Over 90% of worldwide scientists accept climate change, so why not Americans?

[ginjawarrior]

Name one person that is a qualified investigator in any of the 6 links, whos testimony on the integrity of the investigative process would stand up in a court of law?

You show a list of "investigations" that seek to vindicate a compromised scientific study that is based on concensus, muddying the waters of an already politicised subject with powerfull financial interests (both sides) waiting in the wings to seize any oppurtunity of financial gain.

Any credibility these scientists started with has been long eroded by their own doing.

what you mean like a finger prints sort of investigation? or like an investigator who smokes cigars and always has 1 last question for the protagonist??

or do you mean working scientists with the ability to understand the data, the testing procedures and the results or such tests?

cause the working scientists would be the ones called to be expert witnesses on this one

so to answer you question all of them

 

[UncleBuck]

Sadly, this info doesn't have impact. It's not politically driven, has no traction with water walkers.

it only has impact if the koch brothers and exxonmobil sponsor it, right?

LOL!

 

[Canna Sylvan]

I farted alot today from all that asparagus I ate yesterday. I really hope that contributed to global warming and actually killed a polar bear this time. Then Al Gore will have something to bitch about

 

[ginjawarrior]

Cheers for the link AG...

The term “consensus science” will often be appealed to regarding arguments about
climate change to bolster an assertion. This is a form of “argument from authority.”
Consensus, however, is a political notion, not a scientific notion. As I testified to the
Inter-Academy Council in June 2010, wrote in Nature that same year (Christy 2010), and
documented in my written House Testimony last year (House Space, Science and
Technology, 31 Mar 2011) the IPCC and other similar Assessments do not represent for
me a consensus of much more than the consensus of those selected to agree with a
particular consensus. The content of these climate reports is actually under the control of
a relatively small number of individuals - I often refer to them as the “climate
establishment” – who through the years, in my opinion, came to act as gatekeepers of
scientific opinion and information, rather than brokers.

wheres all the studies of people denying climate change?

if your going to talk about consensus then you have to address the huge lack from one side

 

[ArcticGranite]

I farted alot today from all that asparagus I ate yesterday. I really hope that contributed to global warming and actually killed a polar bear this time. Then Al Gore will have something to bitch about

Thanks, it was 70 degrees warmer today than last week at this time. CN won't be amused though.

 

[echelon1k1]

Sadly, this info doesn't have impact. It's not politically driven, has no traction with water walkers.

How can we spin it into a left/right issue?... Then people will take notice....

 

[UncleBuck]

How can we spin it into a left/right issue?... Then people will take notice....

this was not a partisan issue until certain partisans turned it into one. it used to be that only fringe lunatics didn't believe the overwhelming science, but the koch brothers, exxonmobil, and other vested interests bought a lot of opinion out their, including low information folks like yourself and arcticgranite.

i just LOL.

 

[ArcticGranite]

wheres all the studies of people denying climate change?

if your going to talk about consensus then you have to address the huge lack from one side

I'll just make it easy. Pick a number. ___%of Scientists accept climate change. That # should be 100. Climates always changing! Now this one. __% of world wide scientists accept man made climate change. References please.

 

[echelon1k1]

wheres all the studies of people denying climate change?

if your going to talk about consensus then you have to address the huge lack from one side

Nice picture bro....

 

[ArcticGranite]

this was not a partisan issue until certain partisans turned it into one. it used to be that only fringe lunatics didn't believe the overwhelming science, but the koch brothers, exxonmobil, and other vested interests bought a lot of opinion out their, including low information folks like yourself and arcticgranite.

i just LOL.

Discredit Dr. Christy or his Senate testimony for me please.

 

[ginjawarrior]

I'll stand pat with the EPA Inspector General's quote. The IG acknowledges his own agencies shortcomings in following procedure. Further he's suggested an even more rigorous process. Pretty plain and simple. Maybe you agree with the finding that CO2 is a pollutant?
EPA’s own Inspector General stated as follows:

“EPA did not conduct a peer review of the TSD [Technical Support Document] that met all recommended steps in the Peer Review Handbook..."
"However, with what is known now, it certainly seems that a new Endangerment Finding analysis is required, using, for example, the far more rigorous Science Advisory Board process suggested by EPA’s Inspector General. "
Regardless, the gem in this article is the Senate Testimony submitted by Dr. Christy.
"Widely publicized consensus reports by “thousands” of scientists are misrepresentative
of climate science, containing overstated confidence in their assertions of high climate
sensitivity. They rarely represent the range of scientific opinion that attends our
relatively murky field of climate research."
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=66585975-a507-4d81-b750-def3ec74913d

first bolded is quoted from ig

the second isnt a quote from it

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=66585975-a507-4d81-b750-def3ec74913d

go search it

I'll just make it easy. Pick a number. ___%of Scientists accept climate change. That # should be 100. Climates always changing! Now this one. __% of world wide scientists accept man made climate change. References please.

instead of playing this silly parlour game you just pulled out of your arse

how abouts you try to find the source seconded bolded part of the top quote

 

[UncleBuck]

Discredit Dr. Christy or his Senate testimony for me please.

i don't even know who he is.

all i know is that you have a tendency to post propaganda paid for by those who stand to profit by ignoring the overwhelming scientific consensus around anthropogenic climate change.

that makes you a gigantic hack who's a poor consumer of information and carries others' water for them.

