebody says they are saying.

Who pays her to say what she says? A liberal college that is dependent on federal money??? Federal money that would dry up if she said anything else?????

 

[Agit8r]

If one reads the study cited by the article cited, they will find that the headline is not true. There are differences about particulars between scientists within the consensus group. Which is not the same as "global-warming-skepticism"

 

[Freewill]

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.

A couple of questions.

1. How cold should the Earth be and where should it be measured?

2. How is the temperature of the Earth measured now?

3. What DIRECT and PERSONAL impact has GW had on YOU?

I'll bet a whole lot you don't answer any of the above.

 

[Freewill]

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

Maybe not figments of your imaginations, just exaggerations.

 

[Political Junky]

A real scientists presentation to other scientists.

A23A

And another scientist presenting known effects of the loss of summer ice in the Arctic.

You see, sometimes it is best to go to real scientists to see what is being said, rather then what somebody says they are saying.

Who pays her to say what she says? A liberal college that is dependent on federal money??? Federal money that would dry up if she said anything else?????

Those few scientists who deny climate change are paid by Big Oil. I'll go with the majority of academics who use real research.

 

[rdean]

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.

A couple of questions.

1. How cold should the Earth be and where should it be measured?

2. How is the temperature of the Earth measured now?

3. What DIRECT and PERSONAL impact has GW had on YOU?

I'll bet a whole lot you don't answer any of the above.

Those are questions asked by someone who has no idea what "statistical analysis" means. Where should the "ONE SPOT" on the earth be measured? I'm speechless.

 

[rdean]

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.

That is such a huge lie it is amazing that there is anyone so self-righteous to even post it. The left wing is the one that argues out of opinion. You know saying could be is means it could also not be the reason equally.

You're the one that asked the question:

1. How cold should the Earth be and where should it be measured?

Was that a serious question?
If you say "no", then I will ask, "Why ask it?"
If you say "yes", I will spew my coffee across my keyboard.

 

[Nika2013]

Surveyed scientists agree global warming is real -
updated 1:02 a.m. EST, Tue January 20, 2009 CNN
Surveyed scientists agree global warming is real
• Story Highlights
• Most earth scientists believe humans cause of global warming, according to survey
• 97 percent of climatologists canvassed believe humans play a role
• Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters
(CNN) -- Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists. However there remains divisions between climatologists and scientists from other areas of earth sciences as to the extent of human responsibility.


Against a backdrop of harsh winter weather across much of North America and Europe, the concept of rising global temperatures might seem incongruous.
However the results of the investigation conducted at the end of 2008 reveal that vast majority of the Earth scientists surveyed agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.
The study released today was conducted by academics from the University of Illinois, who used an online questionnaire of nine questions. The scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

The study from Forbes was conducted by people in the field of economics and finance.

 

[rdean]

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.

That is such a huge lie it is amazing that there is anyone so self-righteous to even post it. The left wing is the one that argues out of opinion. You know saying could be is means it could also not be the reason equally.

You're the one that asked the question:

1. How cold should the Earth be and where should it be measured?

Was that a serious question?
If you say "no", then I will ask, "Why ask it?"
If you say "yes", I will spew my coffee across my keyboard.

Still waiting for that answer.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We don't get our science from an obese junkie on the radio. We prefer to see what the working scientists are saying for themselves. But that means reading peer reviewed journals, and the words there at times have more than two syllables, obviously something a 'Conservative' is going to avoid.

Michael Mann snickers

 

[bripat9643]

We don't get our science from an obese junkie on the radio. We prefer to see what the working scientists are saying for themselves. But that means reading peer reviewed journals, and the words there at times have more than two syllables, obviously something a 'Conservative' is going to avoid.

You read PAL review journals, not peer reviewed journals. The so-called "scientists" are little more than government propagandists generating propaganda to promote the aims of the socialist bureaucrats who provide them with funding.

 

[bripat9643]

A real scientists presentation to other scientists.

A23A

And another scientist presenting known effects of the loss of summer ice in the Arctic.

You see, sometimes it is best to go to real scientists to see what is being said, rather then what somebody says they are saying.

Who pays her to say what she says? A liberal college that is dependent on federal money??? Federal money that would dry up if she said anything else?????

Those few scientists who deny climate change are paid by Big Oil. I'll go with the majority of academics who use real research.

You mean you go with "scientists" who are paid by Big Government?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

That is such a huge lie it is amazing that there is anyone so self-righteous to even post it. The left wing is the one that argues out of opinion. You know saying could be is means it could also not be the reason equally.

The fossil fuel industry hired exactly the same people that the tobacco companies hired to spread lies, as they had a excellant track record in that department.

People are no longer fooled by these Alinskyite tactics.