Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
Written by John Coleman, Weather Channel Founder & Meteorologist.
The following article is reprinted with permission. Visit Coleman's Corner for more articles, posts, and information.
The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax us citizens for our carbon footprints. Only two details stand in the way: the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have led to a rise in public awareness that there is no runaway global warming. A majority of American citizens are now becoming skeptical of the claim that our carbon footprints, resulting from our use of fossil fuels, are going to lead to climatic calamities. But governments are not yet listening to the citizens.
How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government to punish the citizens for living the good life that fossil fuels provide for us?
The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. He served with the Navy in World War II. After the war he became the Director of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute in La Jolla in San Diego, California. Revelle obtained major funding from the Navy to do measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the US military was conducting post war atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the Institute's areas of interest and among others hired Hans Suess, a noted Chemist from the University of Chicago. Suess was very interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle co-authored a scientific paper with Suess in 1957—a paper that raised the possibility that the atmospheric carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. The thrust of the paper was a plea for funding for more studies. Funding, frankly, is where Revelle's mind was most of the time.
Next Revelle hired a Geochemist named David Keeling to devise a way to measure the atmospheric content of Carbon dioxide. In 1958 Keeling published his first paper showing the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and linking the increase to the burning of fossil fuels. These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures.
Back in the1950s, when this was going on, our cities were entrapped in a pall of pollution left by the crude internal combustion engines and poorly refined gasoline that powered cars and trucks back then, and from the uncontrolled emissions from power plants and factories. There was a valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this pollution. As a result a strong environmental movement was developing to demand action.
Government heard that outcry and set new environmental standards. Scientists and engineers came to the rescue. New reformulated fuels were developed, as were new high tech, computer controlled, fuel injection engines and catalytic converters. By the mid seventies cars were no longer significant polluters, emitting only some carbon dioxide and water vapor from their tail pipes. New fuel processing and smoke stack scrubbers were added to industrial and power plants and their emissions were greatly reduced as well.
But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. Roger Revelle’s research at the Scripps Institute had tricked a wave of scientific inquiry. So the concept of uncontrollable atmospheric warming from the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels became the cornerstone issue of the environmental movement. Automobiles and power planets became the prime targets.
Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing. Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants flowed and alarming hypotheses began to show up everywhere.
Roger Revelle, who later apologized for sending the UN IPCC and Al Gore on this wild goose chase called global warming
The Keeling curve continues to show a steady rise in CO2 in the atmosphere during the period since oil and coal were discovered and used by man. Carbon dioxide has increased from the 1958 reading of 315 to 385 parts per million in 2008. But, despite the increases, it is still only a trace gas in the atmosphere. The percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 remains tiny, about 3.8 hundredths of one percent by volume and 41 hundredths of one percent by weight. And, by the way, only a fraction of that fraction is from mankind’s use of fossil fuels. The best estimate is that atmospheric CO2 is 75 percent natural and 25 percent the result of civilization.
Several hypotheses emerged in the 70s and 80s about how this tiny atmospheric component of CO2 might cause a significant warming. But they remained unproven. As years have passed, the scientists have kept reaching out for evidence of the warming and proof of their theories. And, the money and environmental claims kept on building up.
Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a Canadian born United Nation's bureaucrat named Maurice Strong. He was looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in 1970. From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meetings.
Strong developed the concept that the UN could demand payments from the advanced nations for the climatic damage from their burning of fossil fuels to benefit the underdeveloped nations—a sort of CO2 tax that would be the funding for his one-world government. But he needed more scientific evidence to support his primary thesis. So Strong championed the establishment of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC). This was not a pure, “climate study” scientific organization, as we have been led to believe. It was an organization of one-world government UN bureaucrats, environmental activists and environmentalist scientists who craved UN funding so they could produce the science they needed to stop the burning of fossil fuels.
Over the last 25 years the IPCC has been very effective. Hundreds of scientific papers, four major international meetings and reams of news stories about climatic Armageddon later, it has made its points to the satisfaction of most governments and even shared in a Nobel Peace Prize.
