Climate Change Denier Scientist revealed to have received $1.2 million oil companies

[YWOC]

"Just five years ago, the head of the International Panel on Climate Change, the group most associated with “proving” that global warming is man-made and has horrific potential consequences, told Congress that Earth is running a “fever” that’s “apt to get much worse.” Yet he and IPCC knew the warming had stopped a decade earlier.
Those who pointed this out, including yours truly, were labeled “denialists.” Yet the IPCC itself finally admitted the “pause” in its latest report."

even the gung ho leaders have been called out, and admitted to be wrong and overhyping

ive seen enough credible information to make me at least question the "GLOBAL WARMING IS GOING TO KILL US ALL" bullsh*t that the media pumps out

but hey, i should just take the word of one group, fuk looking at both sides, thats for ignorant idiots, and scientists have never been wrong in the past

keep drinking the kool-aid, hippie *******s

oilfield crew

that's all that needs to be said at this point

[seanb1979]

i believe its a cycle the earth has been doing for millions of yearz.

and thats true, but the argument is how much are we altering that cycle?

[Tzaddiq]

"Just five years ago, the head of the International Panel on Climate Change, the group most associated with “proving” that global warming is man-made and has horrific potential consequences, told Congress that Earth is running a “fever” that’s “apt to get much worse.” Yet he and IPCC knew the warming had stopped a decade earlier.
Those who pointed this out, including yours truly, were labeled “denialists.” Yet the IPCC itself finally admitted the “pause” in its latest report."

even the gung ho leaders have been called out, and admitted to be wrong and overhyping

ive seen enough credible information to make me at least question the "GLOBAL WARMING IS GOING TO KILL US ALL" bullsh*t that the media pumps out

but hey, i should just take the word of one group, fuk looking at both sides, thats for ignorant idiots, and scientists have never been wrong in the past

keep drinking the kool-aid, hippie *******s

The quote goes from "pause" (i.e. temporary, like it's going to be straight-edge linear lol) to "stopped" and you go from "pause" to "wrong."

What is wrong with your reading comprehension son?? You're so easily mislead.


Scientists have been wrong. When has the overwhelming scientific consensus ever been wrong? Btw, wrong is not incomplete knowledge - it's always incomplete, wrong is supposed "knowledge" opposite to the facts.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_was_wrong_before

[YWOC]

The quote goes from "pause" (i.e. temporary, like it's going to be straight-edge linear lol) to "stopped" and you go from "pause" to "wrong."

What is wrong with your reading comprehension son?? You're so easily mislead.

Not to mention his source is from a guy on the nypost who also believes stem cell research is a scam and has written many anti-science and anti-democratic articles in the past. Can't seem to find that quote anyways anywhere else on the internet besides this idiot's article lol. Miscers never fail to amaze me with just how stupid they can be

[0thersid3]

I didn't think there was still a debate

[Rambo26]

both sides receive funding from their respective interest groups

don't pretend there isn't a huge incentive from governments and the UN to exaggerate any findings

[BrocepCurls]

Everyone has a price. Lawyers, doctors, politicians, scientists. Once you bribe them, you own them. Fukk big oil and the Kochs. I'm a republican, but these guys that are spending millions on bribes are ruining this country.

This. Where did the whole vaccine autism thing come from? A dishonest doctor selling out for $$$$$ (or more precisely, £££££)

[Cuchulainn]

This should be stickied in every srs misc thread.

[BaldVarys]

And climate scientists all over the world have received billions of dollars in grants to "research" global warming (i.e. come up with evidence that it exists to promulgate this theory).

This

It happens with all research. I have hears it from the horses mouth. I have known multiple PHD students who will tell me they will court funding from corporations who will heavily dictate the direction of said research and the conclusions they "expect" to see

I dunno...I have never been one to lean to much on conspiracy but the fact that this climate change thing is being drummed into our heads so much is just making me skeptical. Keeping myself very much on the fence on this issue.

[Brad155]

I don't know the details, I'm not a scientist or climatologist. I just use common rational thinking, to realize that there is a consequence to pumping the amount of CO2, that our society is.

I also use common sense, to realize that all the oil companies have a lot to lose, by society not buying their oil, gaz, coal anymore, and they will do anything, to keep it going, even if it's amoral, like the tobacco industry.

I don't think any reputable scientist denies the greenhouse effect. They instead question the extent to which humans are responsible. They compare our co2 contribution to that of natural sources. In doing so, they actually produce meaningful data, just as supporters do. The difference is that climate change supporters and deniers never agree on the same data and that continues to be the disconnect.

/devil's advocate

Not a denier by the way. But it is important to understand the leading arguments of each side...

[BaldVarys]

lol at the moronic dumbfuks ITT that think man made climate change isn't a thing. Keep living in your little bubble guys. Just pretend all the massive overwhelming data that proves it's happening doesn't exist, ignorance is bliss right?

