At the original conference on IPCC some 11,000 scientists attended. After the conference they were polled about their belief in Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Of this HUGE group of real scientists almost all of them asked if they believe this was occurring answered with "There is insufficient data to answer that" or "no opinion".
Among this group there was self-identified "climate scientists" - really a non-existent science since it is really little more than a statisticians that counts other's research.
Since the IPCC hadn't the answer they wanted from the majority of scientists they decided to use ONLY those self identified "climate scientists". There were 39 of them. And of that group 37 answered that there was climate change. Upon what science was it founded? VERY little actual science but some computer models based on work from the 1800's when CO2 was thought to cause a "greenhouse effect".
If you look at those numbers you see that 37 of 39 is 97%. So this was the original source of the 97% "of all scientists" believe in AGW.
Now I would like to ask you - why would you count a man who quotes a paper describing an effect but discount the man who actually wrote the paper? Why would some 11,000 scientists be discounted in order to force a belief upon the public?
More lately they have underscored that number in a different manner but with the same staggering dishonesty.
Climate Change: No, It
While most scientists have for the most part remained quiet probably on the grounds that either since you yourself couldn't make any decisions for lack of data; or because it is best to remain quiet and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt; or because this was not in your best interest; are doing themselves and the public at large a disservice.
Science is being abused so that the public can be taxed on the grounds that this subject MUST be studied for the good of man-kind. The slightest study of paleo-climatology reveals that this is a preposterous idea. Spectroscopy the same. Chemical actions in the atmosphere are understood that show that the Earth has a negative feedback loop and not the positive loop that would cause these run-away effects.
Why are the leading lights of the AGW movement entirely untrained lay-people?
Certainly scientists have to eat too and so many will pick a field of interest AND AN OUTCOME that will allow them the longest government grants. But you and I are paying not for these grants which are a mere drop in the bucket but for the multiple government agencies that expand the size and power of the government. Most especially agencies like the EPA that can totally by-pass Congress and the normal controls on government that we need to protect us from totalitarianism.
I have been doing my best to use science to provide counter arguments to the preposterous idea that a 0.01% change in a single atmospheric gas that absorbs energy in a spectrum that is nearly empty to begin with could make any difference at all. That presuming that the ONLY gas in the atmosphere is CO2 is the ONLY way that it could have any effect whatsoever.
But I am an engineer that has worked over 40 years in research and development and while I know more than most PhD's about science in general I do not have the respect that a PhD behind your name could lend.
If scientists don't start stepping up to the plate and SCREAMING the falseness of these theories the common man is going to totally lose all faith in science. And that isn't just climate science. But entomology and paleontology and physics and you are all going to become the educated version of the tooth fairy.
This is the world YOU are building if you do not address the misuse of science that the politicians are making.
Among this group there was self-identified "climate scientists" - really a non-existent science since it is really little more than a statisticians that counts other's research.
Since the IPCC hadn't the answer they wanted from the majority of scientists they decided to use ONLY those self identified "climate scientists". There were 39 of them. And of that group 37 answered that there was climate change. Upon what science was it founded? VERY little actual science but some computer models based on work from the 1800's when CO2 was thought to cause a "greenhouse effect".
If you look at those numbers you see that 37 of 39 is 97%. So this was the original source of the 97% "of all scientists" believe in AGW.
Now I would like to ask you - why would you count a man who quotes a paper describing an effect but discount the man who actually wrote the paper? Why would some 11,000 scientists be discounted in order to force a belief upon the public?
More lately they have underscored that number in a different manner but with the same staggering dishonesty.
Climate Change: No, It
While most scientists have for the most part remained quiet probably on the grounds that either since you yourself couldn't make any decisions for lack of data; or because it is best to remain quiet and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt; or because this was not in your best interest; are doing themselves and the public at large a disservice.
Science is being abused so that the public can be taxed on the grounds that this subject MUST be studied for the good of man-kind. The slightest study of paleo-climatology reveals that this is a preposterous idea. Spectroscopy the same. Chemical actions in the atmosphere are understood that show that the Earth has a negative feedback loop and not the positive loop that would cause these run-away effects.
Why are the leading lights of the AGW movement entirely untrained lay-people?
Certainly scientists have to eat too and so many will pick a field of interest AND AN OUTCOME that will allow them the longest government grants. But you and I are paying not for these grants which are a mere drop in the bucket but for the multiple government agencies that expand the size and power of the government. Most especially agencies like the EPA that can totally by-pass Congress and the normal controls on government that we need to protect us from totalitarianism.
I have been doing my best to use science to provide counter arguments to the preposterous idea that a 0.01% change in a single atmospheric gas that absorbs energy in a spectrum that is nearly empty to begin with could make any difference at all. That presuming that the ONLY gas in the atmosphere is CO2 is the ONLY way that it could have any effect whatsoever.
But I am an engineer that has worked over 40 years in research and development and while I know more than most PhD's about science in general I do not have the respect that a PhD behind your name could lend.
If scientists don't start stepping up to the plate and SCREAMING the falseness of these theories the common man is going to totally lose all faith in science. And that isn't just climate science. But entomology and paleontology and physics and you are all going to become the educated version of the tooth fairy.
This is the world YOU are building if you do not address the misuse of science that the politicians are making.
