Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial thinktanks

daaa those people were on the forefront of science creating a new reality, just as climatologists are on the forefront in projecting climate change and it's causes and the idiot masses are those in denial refusing to accept the new reality...

because you have no clue how science works...

non-theists comprise 20-30% of the world's population and we're growing, the world will be ours by mid century...

 

too funny, denialism sets a new low for stupidity....

 

you accept spencers data ? can you not read his data?...of course I forgot you can't read a grade school level graph....

 

I would suggest you take some basic grade school science before you even think of tackling physics....

 

ya it leaves me speechless too, it's easy to BS on a forum claiming all sorts of incredible credentials but then i think what if they do have them? what kind of school did these dummies attend that would produce such idiots how did they pass any exam, did they really get a degree in science or engineering without being able to read a graph! how is that possible?..

 

Diuretic, Roy is right...

You can make a graph look any way you want, just as you can ask ambiguous questions and misassign the answers to say what you want.

Just as Roy said, a statement like "... human activities affect the global climate", and then characterize the 97% of respondents agreeing with AGW. I would agree that statement is correct, but I disagree with the position taken by AGW alarmists. And so it goes with all these "consensus" efforts.

Their models are wrong, and getting wronger by the day, and the emperical evidence simply doesn't support their overriding position - which is that CO2 will cause run away positive feedbacks and we're all going to burst into flames. There's simply no empirical or scientific evidence to support that.

They keep trying to advance their argument with computer models, proxies, and playing fast and loose with how they treat data - it's all improper and invalid and has been shown to be so by skeptics who have reverse engineered their scams and pointed out the flaws. If a theory can't survive falsification, it has to be abandoned. That's what science is - skepticism. If it stands up?? Fine. If not?? It's out. It's that simple. Positive feedbacks/AGW do not hold up... the empirical evidence shows the feedbacks are negative; and even though we don't understand why they are negative - the fact remains, they are.

There's far too much money to be extracted from public treasuries, and too much power to be gained for government to let scientific facts get in the way of a good crisis. I fully expect this war on energy, a war against all peoples, to be centralized, and that empowered entity will be regulating your life - your thermostat, your driving, your food, etc. That's the goal - power.

 

reduced to a homs because you think a wall stops a car by releasing it;s energy.... funny stuff there

probably the same schools that produce posters who think that walls stop cars by releasing energy

 

really? Any data to back that up or just more "science" from your imagination and emotion

 

china alone a with population of 1.3 billion is 90% atheist, considerably more than your 2%, then there is Japan 96% athiest, vietnam 90% atheist, Thailand 96%, S Korea 70%, N Korea 75%, Sri Lanka 69%, Burma 89% start totally those and number of non theists approach 2 billion....then you can start adding russian and former soveit republics and then add to that north western european countries where non theists are the largest single demographic if not already in majority...canada has already reached an estimated 20-30% and is expected to rise to the majority in only one generation more...

2%

- - - Updated - - -

people who can't read a basic graph shouldn't get into physics...

 

that was Spencer's graph are now claiming Spencer rigged the data?...it quite clearly shows the last 10 years were warmer than the 90's

wist43-"I accept Spencer's data... he's an honest scientist. So, as we continue to run cooler and cooler - I will adjust my misstatement from 70's to 90's, how's that??"


so which is it, can you not read a graph or are you being disingenuous?

 

you just pull numbers out of your ass ? This is off topic but I always source my numbers so I advise you do the same. I enjoy pointing out when people try and make a point by posting BS

Though atheists are in the minority in most countries, they are relatively common in Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, in former and present communist states, and to a lesser extent, in the United States and the Southern Cone. A 1995 survey attributed to the Encyclopædia Britannica indicates that the non-religious are about 14.7% of the world's population, and atheists around 3.8%. Another survey attributed to Britannica shows the population of atheists at around 2.4% of the world's population. It is difficult to determine whether atheism is growing or not. What is certain is that in some areas of the world (such as Europe) atheism and secularization are increasing.
\

http://www.nairaland.com/734872/what-percentage-worlds-population-does

 

Of course no-one wants to diminish their standard of living, totally agree with that. Maybe the question is how we can keep it or make it better and slow down or stop the harm to the environment? I know, easy for me to say, a bland statement, all the rest of it. The problem in this debate is that there are vested interests - good question is cui bono? - and those vested interests are working in the shadows because if they revealed themselves then their side of the debate would lose its power because their arguments would be revealed as self-serving and short-term with total disregard for the future.

BTW I read the Lomborg contribution, going to read it again though, need to understand it before I can get back on it.