At the same time Maurice Strong was busy at the UN, things were getting a bit out of hand for the man who is now called the grandfather of global warming, Roger Revelle. He had been very politically active in the late 1950's as he worked to have the University of California locate a San Diego campus adjacent to Scripps Institute in La Jolla. He won that major war, but lost an all important battle afterward when he was passed over in the selection of the first Chancellor of the new campus.
He left Scripps finally in 1963 and moved to Harvard University to establish a Center for Population Studies. It was there that Revelle inspired one of his students. This student would say later, "It felt like such a privilege to be able to hear about the readouts from some of those measurements in a group of no more than a dozen undergraduates. Here was this teacher presenting something not years old but fresh out of the lab, with profound implications for our future!" The student described him as "a wonderful, visionary professor" who was "one of the first people in the academic community to sound the alarm on global warming." That student was Al Gore. He thought of Dr. Revelle as his mentor and referred to him frequently, relaying his experiences as a student in his book “Earth in the Balance,” published in 1992.
So there it is. Roger Revelle was indeed the grandfather of global warming. His work had laid the foundation for the UN IPCC, provided the anti-fossil fuel ammunition to the environmental movement and sent Al Gore on his road to his books, his movie “An Inconvenient Truth,” his Nobel Peace Prize and a hundred million dollars from the carbon credits business.
The global warming frenzy was becoming the cause célèbre of the media. After all, the media is mostly liberal, loves Al Gore, loves to warn us of impending disasters and tell us "the sky is falling, the sky is falling." The politicians and the environmentalist loved it, too.
But the tide was turning with Roger Revelle. He was forced out at Harvard at 65 and returned to California and a semi retirement position at UCSD. There he had time to rethink Carbon Dioxide and the greenhouse effect. The man who had inspired Al Gore and given the UN the basic research it needed to launch its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was having second thoughts. In 1988 he wrote two cautionary letters to members of Congress. He wrote, "My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways." He added, "…we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer."
And in 1991 Revelle teamed up with Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, to write an article for Cosmos magazine. They urged more research and begged scientists and governments not to move too fast to curb greenhouse CO2 emissions because the true impact of carbon dioxide was not at all certain, and curbing the use of fossil fuels could have a huge, negative impact on the economy, jobs, and our standard of living. Considerable controversy still surrounds the authorship of this article. However, I have discussed this collaboration with Dr. Singer and he assures me that Revelle was considerably more certain than he was at the time that carbon dioxide was not a problem.
Did Roger Revelle attend the summer enclave at the Bohemian Grove in Northern California in 1990 while working on that article? Did he deliver a lakeside speech there to the assembled movers and shakers from Washington and Wall Street in which he apologized for sending the UN IPCC and Al Gore on this wild goose chase about global warming? Did he say that the key scientific conjecture of his lifetime had turned out wrong? The answer to those questions is, "Apparently.” People who were there have told me about that afternoon, but I have not located a transcript or a recording. People continue to share their memories with me on an informal basis. More evidence may be forthcoming.
Roger Revelle died of a heart attack three months after the Cosmos story was printed. Oh, how I wish he were still alive today. He might be able to stop this scientific silliness and end the global warming scam. He might well stand beside me as a global warming denier.
Al Gore has dismissed Roger Revelle’s mea culpa as the actions of a senile old man. The next year, while running for Vice President, he said the science behind global warming is settled and there will be no more debate. From 1992 until today, he and most of his cohorts have refused to debate global warming and when asked about us skeptics, they insult us and call us names.
As the science now stands, the global warming alarmist scientists say the climate is sensitive to a “radiative forcing” effect from atmospheric carbon dioxide which greatly magnifies its greenhouse effect on atmospheric warming. The only proof they can provide of this complex hypothesis is by running it in climate computer models. By starting the models in about 1980 they showed how the continuing increase in CO2 was step with a steady increase in average global temperatures in the 1980s and 1990’s and claim cause and effect. But, in fact, those last two decades of the 20th century were at the peak of a strong 24 year solar cycle, and the temperature increases actually may have been a result of the solar cycle together with related warm cycle ocean current patterns during that period.
