Have you ever met a climate change denier?

HardLoper wrote:

Wait Wait What wrote:

Wait, let me see if I've got this straight.

You don't believe in climate change because only those who really know what they're talking about (i.e., thousands of scientists who study this) have any real evidence. But laymen who don't spend their professional efforts studying this can only point to the experts (i.e., "appeal to authority").

So you are waiting for the non-experts to provide you with the evidence rather than the actual experts?

Do I have that right?

Obviously. Self-proclaimed 'experts' of any religious cult are going to be cult members themselves.

Indeed - Science itself ( with all those pesky self-proclaimed "experts") is a conspiracy!

It's a conspiracy!

Felix4gold wrote:

Small Oil wrote:

Huh, so the democrats are the ones that make scientists then. I didn't know that.

Don't make them, but they sure fund the one's that support their political agenda on climate change.

The scientific community has never been wrong before right?

Exactly! "Scientists" are dummer n dirt!

James Inhofe (R - Oklahoma) wrote:

From Fat Hurts.... wrote:

I love all the LRC RWNJs who are EXPERTS on ALL topics becuase they have spent AT LEAST an hour googling biased terms that will result in searches supporting their tin-foil hat beliefs.

Here is the definitive answer for you all from LRC poster fat hurts....

/EOT

Robert Johnson, co founder of letsrun dot com, Ivy League graduate, disagrees with 99% of scientists, believes oil companies painting it as a hoax or conspiracy

Well, it IS a conspiracy! And I've got a snowball to PROVE it!

Timothy Foyle wrote:

Felix4gold wrote:

Don't make them, but they sure fund the one's that support their political agenda on climate change.

The scientific community has never been wrong before right?

Exactly! "Scientists" are dummer n dirt!

Yup, as Cornell head xc/track coach, that's what I think too!

Uppity Blogger wrote:

Here's a question that has less to do with the science and more with the character of the people behind it:

When Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth came out, making a series of demonstrably false claims (that even Al Gore has since admitted were intentionally exaggerated), and saying that his proof is climate science, all the climate scientists had the chance to publicly stand up against those lies. They didn't.

If I was a scientist, and the former VP of the United States had just won an Oscar for a movie spreading falsehoods about my research, I would consider it my moral obligation to publicly correct him.

Why didn't they? And what does that say about their character and trustworthiness? Or, if they actually believed the stuff in Gore's movie, what does that say about their whole "science"?

See! A conspiracy!

Definitely not science. IT'S A CONSPIRACY!

Timothy Foyle wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:

Because Global Warming isn't science, it's politics.

Once again:

Science is where you observe phenomena, construct a theory to explain it, and then look for any evidence which would disprove your theory. Global Warmists only look for evidence supporting their theory, while ignoring evidence contradicting their conclusions and and attacking those who present it. Therefore Global Warming isn't science.

Global Warming is simultaneously a political movement, a religion, a mythology, a superstition, an apocalyptic cult, and a very big business. But it isn't "science".

Definitely not science. IT'S A CONSPIRACY!

No. It's a fascist political movement, a religion, a mythology, a superstition, an apocalyptic cult, and a very big business. I have to add "fascist" to this because one of the defining elements of the Global Warming movement is that they forcefully shut down all dissent, and seek to punish "deniers".

DiscoGary wrote:

Timothy Foyle wrote:

Definitely not science. IT'S A CONSPIRACY!

No. It's a fascist political movement, a religion, a mythology, a superstition, an apocalyptic cult, and a very big business. I have to add "fascist" to this because one of the defining elements of the Global Warming movement is that they forcefully shut down all dissent, and seek to punish "deniers".

Indeed! A fascist conspiracy with pirates and stuff!

Senator Whitehouse has got to be the worst ever....

Sheldon Whitehouse, the preposterous Democrat senator for Rhode Island, has been preaching to his choir at HuffPo that the only way to deal with those pesky climate change deniers is to pursue them through the courts using RICO laws.

Serious, he wants to make it illegal to disagree with him.

random4 wrote:

I'm still waiting for the climate alarmist to explain why Miami isn't currently underwater...Gore said it would be.

I don't know what Gore said, but won't be surprised when Miami's under water.

random4 wrote:

Senator Whitehouse has got to be the worst ever....

Sheldon Whitehouse, the preposterous Democrat senator for Rhode Island, has been preaching to his choir at HuffPo that the only way to deal with those pesky climate change deniers is to pursue them through the courts using RICO laws.

Serious, he wants to make it illegal to disagree with him.

Fascism.

Uppity Blogger wrote:

When Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth came out, making a series of demonstrably false claims (that even Al Gore has since admitted were intentionally exaggerated), and saying that his proof is climate science, all the climate scientists had the chance to publicly stand up against those lies. They didn't.

You just now did what you've accused Gore of doing.

Robert Johnson and the Senator with the Snowball are smarter than NASA scientists!!!!

More than 99 of 100 scientists agree that climate change is real and is largely due to human use of fossil fuels. The 1%er is paid by big oil but even the big oil companies have had memos leaked back as far as the 1970s showing that they knew there was an atmospheric change caused by their own products.

Whether or not you "believe" climate change is real and caused by humans, you must understand that the current model is unsustainable. The earth took several billion years to lay down deposits of coal and oil. We humans have sucked up at least half of this in about 200 years since the industrial revolution and our usage has grown exponentially during that time. For the math impaired, even if we decrease to 50% of our current use of fossil fuels, we are effectively out of reserves in another 200 years. And THEN we have climate change to worry about.

NotA1%er wrote:

More than 99 of 100 scientists agree that climate change is real and is largely due to human use of fossil fuels. The 1%er is paid by big oil but even the big oil companies have had memos leaked back as far as the 1970s showing that they knew there was an atmospheric change caused by their own products.

.

Everything you said after you initial statement is moot because your initial statement is just crap. Show where 99 of 100 scientists agree. EFFING SHOW IT! Or quit making these asinine claims. So tiring.

Gee. 99%. That's almost unanimous. I guess that means they HAVE to be right.

But before we declare the science "settled" we might want to look back at what they were thinking in the 1970's .

The Cooling World

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

Ooooooo. That sounds VERY scientific. Very official. Good science.

Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.

Hey look! They were unanimous that the world was cooling back in 1970's, and we were all going to starve to death because of it, so they COULDN'T be wrong... right?

So what were they saying we should do about it back then?

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects.

They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve.

So polluting the Artic ice cap was on their short list of solutions, and they were wringing their hands that politicians might not take their advice. Golly, it sure is a good thing we ignored that "almost unanimous" group of scientists back in the 1970's.

SAlly V wrote:

Everything you said after you initial statement is moot because your initial statement is just crap. Show where 99 of 100 scientists agree. EFFING SHOW IT! Or quit making these asinine claims. So tiring.

If most scientists believe that the climate is changing. And most scientists are good scientists so they believe there is a possibility that man has changed the climate somewhat. It follows that, all scientist believe that all climate change is 100% man made. Duh.

Climate change is a science though.