 

I'll be frank. No way will I be able to understand the science, the graphs, the statistics - I think my mind just doesn't do numbers. For example, I keep going into pubs and ordering two beers when there's just me, I get one and two confused...but since I ordered the two I suppose I should drink them.....

So I have to rely on my ability - such as it is - to summarise the arguments in my own mind and then evaluate them primarily on the bases of disinterest and prudence. So far the scientists have won my mind on this - I keep seeing too many contributions from those vested interests I mentioned in a previous post.

 

Leave'em debt or leave'em a scorched earth, I always say.

 

I am amused how we westerners categorize anything that is not monotheism, atheism.

 

Seems perfectly logical to me... would love to take that extra beer off of your hands one of these days - always wanted to visit down under. I try to watch a lot of shows about Australia. Very interesting natural resources, topography, wildlife, history.

Well, you've chosen one set of "scientists" to listen to, and you've put your faith in them - if that's where you're determined to stay, i.e. if you won't challenge their science, then you're stuck, and they'll lead where ever they want.

And, as I said... these "scientists" use computer models (GIGO), proxies, and doctored data. Not emperical data - the emperical data they don't want to talk about.

On the other hand, there is an awful lot of good science out there that debunks it all - despite the disparity in funding that goes disproportionately to alarmists. And as the Climategate emails, and any non-orthodox climate scientist will tell, the peer review process and publishing of studies is absolutely rigged to promote AGW, and bury any studies that contradict it.

Again Diuretic, most of the climate models are out Confidence Level ranges - so if your belief is based on the 3 prongs of, climate models, proxies, and doctored data, that would be strike 1. As for proxies - how do they rewrite history, and then say ignore the empirical evidence?? Why would any honest person even accept that?? Strike 2. And doctored data?? All you need to do is look at some of the studies that have been falsified by "skeptic scientists". Strike 3.

As I said though, if you're determined not to challenge the things you believe, or the people you're believing, then your stuck. In science?? You have to challenge everything - the alarmist scientists aren't saying that, they're saying, 'trust me, you don't need to check my homework'... sorry, but that's not good enough.

 

Best things about Australia - flora, fauna and landscape outside of the cities. Once people have seen that bridge, that Opera House and that harbour then they should get away from it and see the natural Australia.

On scientists. It's good that there is disputation because that should - I stress "should" - produce some sort of consensus. Again I'm using that word. But what I'm trying to convey is that after all the valid disputation is done then what is left must be something approximating the truth ("truth" in its concrete form, not in its abstract form) and that should guide policy.

Don't be surprised if I order four beers if you come to the pub with me, bloody numbers.

 

I'm amused when westerners don't what they're talking about...none of the countries i mentioned were polytheistic religions in the majority...non-theists are in the clear majority in each...

 

Britannica 1994 !!!!

Nairaland.com !!! ya and I know a Nigerian prince that wants access to your bank account so he hide his money


here's an article from a christian organization on a poll and even their conservative numbers blows your ridiculous figure to pieces...and as always Christians still don't include Buddhists as atheists, they are.... Buddhism is a philosophy not a true religion, they have no deities...
http://www.christianpost.com/news/china-dominates-worlds-atheist-map-religiosity-declining-in-us-96680/

 

So, give me examples of scientist on the other side who are NOT funded by vested interests or have not been debunked to a fare-thee-well.

There is almost NO "Good science" out there debunking the science. There are a few, confused and contradictory blogs, there are an awful lot of blogs that CLAIM to be "scientific" but are just cherry picking and misquoting

I would LOVE to have someone provide me with real scientific evidence that AGW is not happening

 

And who do you think is funding the so called Climate Change (Formerly Global Warming) hysteria? The answer is George Soros. Since 2009, Soros has invested $10 Million a year into the Climate Change Initiatives, and he also pledged to invest $1 Billion in Clean Energy companies.

 

I've given you plenty.

Right, because alarmist AGW CO2 theory is not science.

See? There you go again. "AGW" is obviously happening, and no doubt there is broad scientific consensus that it is happening. But that is very, very different from the alarmist AGW CO2 theory that unless fossil fuel use is drastically reduced, the CO2 produced by it will create catastrophically warmer global climate within this century.

 

The scientific community that is ringing the alarm bells is INTERNATIONAL - you know as in lots and lots of it are outside of America

ONE American millionaire does not have that much money

 

you gave me plenty

Now how about you give us some validation that the "alarmist AGW CO2 theory" actually exists and is not one giant straw man

 

<yawn> Yep.

?? You can't be serious. What else was the point of the Kyoto Treaty? Hello?