That warming ended in 1998 and global temperatures (as measured by satellites) leveled off. Starting in 2002, computer models and reality have dramatically parted company. The models predicted temperatures and carbon dioxide would continue to rise in lock step, but in fact while the CO2 continues to rise, temperatures are in decline. Now global temperatures are in such a nose dive there is wide spread talk from climatologists about an impending ice age. In any case, the UN’s computer model “proof” has gone up in a poof.
Nonetheless, today we have the continued claim that carbon dioxide is the culprit of an uncontrollable, runaway man-made global warming. We are told that when we burn fossil fuels we are leaving a dastardly carbon footprint. And, we are told we must pay Al Gore or the environmentalists for this sinful footprint. Our governments on all levels are considering taxing the use of fossil fuels. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of naming CO2 as a pollutant and strictly regulating its use to protect our climate. The new President and the US Congress are on board. Many state governments are moving on the same course.
We are already suffering from this CO2 silliness in many ways. Our energy policy has been strictly hobbled by the prohibiting of new refineries and of drilling for decades. We pay for the shortage this has created every time we buy gas. On top of that, the whole issue of corn based ethanol costs us millions of tax dollars in subsidies, which also has driven up food prices. All of this is a long way from over.
Yet I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it.
Global Warming: It is a hoax. It is bad science. It is high-jacking public policy. It is the greatest scam in history.
The global climate change industry is worth an annual $1.5 trillion, according to Climate Change Business Journal. That’s the equivalent of $4 billion a day spent on vital stuff like carbon trading, biofuels, and wind turbines. Or — as Jo Nova notes — it’s the same amount the world spends every year on online shopping.
But there’s a subtle difference between these two industries — the global warming one and the online shopping one. Can you guess what it is?
Well, it’s like this. When you go to, say, Charles Tyrwhitt to buy a nice, smart shirt, or Amazon to buy the box set of Game of Thrones, or Krazykrazysextoy.com to replace your girlfriend’s worn out rabbit, no one is holding a gun to your head. You are buying these things of your own free volition either for yourself or for someone you love. You have paid for them, out of your own money, because you have made the calculation that they will make your life that little bit better. Better than it would, say, if you’d kept the money in your bank account or spent it on something less desirable — a novelty dog poo ornament, say, or a handknitted sweater with Jimmy Savile’s face on it and “I HEART paedos” picked out in gold lamé lettering.
When, on the other hand, you buy stuff from the climate change industry, you have no choice in the matter whatsoever. It’s already priced into your taxes, your electricity bills, the cost of your petrol, the cost of your airfare, the cost of every product you buy and every service you use. It is utterly inescapable, this expenditure. Yet unlike your online shopping — which, remember, costs roughly the same as you spend each year on the climate change industry — you get precisely nothing in return.
No, it’s worse than that. You get less than nothing. You get stuff forced on you that you really don’t want: bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco-crucifixes looming on your horizon, keeping you awake, trashing your property values; fields of solar panels where they used to grow wheat or you used to walk your dog; prissy missives from your local council expecting you to be grateful for the fact that now you’ve got to separate your trash into seven different recycling bags rather than the previous five, and that they’re only going to collect your rubbish once a fortnight instead of once a week; teachers filling your kids’ heads with junk science propaganda; free parking slots for electric cars you don’t own but which you subsidise for richer friends who do; feel-bad nature documentaries about how it’s all your fault that this stuff “may” soon disappear; energy-saving lightbulbs that take your nocturnal home back to the kind of sepulchral gloom Western civilisation thought it had bade farewell to in the 1890s; the Prius, the car which recalls the style and comfort of the cars the fall of the Berlin Wall was supposed to have ended; yawning gaps where used to grow the woods which have been chopped down and chipped to create biomass for burning in power stations which used to run more cheaply and efficiently on coal…
Then there are the people who benefit financially from this $1.5 trillion climate change industry: the carbon traders; the dodgy academics; the vulture capitalists pecking on the bloated carcass of renewable energy; the environmental NGOs; the environmental consultancies who specialise in giving “expert” testimony at planning appeals, arguing on the most spurious grounds that no the bats and birds in this area aren’t going to be affected by this new wind turbine they’re going to be happier than ever no really; the sustainability officers at every level of local government; the green advisers attached to every business who advise them how to reduce their CO2 count; the PR companies that specialise in green awareness; Dale Vince….
