But... But... It interferes with unbridled capitalism. That might cause the Earth to stop rotating and humanity to be thrown out into space! The Cons and Republicans say so, so it must be true.
Club of Rome sees 2 degrees Celsius rise in 40 years.
- Thread starter Cabbagesandking
- Start date
Silly Wally!
I would ask you, though, to show some of those who disagree. For those who are engaged in any sort of research in a field that is even related to climate, the total could be no more than a few pages.
Between them they do not have a single credible research paper that can be cited as support.
But, name them!
William Happer.
Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [8]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[9][10][11]
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former Chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003), and author of books supporting the validity of dowsing[12]
Garth Paltridge, retired Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired Director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, Visiting Fellow ANU[13]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[14]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute said in a 2009 essay: "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic."[15]
From Wikipedia
Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [8]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[9][10][11]
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former Chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003), and author of books supporting the validity of dowsing[12]
Garth Paltridge, retired Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired Director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, Visiting Fellow ANU[13]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[14]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute said in a 2009 essay: "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic."[15]
From Wikipedia
I thought Natural gas was at an all time low because of the warmer climes,therefore if the earth warms 2 degrees it would cut Natural gas usage even more?
Keep going...you're not even at one decimal place yet.
List the scientists in favour, not just organizations. Maybe indicate which ones are not on the guvmint dole.
Just a couple of them. Timothy Ball who pretends to have been the first "clomate Ph.D, but has never done a climate study and has no expertise in climate.
Don Easterbrook who has for years been putting out phony graphs showing a cooling and who forecast that there would have been a significant cooling by 2010.
Plimer, a geologist who wrote a book about the science without a single reference to the science.
Singer who has not done a research project in 35 years and is financed by the oil industry as he was once financed by the Tobacco industry.
Most of the rest know little more about the distinction between climate and weather than a couple of the posters here. And, they do not have a credible research paper between them.
Soon and Baliunas are totally financed by the oil industry: produced one fraudulent paper and are pariahs to the science community.
I could give you chapter and vers on the rest of those you name but why.
They have no research support.
Don Easterbrook who has for years been putting out phony graphs showing a cooling and who forecast that there would have been a significant cooling by 2010.
Plimer, a geologist who wrote a book about the science without a single reference to the science.
Singer who has not done a research project in 35 years and is financed by the oil industry as he was once financed by the Tobacco industry.
Most of the rest know little more about the distinction between climate and weather than a couple of the posters here. And, they do not have a credible research paper between them.
Soon and Baliunas are totally financed by the oil industry: produced one fraudulent paper and are pariahs to the science community.
I could give you chapter and vers on the rest of those you name but why.
They have no research support.
Someone already did:
http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/climate_authors_table_by_clim.html
Government funding is a red herring. Some of those you listed worked for government organizations, and most of them received government grants.
Cabbagesandking didn't detail how many, just some proof that there is no consensus..... Kinda like the 2500 'scienticians' that the IPCC fraudulently included as supporters of their document.
To my knowledge, none of the individuals mentioned above have taken legal actions to have their name formally removed from being identified as non-supporters of AGW.
Pretty interesting I'd say.
A couple of hundred scientists even would not be proof that there is no consensus...as I already said, a consensus amongst scientists means general acceptance. All one has to do to see that is look at the table of contents for any journal related to climate.
Browse through the abstracts for the recent issue of Journal of Climate, and tell me how many do not support the broad consensus that our planet is warming, primarily due to anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/loi/clim
That's just one journal, of many.
I don't really think it's interesting. There are plenty of scientists out there from across the spectrum of scientific displines that take minority positions. The one thing they all have in common? They devote more words to editorials columns than they do to academic writing.
Not really interesting at all.
There you go!
Right on attitude dude. Botch the planet for your great-grandchildren to shield-themselves against and have to march through because you'll be too dead to be affected.
That means you do not believe in an afterlife, otherwise you'd have to deal with them when they die too.