It definitely exists and its definitely a thing. My question is in regards to the extent of the problem and whether the measures being taken will even be remotely effective against the damage done. I also question whether the climate change debate is being used as a bully pulpit against emerging economies in a rather cynical attempt at slowing their growth through bureaucracy. I know, its a massive reach but I just get kinda irked when too many people seem to be forcing me into a opinion and any dissenting argument seems to be met with hostility and ridicule.

[BaldVarys]

I don't think any reputable scientist denies the greenhouse effect. They instead question the extent to which humans are responsible. They compare our co2 contribution to that of natural sources. In doing so, they actually produce meaningful data, just as supporters do. The difference is that climate change supporters and deniers never agree on the same data and that continues to be the disconnect.

/devil's advocate

Not a denier by the way. But it is important to understand the leading arguments of each side...

Exactly.

[20Mavs11]

I blame China! Nah, but I did see a "Vice" doc on the most polluted city int he world, which happens to be in China. Literally anyone who lives there ends up getting cancer. People can't even stay in doors for too long, because of breathing issues. Man made pollution is a big issue.

[BaldVarys]

I blame China! Nah, but I did see a "Vice" doc on the most polluted city int he world, which happens to be in China. Literally anyone who lives there ends up getting cancer. People can't even stay in doors for too long, because of breathing issues. Man made pollution is a big issue.

not sure I have ever heard there being a legit link made between smog and cancer

LOL sounds like more erroneous Vice hipster, pseudo intellectual, alarmist garbage that they usually put out

[everglide123]

not sure I have ever heard there being a legit link made between smog and cancer

LOL sounds like more erroneous Vice hipster, pseudo intellectual, alarmist garbage that they usually put out

"In 2002, for every 100,000 men living in Beijing, 49 had lung cancer. By 2010, that number had risen more than 50 percent, to 75. Women in China are less likely to smoke and so have lower rates of the disease. But among those living in Beijing, a similar sharp rise in lung cancer cases occurred over the last decade. In 2002, for every 100,000 women living in Beijing, 30 had lung cancer; by 2010, that number had also risen more than 50 percent, to 46.

Those figures come from the Beijing office of China’s Cancer Prevention and Control Center, which believes the steep rise in lung cancer occurrences can be linked to worsening air pollution in China’s capital city. Wang Ning, deputy director of the cancer center, told China Daily that lung cancer caused by smoking and cases caused by exposure to air pollution generally exhibit different characteristics. “The proportion of lung adenocarcinoma cases”—those associated with air pollution—“is increasing,” Wang said.

The World Health Organization’s World Cancer Report 2014 found that China, home to roughly 20 percent of the global population, now accounts for one-third of global deaths from lung cancer.

Persistent smog that blocks out natural sunlight also threatens China’s agriculture. He Dongxian, an associate professor at China Agricultural University’s College of Water Resources & Civil Engineering, told the South China Morning Post that many plants have difficulty sprouting when smog delays or obstructs photosynthesis, creating a scenario “somewhat similar to a nuclear winter.”"

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles...smoggy-beijing

[Gt3x24x7]

"oilfield crew"

Your good reason is you'll be out of a job.

Can't believe the misc is such full of retards now.

Shouldn't be surprised at the misc being filled with scientifically illiterate individuals. It is society and the public masses that we need to be surprised about srs

[antiwhitekn1ght]

LOL at rednecks trying to deny it...

YOU CANT KEEP PUMPING THESE POLLUTANTS INTO THE ENVIRONMENT WITHOUT CONSEQUENCE RETARDS

[YWOC]

LOL at rednecks trying to deny it...

YOU CANT KEEP PUMPING THESE POLLUTANTS INTO THE ENVIRONMENT WITHOUT CONSEQUENCE RETARDS

I have to admit I got a good laugh out of the guy with "oilfield crew" in his sig trying to deny it

[victor_maximus]

LOL at rednecks trying to deny it...

YOU CANT KEEP PUMPING THESE POLLUTANTS INTO THE ENVIRONMENT WITHOUT CONSEQUENCE RETARDS

Every time you exhale you are polluting the environment, do the world a favor and kill yourself.

[Zca4]

Science is not about reaching a "consensus." If one thousand people believe that X is causing Y to happen but one single person provides definitive evidence that this is not true, then guess what? It is not true.

Who stands to make the most money over this dilemma? Most people would say oil companies. But this is not true. Governments stand to make the most money. Carbon taxes on anything they feel like? Billions.

As other people have stated scientists all over the world receive funding from sketchy sources. People get paid to produce certain outcomes in their studies. This is morally wrong, but what else are they going to do to scrounge for a living?

