The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Global warming deniers and their proven strategy of doubt > Comments

Global warming deniers and their proven strategy of doubt : Comments

By Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway, published 18/6/2010

Science has been effectively undermined, eroding public support for the decisive action needed to avoid the worst effects of global warming.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 16
  7. 17
  8. 18
  9. Page 19
  10. 20
  11. All
"Global warming was the great unfinished story, but with the mainstream media and many politicians acknowledging the reality of global warming in recent years, it seemed that there was real progress. “The debate is over,” California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared in 2005. “We know the science. We see the threat posed by changes in our climate.” "
The authors are as gullible as the mainstream media and the politicians.
They have been conned into believing the warmist hypothesis that human-caused socalled greenhouse gas emissions are the main driver of climate change.
It is unscientific to say that the hypothesis is true until such time as it is proven wrong. The onus of proof rests firmly upon the proposer of the hypothesis, not with its refutation.
The warmists have failed to produce that proof , after searching for over 20 years. As they cannot put up, they should shut up.
Posted by Raycom, Sunday, 27 June 2010 11:26:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Einstein's hypothesis wasn't "proven" till 2007. That didn't stop, nor indeed censor, science in the intervening years. It certainly didn't stop policy makers from making the decisions they thought were necessary that were based, and sometimes dependent, on Einstein's postulates.

Raycom, can you please give me your thoughts on why you think the troposphere is warming while the stratosphere is cooling?
Posted by qanda, Sunday, 27 June 2010 11:45:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
qanda
If you have irrefutable proof that CO2 emissions are the main driver of climate change, then table it. Otherwise, stop clutching at straws!
Posted by Raycom, Monday, 28 June 2010 11:46:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It was too much trouble for qanda to calculate the percentage of scientists backing the non scientific assertion of the IPCC that AGW is “very likely”, after his effort in making up a number for the number of scientists.

I will tell you what it is, qanda, .0002% of scientists,supporting "very likely", as against 1.2%, who confirm that there is no scientific basis for asserting AGW.

The real science says it is 100% very unlikely

You and Protagoras talk about everything but proof, of global warming, and slime and undermine the truth, in your desperate support of the fraud.

So it turns out that, long after the event, the fraudsters have produced some “proof” that the WWF article had peer reviewed backing. Why did the IPCC not refer to peer reviewed science, in its summary?

Not just because it is headed by a railway engineer, and not a scientist, but because many of its errors were based on WWF articles. The nonsense about the Indian glaciers was based on a phone call to a cabdriver, who gave his opinion. The possibility that one WWF reference in the Summary turned out to be justified makes little difference, and it is misleading to suggest otherwise.

This is reminiscent of the peer reviewed study, produced by the Climategate gang to refute the settled science that global warming is all accounted for, from natural sources. It barely lasted five minutes scrutiny, but the miscreants were able to delay the publication of the study dismissing it, for a few months.

At the moment there is not even any pretend science support for the alarmists.

There is no scientific basis for the assertion of AGW, and the IPCC Summary is so full of proven nonsense that it would be easier to specify what is justified, than set out the long list of proven unjustifiable assertions, in this document.
Posted by Leo Lane, Monday, 28 June 2010 11:50:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“You and Protagoras talk about everything but proof, of global warming, and slime and undermine the truth, in your desperate support of the fraud.”

Behold the resurrection - genuflex, genuflex! Long Shot Leo – dead but won’t lie down, who thinks that accepting a body of scientific fact is a matter of belief.

Poor Leo – too aliterate, too tardy, too shifty to read beyond the tabloid headlines and too deficient to grapple with the statistics.

Researchers on ‘Credibility in Climate Change,’ (sent for review in December 2009 and published this year) separated their research on climate scientists into two groups:

CE = Convinced by the evidence on climate change
UE – Unconvinced by the evidence on climate change

Alas for Long Shot Leo, the following evidence emerged:

Only 2% of the UE group were in the top 50 of climate researchers as ranked by expertise (number of publications)

Only 3% of the UE group were in the top 100 and only 2.5% in the top 200. Tut tut!

This evidence revealed that 97% of self-identified, actively publishing climate scientists agree with the tenets of anthropogenic climate change.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html

It's tough for Long Shot Leo, slithering around on the bottom of a slimy heap.
Posted by Protagoras, Monday, 28 June 2010 5:31:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Protagoras is still talking about everything but the fact that there is no scientific basis for the assertion of AGW.

There is no scientific basis for the assertion of anthropogenic global warming, despite billions being spent on research for it.

Protagoras and qanda still believe the fraudsters might prevail.
Posted by Leo Lane, Monday, 28 June 2010 8:50:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 16
  7. 17
  8. 18
  9. Page 19
  10. 20
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy