Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility: Only 1 of 9,136 Recent Peer-Revie

http://desmogblog.com/2014/01/08/wh...y-1-9136-study-authors-rejects-global-warming

We really need to stop pretending man made climate change deniers have any backing in science. They've all swallowed hook line and sinker propaganda from corporations and their political benefactors. And they are actively supporting an environmental change that will have drastic and dangerous affects on the world. It's got to stop. Deny man made climate change all you want. But you cannot possibly claim to be more intelligent and better researched than the people doing these peer reviewed studies.

 

I find it hard to believe someone whose livelihood depends on man made global warming existing when they tell me man made global warming exist. When all you alarmist quit using electricity, driving cars, and return to living in grass huts on the open plains, that's when I start taking you seriously.

 

How exactly does their lively hood depend on man-made global warming existing?

 

There's no proof man has made the earth warm up.

But there is a ton of proof that the earth's climate was going through changes and thus intense weather events long long long LONG before man could have messed things up.

 

9136 scientists in the past year beg to differ.

 

They want funding.

It's like asking a cop if drugs should be illegal or legal. Most will say illegal because they want to keep their jobs.

 

Why is it do you think they don't use the term Global Warming anymore?
Why did it change to climate change?

If Global Warming is the right term why back down on it?

 

They get paid for answers. They get paid regardless of the answer they discover.

- - - Updated - - -

Because climate change more accurately describes what is happening.

 

If you really believe what you're preaching, then shut off the PC and stop posting.

Do your part, and show us how much faith you REALLY have in that consensus. Credibility is calling....

 

Who the hell is James Powell? And why should I believe his study?

Was someone blogging on Desmog blog going to find anything else?

Here is the thing with these idiots. They are social misfits so they actually think that such grand lies will convince people. No! Its unbelievable. They are like a 6 year old making up stores to tell their parents. Little children that never learned how to tell a convincing lie.

Newsflash warmmongers your lies are so over the top no one believes them. 99.9%. Please you cant get that many dentists to agree on toothpaste. Next time you decide to lie and make (*)(*)(*)(*) up make up believable (*)(*)(*)(*). Start at like 65 or 70%. Dont go so overboard that you sound like a a six year old trying to explain how the lamp broke.

 

1. Some would get paid. Others laid off. Making this a top priority gives them a bigger chunk of money than if it were just a fringe topic. Even scientists like money. They aren't in it to be poor.

2. No. It was changed because it is obvious our climate is forever changing. Nobody can disagree with that.

- - - Updated - - -

To the global warmingistas, how do you explain extreme weather events centuries a go? If man wasnt emitting fossil fuels how did it happen?

 

the older right wing are a fading entity - we should just stop listening to them as a whole on social issues such as religion, homosexuality, Israel, abortion, evolution, and Climate Change.

to be in that corner of the debate on all these issues is paramount to thinking the world is still flat.
there is no need to debate this type of thinking - it's primitive and comes from the most disgusting and uneducated part of our history.



the old way of thinking has become a burden on our nation's ability to move forward

 

He provides every bit of data he used in his study. This is what the peer reviewed process is. You're not supposed to trust him. You're supposed to look at his data and make your own conclusion.

 

No some guy on the internet named James Powell posting on a propaganda blog disagrees. Who is James Powell? Who the hell knows. He has a website that looks like it was put together in 1995.

- - - Updated - - -

What data? He lists a (*)(*)(*)(*) ton or articles. Does he expect people with lives to read everyone and confirm?

He is a nobody. A loser. A pathetic no life piece of (*)(*)(*)(*) loser. I dont give a (*)(*)(*)(*) what he says. He can suck my balls.

 

Exactly. Some would get paid regardless. In fact most would get paid regardless. So if the truth was that man made climate change isn't real then we'd see a chunk of scientists saying such. Not less than 1 percent. What you're saying is statistically impossible for every single scientist in the field of climatology to be corrupt.

 

4 Skeptical papers published in the last year

Climate Change and Carbon Dioxide: Geological Perspective
(Energy & Environment, Volume 24, Number 3-4, pp. 361-380, June 2013)
- Harry N. A. Priem

Inconsistency of Modeled and Observed Tropical Temperature Trends
(Energy & Environment, Volume 24, Number 3-4, pp. 405-414, June 2013)
- S. Fred Singer

Reconciling Observations of Global Temperature Change: 2013
(Energy & Environment, Volume 24, Number 3-4, pp. 415-420, June 2013)
- David H. Douglass, John R. Christy

Why Scientists are 'Sceptical' About the AGW Concept
(Energy & Environment, Volume 24, Number 3-4, pp. 551-560, June 2013)
- Arthur Rorsch, Peter A. Ziegler

Since 4 is greater than 1 I guess we can call this internet loser's "study" falsified.

 

Um everyone is corrupt. You could be influenced. Or lose your job. Oh yes there is peer pressure and other pressures.

You still haven't answered my question.

If man couldn't emit fossil fuels how did the earth warm up and cool down and create weather extremes all on its own decades, centuries a go?

 

the Earth hasn't warmed in 15 years.

 

Yes. He is a scientist and this is how the peer review process works. So that's exactly what he expect

http://www.jamespowell.org/Bio/Bio.html

He's published 10 books
He was appointed as a natural science board member by 2 US presidents... Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush
He currently is the executive director of the natural physical science consortium.

>>>Off Topic Removed<<<

- - - Updated - - -

Lots of things influence changes in the earth's atmosphere. In this particular case on this particular day scientists have concluded it is man causing the changes.

 

Doesn't mean they are right. Scientists once believed the earth was flat.

The earth's climate has always been changing. With man living on earth or no man. I don't need scientists to tell me this.

 

you don't represent every single right winger out there - you represent you.
but as a whole, and in general terms, 95% of right wingers will have similar views on most of those topics I listed. you don't think it's a waste of time and resources that in 2014 we are "debating" evolution and Climate Change ?

 

Way to show your cards sparky.

I'm not even a right winger wtf

You just insulted me.

 

Dont be the last guy to jump off the bandwagon Tao. This crisis came and went , as the public wasn't quite as stupid as those who hatched up this scare believed. The information age we are in doesnt lend well to scams.

And this nice little tidbit from the same article.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...-unravels-the-ipcc-is-in-damage-control-mode/

As I said, it's already written on the wall. AGW was a bust....dont be the last guy on the bandwagon.

 

Looking at his books he is a fricking loon.

The inquisitoin of climate science.

2084 the history of the Great Warming.

As I just showed in a quick search 4 papers published this year that are skeptical of AGW. It didn't take me very long to falsify this internet loon.

 

only time i've shown my cards is in nebraska when i earned my 311 from the local police