These people do not deserve your money. Not a penny, a cent, or a sou of it.
Look, I don’t begrudge anyone the right to earn a living — just so long as they’re providing someone, somewhere with something they actually need. Not a single person working in the climate change industry fulfils this criterion. Not one. If you scrapped Michael Mann’s job tomorrow the world would not suffer the slightest loss and science would be all the better for it.
Sure, you might argue, there’s some kind of trickledown effect as the money we’re force to pay these shysters and bludgers and charlatans and scroungers via various taxes and tariffs feeds back into the economy. But you could make the same argument were these people paid the same amount of money by the government to dig holes in the ground and fill them up again — which would be a vastly preferable use of tax payer money because then these utterly useless parasites would be reminded every day how pointless the “work” they do actually is, whereas as things are, many of them suffer under the delusion that their green non-jobs are somehow virtuous and important.
In the headline I call the climate change industry a hoax. That’s because, on any objective level it is. I don’t mean that all the scientists and businesses and politicians promoting it are abject liars — just most of them, even if it means that in order to keep earning their living they have to be dishonest with themselves about something they know in their hearts not to be true.
Alex Epstein, author of the Moral Case For Fossil Fuels, sets out the fundamental problem with the climate change industry here: ..Increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from 0.03 per cent to 0.04 per cent has not caused and is not causing catastrophic runaway global warming. Dishonest references to “97 per cent of scientists” equate a mild warming influence, which most scientists agree with and more importantly can demonstrate, with a catastrophic warming influence – which most don’t agree with and none can demonstrate.
That’s it. If you accept the validity of that statement — and how can you not: it is unimpeachably accurate and verifiable — then it follows that the $1.5 trillion global warming industry represents the most grotesque misuse of manpower and scarce resources in the history of the world.
(CNSNews.com) -- President Obama’s statements on global warming are “dead wrong,” said Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever, who rejected the president's claims that man-made global warming is causing climate change.
“I think Obama is a clever person, but he gets bad advice. Global warming is all wet,” Giaever said in a speech entitled Global Warming Revisited he gave on July 1 to scientists from 90 countries attending the 65th annual Nobel Laureate Meeting in Lindau, Germany.
Giaever, who was born in Norway and became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1964, was one of three recipients of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1973.
Although he endorsed Obama in 2008 along with more than 70 other Nobel-winning scientists, Giaever is now criticizing the president’s statements on climate change -- particularly his 2015 State of the Union remark that “no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change.”
"The biggest problem Obama faces is climate change? How can he say that?" Giaever asked. "I say this to Obama: 'Excuse me, Mr. President, but you're wrong.' He is dead wrong...
"So global warming really starts with these two people: Al Gore and [former United Nations climate head Rajendra] Pachauri," Giaever continued. "And what they did - they made this curve popular...And what did this curve measure? Well, this curve measures what is the average temperature for the world for a whole year...For one year. So there's an average temperature for the whole Earth for one year and that measures in a fraction of a degree.
"So what does that mean? I think probably nothing. Let me talk about that again: From 1880 to 2015, the temperature has increased from 288 K [degrees Kelvin] to 288.8 K - 0.3 percent. I think the temperature has been amazingly stable.
"If I take where I live in Albany, New York, there is roughly an 80 K difference between summer and winter at some time, so would you think that a 0.8 degree average on the Earth makes any difference to the climate in Albany? Is that sensible to you?...
"I would say that global warming basically is a non-problem. Just leave it alone, it will take care of itself,” he added.
On July 3, 36 Nobel laureates attending the meeting signed the Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change, which compared “human-induced climate change” to nuclear war, calling it “another threat of comparable magnitude.”
But Giaever reminded the assembled scientists that climate change “has happened all the time, has happened everywhere, and has nothing to do with global warming.”
