ocean conditions are changing due to Rapid Global Climate Shift

According to you, the whole world has been infiltrated. There are so many people in on the conspiracy, I'm surprised there's anyone left to conspire against....

 

Maybe I am in on it too, just throwing a red herring. You never know.

 

Diane Rehm Show | Al Gore: "The Future: Six Drivers of Global Change"

 

Washington Post | Don’t dismiss the dangers of climate change

 

The Economist | China, India and climate change

 

ThinkProgress | Oklahoma, Colorado And Arizona Push ALEC Bill To Require Teaching Climate Change Denial In Schools

 

http://www.cbs.com/shows/late_show/...4TWf/david-letterman-al-gore-talks-al-jazeera

 

Global Warming suddenly became "Climate Change" because there is no "GLOBAL WARMING!"

I have followed this issue for a while. It appears another way to skin a cat, meaning pass yet another tax on general population by levying "carbon emissions responsibility."

Who do you think is going to eat the bill? I think it would be an average Joe, you and me, paying high prices for anything connected to fluorocarbons and energy production.

This is another way to empty our pockets and nag everyone in financial dependency.... and keeping corporate profits high despite the worsening economy and sinking profits.

I am uploading a slew of documentation (reduced size version), at least credibly stating that the

"GLOBAL WARMING" suddenly became "CLIMATE CHANGE" because there is no global warming....

 

kvsgkvng,
That’s quite a list of articles you’ve put together. I’m sure you’ve noticed that a number of the topics mentioned in your articles have come up for discussion on this thread before, though the articles that I’ve posted have mostly drawn different conclusions. Which raises the interesting question of how non-experts (like you and I) on a particular topic (like climate science) can determine which authority (or which scientist) is most likely giving us accurate and reliable information?

Here are two rules of thumb that I use to help me select which expert is most likely giving me accurate information:

Rule 1: If the majority of experts in a particular field agree with each other, smart money will bet in favor of the majority consensus.
Rule 2: If the majority of experts in a particular field don’t agree with each other, smart money will not bet on ANY point of view.
​

Using these two rules the question becomes, “do climate scientists have a majority consensus”?



Because there is a majority consensus among climate science experts, Rule #1 tells me that smart money will bet on their point of view.

Perhaps you could give us your rationale for being skeptical about Anthropogenic Global Warming? Are there one or two points mentioned in your list of articles that you’d like to discuss?

Since they say a picture is worth a thousands words, and since one of the articles you posted mentioned the famous Snows of Kilimanjaro, I thought I’d include a series of photos of same.

Mt. Kilimanjaro Ice Cap rapidly retreats, 85% of 1912's ice cover vanished..recent surface melting not occurred over 11700 yrs (2009 article)




see also Wikipedia | Ice on Kilimanjaro

 

I am not going into this topic. You should read page 61 of the attached file. More clear address to the President of the United States by most of prominent scientist in the world may not be. Have you presented a proof besides a home-made pie chart?

 

could it be that 13,950 scientists depend on government funding to keep their jobs? Everyone knows that government employed scientists would never push an agenda that means more funding for their departments, yes?

 

If you had you would not make this gaffe:

 

As you will note, very few of the names on this list of scientists petitioning President-Elect Obama about Climate Change stated what their degrees were in. As I recall very few of them were actually climate scientists. As a result of their lack of appropriate credentials, their opinion is worth little more than your or my opinion.

As to my presenting proof -- I don’t think that anything so complex as climate change lends itself to “proof”. We can only look at the accumulating evidence and make our best guess as to what is going to happen in the future.

 

Yes, most climate scientists are supported by governments, either directly or indirectly. Typically, industry only employs those types of scientists that can produce a quickly-marketable, profitable product. So, much of the pure research must, necessarily, be funded by governments.

Note that I am using the word “governments”, plural. It isn’t just US government-supported scientists that are producing all these doom-and-gloom reports, but government-supported scientists from around the world. What do you think the chances are that all the governments from around the world are in a massive conspiracy to promote AGW?

You might also note that most of the reports collected by kvsgkvng were dated 2009. In 2009 the US had just finished eight years under the presidency of Dubya Bush. By many accounts his administration was quite anti-science, anti-global warming. Yet in spite of Dubya’s lack of support climate scientists were still raising serious concerns.

 

Christian Science Monitor | Maasai herders breed fewer, stronger cattle to resist climate change