We barely understand the weather. I'm not saying AGW is not real or not happening. There should just be more studying done before people come up with all this alarmist bull**** calling others "anti-science", etc. If we don't fully understand weather, how the hell are they slapping a 95% confidence interval on their studies that have to take into account thousands of variables that we don't understand.

[rotatoo]

thats a logical fallacy though, the science should still stand up even if he is the Shell CEO



Instead we get "consensus" science from global cooling advocates.. Correction global warming .. Oh dear, isnt it climate change now? Or climate steady state? Whatever it is labelled, consensus science is nonsense

[victor_maximus]

Science is not about reaching a "consensus." If one thousand people believe that X is causing Y to happen but one single person provides definitive evidence that this is not true, then guess what? It is not true.

Who stands to make the most money over this dilemma? Most people would say oil companies. But this is not true. Governments stand to make the most money. Carbon taxes on anything they feel like? Billions.

As other people have stated scientists all over the world receive funding from sketchy sources. People get paid to produce certain outcomes in their studies. This is morally wrong, but what else are they going to do to scrounge for a living?

We barely understand the weather. I'm not saying AGW is not real or not happening. There should just be more studying done before people come up with all this alarmist bull**** calling others "anti-science", etc. If we don't fully understand weather, how the hell are they slapping a 95% confidence interval on their studies that have to take into account thousands of variables that we don't understand.

thread/

[BrotatoChip]

Science is not about reaching a "consensus." If one thousand people believe that X is causing Y to happen but one single person provides definitive evidence that this is not true, then guess what? It is not true.

Who stands to make the most money over this dilemma? Most people would say oil companies. But this is not true. Governments stand to make the most money. Carbon taxes on anything they feel like? Billions.

As other people have stated scientists all over the world receive funding from sketchy sources. People get paid to produce certain outcomes in their studies. This is morally wrong, but what else are they going to do to scrounge for a living?

We barely understand the weather. I'm not saying AGW is not real or not happening. There should just be more studying done before people come up with all this alarmist bull**** calling others "anti-science", etc. If we don't fully understand weather, how the hell are they slapping a 95% confidence interval on their studies that have to take into account thousands of variables that we don't understand.

In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence.



A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these 97.1% endorsed the consensus position.[119]



James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[120] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[121]


lol @ the idea that everyone who has written a paper on climate change over the past 100 years has been backed by sketchy sources.

[ls6brah]

Was top of my class in climate science and really enjoyed the module.

Of course, what I was learning was from researchers who earn their living from this field, so I like to stay open minded going into things and after finishing the course, I certainly believe that humans have and are affecting the climate. Reading around online for a few days doesn't give you the knowledge required to form a real opinion on it. Try looking at all the academic literature you can find on it and all the ways in which the climate can be affected for a few months and you will be able to start making a solid argument for whichever way you lean.

As for the sun affecting it, the orbital variations which affect climate are already known and are not contributing significantly to the change in climate since the industrial revolution. The smallest time frame for orbital variations in the climate is approx 20000 years (precession).

[PwnedTheism]

When 97% of scientist say something is real, then you better second guess your denialism.

one major reason people dont really want to believe is because global warming doesnt directly affact them right now.

China is a major culprit for the massive increase in CO2 emissions

[helpmee]

The rise in global ocean temperatures alone should be sufficient proof that we have are causing global climate change.

no *******...

Climate change is real..
Climate change has been happening since the beginning of earth
The question is are the current trends man made or not

Trends do not prove man made change.. They only show change

[Haplo21]

The rise in global ocean temperatures alone should be sufficient proof that we have are causing global climate change.

Because if something else were causing it there would be no rise in global ocean temps?

Do you even logic?

[8128]

In relation to scientific opinion on climate change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

[PwnedTheism]

Science is not about reaching a "consensus." If one thousand people believe that X is causing Y to happen but one single person provides definitive evidence that this is not true, then guess what? It is not true.

Who stands to make the most money over this dilemma? Most people would say oil companies. But this is not true. Governments stand to make the most money. Carbon taxes on anything they feel like? Billions.

As other people have stated scientists all over the world receive funding from sketchy sources. People get paid to produce certain outcomes in their studies. This is morally wrong, but what else are they going to do to scrounge for a living?

We barely understand the weather. I'm not saying AGW is not real or not happening. There should just be more studying done before people come up with all this alarmist bull**** calling others "anti-science", etc. If we don't fully understand weather, how the hell are they slapping a 95% confidence interval on their studies that have to take into account thousands of variables that we don't understand.

i agree lets look at the "science"
Co2 goes into atmosphere.
the green house gases block heat from exiting atmosphere.
more heat is trapped on earths surface.

I learned this shet in elementry.
are you fukking srs right now????

[Haplo21]

Hey OP where do the scientists that claim man is causing global warming get their funding?