“So far we have left the world in a better shape than when we arrived, and this will continue, with one exception: we have to stop wasting a huge, I mean huge, amount of money on global warming. We have to do that,” he said.
Giaever rejected the notion that man-made global warming is an “incontrovertible” truth, telling his Lindau audience that “global warming really has become a new religion. Because you can’t discuss it -- it’s not proper.”
But he said he was concerned about the United Nation’s climate change conference, which will be held in Paris later this year.
“I really worry about that, because when the conference was in Copenhagen, that almost became a disaster but nothing got decided. But now I think the people who are ‘alarmists’ are in a very strong position.” he warned, accusing them of resorting to scare tactics without having temperature data to back up their claims.
“If climate change doesn’t work to scare people, they can scare people by talking about the extreme weather. That must work,” he joked, observing that the U.S. is currently seeing a “low period” in both hurricane and tornado activity.
Giaever resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) in 2011 over its official statement on global warming: “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.”
In an email to APS’ executive director, he wrote: "In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time, and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"
Although APS warned of the dangers of global warming, Giaever pointed out in his speech that there has been only a 0.3% increase in the global average temperature (GAT) between 1880 and 2015 (from 288 to 288.8 Kelvin), which he called “amazingly stable.”
“Everything is going to hell. But the facts are that in the last 100 years we have measured the temperature, it has gone up 0.8 degrees and everything in the world has gotten better...We live better, we have better work, better health, better everything -- but if we go [up] another 0.8 degrees, we’re gonna die, I guess,” he said sarcastically.
Giaever also does not perceive a threat in rising carbon dioxide (CO2) levels, noting that “if you have more CO2 the plant grows faster...It’s a wonderful thing, but they don’t talk about that in Nature magazine, which he accused of wanting to “cash in on the [global warming] fad.”
“I think the average temperature of the Earth is equal to the emperor’s new clothes. There was a boy who cried, ‘The emperor has no clothes on.’ And I would cry out and say you can’t measure the temperature for the whole Earth with such accuracy.”
He added that the "optimal temperature" for the globe has never been establsihed.
“What is the optimal temperature for the Earth? Is it the temperature we have right now? That would be a miracle.” he said. “Maybe it’s two degrees warmer. Maybe it’s two degrees colder. No one has told me what the optimal temperature is for the whole Earth.”
there are a few places on the planet measure temperature to see if their is an overall increase or decrease in temperature ... measure the salinity of the saltwater .... else man-made (look at a jungle add concrete all over it then see what happen ... water absorb or flow ... how much did mommy pay for that college degree? more worried about pollution
there are a few places on the planet measure temperature to see if their is an overall increase or decrease in temperature ... measure the salinity of the saltwater .... else man-made (look at a jungle add concrete all over it then see what happen ... water absorb or flow ... how much did mommy pay for that college degree? more worried about pollution
a taste of home for you johnny the mole ..
you have 60 seconds to translate for us before the mole gets whacked again
by Ian Tuttle October 8, 2015 4:00 AM @iptuttle Unable to address Texas senator Ted Cruz’s questions about “the Pause” — the apparent global-warming standstill, now almost 19 years long — at Tuesday’s meeting of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, Sierra Club president Aaron Mair, after an uncomfortable pause of his own, appealed to authority: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists concur and agree that there is global warming and anthropogenic impact,” he stated multiple times.
The relevant exchange begins at 1:39 (though the whole segment is worth watching):
The myth of an almost-unanimous climate-change consensus is pervasive. Last May, the White House tweeted: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” A few days later, Secretary of State John Kerry announced, “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists tell us this is urgent.”
“Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists” say no such thing.
There are multiple relevant questions: (1) Has the earth generally warmed since 1800? (An overwhelming majority of scientists assent to this.) (2) Has that warming been caused primarily by human activity? And, if (1) and (2), is anthropogenic global warming a problem so significant that we ought to take action?