 

[ginjawarrior]

Nice picture bro....

my apologies its rather early in the morning on new years day

forgot the link

http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart

 

[echelon1k1]

this was not a partisan issue until certain partisans turned it into one. it used to be that only fringe lunatics didn't believe the overwhelming science, but the koch brothers, exxonmobil, and other vested interests bought a lot of opinion out their, including low information folks like yourself and arcticgranite.

i just LOL.

Low information? Everything for you is a left/right issue. You just troll with your leftist/obama bullshit likening every logical conclusion to any argument as a democratic party viewpoint.

Your proof positive of a leftist hack who can only respond with soundbites that the media push on the stupid and gullable. So please stop with all the inferences you're somehow smarter and more informed than anyone else go back to peddling your treadmills.

 

[ginjawarrior]

Low information? Everything for you is a left/right issue. You just troll with your leftist/obama bullshit likening every logical conclusion to any argument as a democratic party viewpoint.

Your proof positive of a leftist hack who can only respond with soundbites that the media push on the stupid and gullable. So please stop with all the inferences you're somehow smarter and more informed than anyone else go back to peddling your treadmills.

the projection is strong in this post

 

[UncleBuck]

Low information? Everything for you is a left/right issue. You just troll with your leftist/obama bullshit likening every logical conclusion to any argument as a democratic party viewpoint.

Your proof positive of a leftist hack who can only respond with soundbites that the media push on the stupid and gullable. So please stop with all the inferences you're somehow smarter and more informed than anyone else go back to peddling your treadmills.

*you're
*sound bytes
*gullible

when did i ever try to act smarter than anyone? i am simply deferring to the publsihing, peer reviewed climatologists here. my opinion is whatever they think, they are in the best position to know, not a bunch of internet wannabes quoting propaganda from the koch brothers.

 

[ArcticGranite]

i don't even know who he is.

all i know is that you have a tendency to post propaganda paid for by those who stand to profit by ignoring the overwhelming scientific consensus around anthropogenic climate change.

that makes you a gigantic hack who's a poor consumer of information and carries others' water for them.

And I'm the poor consumer of info or believe lies? Bullshit. I read opposing views. I'm open minded like that. Why limit oneself?

I am John R. Christy, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science, Alabama’s State
Climatologist and Director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of
Alabama in Huntsville. I have served as a Lead Author and Contributing Author of IPCC
assessments, have been awarded NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement
and in 2002 elected a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society.

His testimony to Senate calls into question scientific consensus. Worth a 20 minute read.

But again, the main point being. No one. Not the best scientific mind known. Can prove, demonstrate, observe, or model that man made co2 is causing warming. Yet policy is ready to pull the pin and toss hand grenades with no enemy in sight.

 

[echelon1k1]

*you're
*sound bytes
*gullible

when did i ever try to act smarter than anyone? i am simply deferring to the publsihing, peer reviewed climatologists here. my opinion is whatever they think, they are in the best position to know, not a bunch of internet wannabes quoting propaganda from the koch brothers.

Look at your posts... When you've got nothing its all about the Koch brothers.

 

[echelon1k1]

And I'm the poor consumer of info or believe lies? Bullshit. I read opposing views. I'm open minded like that. Why limit oneself?

I am John R. Christy, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science, Alabama’s State
Climatologist and Director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of
Alabama in Huntsville. I have served as a Lead Author and Contributing Author of IPCC
assessments, have been awarded NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement
and in 2002 elected a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society.

His testimony to Senate calls into question scientific consensus. Worth a 20 minute read.

But again, the main point being. No one. Not the best scientific mind known. Can prove, demonstrate, observe, or model that man made co2 is causing warming. Yet policy is ready to pull the pin and toss hand grenades with no enemy in sight.

Buck have a good read... I know you baby boomers are set in your ways though...

 

[ArcticGranite]

instead of playing this silly parlour game you just pulled out of your arse

how abouts you try to find the source seconded bolded part of the top quote

http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2011/20110926-11-P-0702.pdf