What Do We Think About Climate Change

Sourewatch for Oregon Institute of Sciences, the creators of the Petition Project.
They won't tell anyone who is funding them. Why the lack of transparency?

 

O jeez, WARNING: Incredible Irony Ahead:
The Skeptic Society debunked the Petition Project. Skip down to the bottom bold paragraph for the Sparknotes Version.

Skeptic Society

 

Mr. Ward doesn't get to decide what is and is not the truth by bureaucratic fiat. The only way he is correct is if one accepts his premise that all those who disagree with the AGW agenda are promoting falsehoods and deception. That's just a tad arrogant I'd say.

 

Really!? Funny. You don't think Exxon has nothing to lose in terms of AGW laws and regulations. You truly do not understand economics or politics, or even business for that matter.

Your attacking the motives of AGW supporters when you repeatedly claim we are pushing an evil "agenda" and wish to kill off billions of people. But its ok if you do it, i get it.

 

The actual names of the respondents are not available.

 

They are available. Simply search for that directory. It is still on file. If you have further questions please direct them to the authors of the study.

 

I'm done for tonight. Ah, almost...................

 

And many (most; all?) scientists who publish 'pro AGW' papers are paid by grants from governments which are undoubtedly eager to acquire the taxing authority that comes (eventually) from pro AGW papers. Also, these governments are paying out about 1000 times as much money as the skeptical side gets from its sources. Do you not see a problem with this? Key government scientists have received WHOPPING sums from left leaning political concerns (in violation of statutes, BTW). How about that? Isn't that the least bit troubling?

If not, then just STFU about the funding sources (covered ad nauseum already anyway; you are not going to reveal anything we have not already seen) and stick to the merits of the scientific arguments pro or con, assuming you can grasp them


Jimbo

 

data needs to be collected by methods that at least follow the basic standards of scientific research
if your not willing to at least accept that basic concept then its no wonder there is no debate between the scientific community and people who hold similar beliefs as yours

 

Guillermo

welcome back and how was the trip
you missed nothing
same old denialist tripe

 

What's really funny, is that even one of the top cardinals of the AGW religion, Dr. Phil Jones, admits that there has been no significant warming since 1995 and that the debate is indeed not over.

So Boston, was Jones paid off by the oil industry?


quotes from the right wing facist news group BBC interview with Jones.......
B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods


- When scientists say "the debate on climate change is over", what exactly do they mean - and what don't they mean?

It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.

 

Just because you posted the whole website on the forum doesn't make it any more valid. Every other group, even groups that deny AGW have stated that this "Petition Project" is phony. Just look at how it was put together. It looks like a middle school project. We have posted ample evidence, contrary to what you say. There are pages now of where these groups get their direct funding. The list of 400 scientists collected by Inhofe was also checked and most names were fraudulent, i posted the link to that article on here as well.
Calling us cavemen because we want to move into the 21st century with new technologies is kinda like the pot calling the kettle black. Oil and coal are 19th and 20th century technologies that are quickly becoming outdated. But hey, if you want to trail the rest of the world, don't cry when no money comes to you because your not part of any useful industry. Need i say: Oil addiction will by the downfall of the US. 4,000+ soldiers have already died needlessly so a few oil companies can exploit it.

 

Are you really proposing that all the names on the Petition are phoney and none of those signatories decided to defend their names and reputation?

That's a stretch even for someone with a logic developmental disorder. "Every other group", good solid refutation there, "look like a middle school project", if it was funded by the oil industry it would slick, dunk! "We have posted ample evidence", naaaaaaa, just innuendo and diatribes, no evidence.

Thanks for using your vacuous logic to prove my point for me about the inability of the alarmists to carry on a mature discussion.

 

Things are heating up in here, sort of funny when talking about Global Warming, or now known as Climate Change. However the "change" will not be gradual, it will come unevenly and erratically. The planet has changed before, it will change again and again, change is a part of life. I'm sure that China putting a new coal power plant into service every week is just helping it along.

I'll be calling it Climate Menopause from now on. A term I just made up, if it catches on I will be as famous as Al Gore.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/m/menopause.htm

http://dailygumboot.ca/2010/01/the-menopausal-math-teacher-and-other-tales-of-cultural-influence/