In 2004, University of California-San Diego professor Naomi Oreskes reported that, of 928 scientific abstracts from papers published by refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, “75% . . . either explicitly or implicitly accept[ed] the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.” Also remarkably, the papers chosen excluded several written by prominent scientists skeptical of that consensus. Furthermore, the claims made in abstracts — short summaries of academic papers — often differ from those made in the papers themselves. And Oreskes’s analysis did not take up whether scientists who subscribe to anthropogenic global warming think the phenomenon merits changes in public policy.
RELATED: On Climate, Science and Politics Are Diverging
The “97 percent” statistic first appeared prominently in a 2009 study by University of Illinois master’s student Kendall Zimmerman and her adviser, Peter Doran. Based on a two-question online survey, Zimmerman and Doran concluded that “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific bases of long-term climate processes” — even though only 5 percent of respondents, or about 160 scientists, were climate scientists. In fact, the “97 percent” statistic was drawn from an even smaller subset: the 79 respondents who were both self-reported climate scientists and had “published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” These 77 scientists agreed that global temperatures had generally risen since 1800, and that human activity is a “significant contributing factor.”
A year later, William R. Love Anderegg, a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to determine that “97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” The sample size did not much improve on Zimmerman and Doran’s: Anderegg surveyed about 200 scientists. Share article on Facebook share Tweet article tweet Surely the most suspicious “97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and creator of the blog Skeptical Science (subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”). In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed.
Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded.
Studies showing a wider range of opinion often go unremarked. A 2008 survey by two German scientists, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, found that a significant number of scientists were skeptical of the ability of existing global climate models to accurately predict global temperatures, precipitation, sea-level changes, or extreme weather events even over a decade; they were far more skeptical as the time horizon increased. Most did express concerns about global warming and a desire for “immediate action to mitigate climate change” — but not 97 percent.
More Global Warming The ‘Settled’ Consensus du Jour Earth Day Betrayed Krauthammer: ‘Impeachable’ if Obama Actually Prosecutes Climate Skeptics A 2012 poll of American Meteorological Society members also reported a diversity of opinion. Of the 1,862 members who responded (a quarter of the organization), 59 percent stated that human activity was the primary cause of global warming, and 11 percent attributed the phenomenon to human activity and natural causes in about equal measure, while just under a quarter (23 percent) said enough is not yet known to make any determination. Seventy-six percent said that warming over the next century would be “very” or “somewhat” harmful, but of those, only 22 percent thought that “all” or a “large” amount of the harm could be prevented “through mitigation and adaptation measures.” And according to a study of 1,868 scientists working in climate-related fields, conducted just this year by the PBL Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency, three in ten respondents said that less than half of global warming since 1951 could be attributed to human activity, or that they did not know. Given the politics of modern academia and the scientific community, it’s not unlikely that most scientists involved in climate-related studies believe in anthropogenic global warming, and likely believe, too, that it presents a problem. However, there is no consensus approaching 97 percent. A vigorous, vocal minority exists. The science is far from settled. – Ian Tuttle is a William F. Buckley Jr. Fellow in Political Journalism at the National Review Institute. Did you like this? Share article on Facebook Tweet article Plus one article on Google Plus Get Free NR E-Mails
well now, these are some really arrogant people aren't they? they ADMIT Climate change is not just a scam, it's the New World Order! jeez you'd think these dummies could keep their mouths shut? but that's what arrogance gets you eh?
So .. how many of you "Climate Change" freaktards are gonna keep yapping it's real now?
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.
So what is the goal of environmental policy?
“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer."
"Klein’s statement is perfectly in line with Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of United Nation’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, and in fact is almost an echo. Figueres acknowledged earlier this year that the environmental activists’ goal is not to spare the world an ecological disaster, but to destroy capitalism."
Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”
Waco kid, it's not even a challenge to answer you back. It's clear that you have lower or equal iQ as Sarah Palin. enough said
Kinda looks like the science really isn't settled. Then why do they want to silence climate change deniers? Think about it.
I have. They want to criminalize your mindset even if it's correct. Like I said in a previous post. Whatever politicians say, or do or want you to believe, do the opposite you'll be on the right track then.
more worried about pollution
