Calling out people who think Global warming is crap

[flairon]

He pollutes our environment with his putrid farts about global warming. Worse than Al Gore on the pot after a burrito platter.

Well since a stellar intellect like yours doesn't see a use for his silly old "science" it must be useless.

[Mulyark]

Well since a stellar intellect like yours doesn't see a use for his silly old "science" it must be useless.

Yours and his version of "science" is a political construct.



This is the Peer Review process?

Study suggesting global warming is exaggerated was rejected for publication in respected journal because it was 'less than helpful' to the climate cause, claims professor


Professor Lennart Bengtsson claims his study on global warming has been rejected as it might fuel climate scepticism
Says he suspects an intolerance of dissenting views on climate science
Paper suggests that climate is less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought
By BEN SPENCER
PUBLISHED: 21:10 EST, 15 May 2014 | UPDATED: 00:33 EST, 16 May 2014

Professor Lennart Bengtsson, who claims his research on global warming is being 'covered up'
A scientific study which suggests global warming has been exaggerated was rejected by a respected journal because it might fuel climate scepticism, it was claimed last night.
The alarming intervention, which raises fears of ‘McCarthyist’ pressure for environmental scientists to conform, came after a reviewer said the research was ‘less than helpful’ to the climate cause.
Professor Lennart Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading and one of five authors of the study, said he suspected that intolerance of dissenting views on climate science was preventing his paper from being published.
‘The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist,’ he told the Times.
Prof Bengtsson’s paper suggests that the Earth’s environment might be much less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought.
If he and his four co-authors are correct, it would mean that carbon dioxide and other pollutants are having a far less severe impact on climate than green activists would have us believe.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz31zoC7pOY
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on ********

So who is this Bengtsson?

The Bullying of Bengtsson and the Coming Climate Disruption Hypocalypse

May 16th, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Lennart Bengtsson being bullied by colleagues is only the latest example of bad behavior by climate scientists who have made a deal with the devil. They have exchanged their scientific souls for research grants, prestige, and easy access to scientific journals to publish their papers.

I predict history will not treat them kindly, and the reputation of all climate scientists will be tarnished in the process. As it is, the public who pays our salaries are already laughing at us.

Some of us (Christy, Lindzen, myself and others) have put up with many years of unfair treatment by a handful of activist gate-keeping colleagues who stopped our papers from being published or proposals from being funded, sometimes for the weakest of reasons.

Sometimes for entirely made-up reasons.

What makes the Bengtsson case somewhat unusual is his high profile. A Director at ECMWF. Then Max Planck Institute. He was at ECMWF when that organization became the top weather forecasting center in the world. He knows the importance of models providing good forecasts, with demonstrable skill — exactly what the climate models do not yet provide.

That climate models do NOT provide good forecasts with demonstrable skill should concern everyone. But as Bengtsson has found out, a scientist advertises this fact at their peril.

Bengtsson has always been a little skeptical, as all good scientists should be. After all, most published science ends up being wrong anyway.

But once he became more outspoken about his skepticism, well…that’s just unacceptable for someone of his stature. That his treatment should lead him to worry about his health and his safety tells us a lot about just how politicized global warming research has become.

This bad behavior by the climate science community is nothing new. It’s been going on for at least 20 years.

I have talked to established climate scientists who are afraid to say anything about their skepticism. In hushed tones, they admit they have to skew the wording of papers and proposals to not appear to be one of those “denier” types.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/05/...n-hypocalypse/

[jbball92]

My understanding is our data on the rising of the temperature in the earth's surface is limited to a few decades.

Also, would you be able to rule out the "natural cycle" hypothesis? I've asked this question to fervent climatology enthusiasts (note: not experts) and they said no.

nah it goes back a while man

[Hey_Jay]

saw cosmos the other nite . brahs we dooming the 2050 inhabitants. do we make a stand ,, im abt to buy a solar fan. lets doit



edit: or get to mars soon

[hassel35]

Lol climate change is natural and occurring since before recorded history.

You think these political jockeys would be riding climate change so hard if there were no chance for a carbon tax system?

Besides as kusok and others pointed out.... Aside from proposing to unnecessarily tax everyone on the planet... Wtf action have any of those scumbags taken in their personal or professional life to offset "man mad climate change?"

Brb still driving big SUV, private jets, nuking the planet etc.

More importantly they STILL allow drastic amounts of toxins and chemicals to be used commercially and industrially. These are proven to cause great harm to the planet and ourselves.... But evidently no tax no care?

[GoatNapper]

finns tell me that america is the reason global warming is happening, i say, ok, we rule. finns respond with "why do you do it", i respond with "because". finns say "do you not care that your great great great grandchildren will die because of this". i say "who said i am having children". finns say " oh why dont you want to have children?". i say "because i wanted to change this conversation".....so who on this site isnt going to have kids? lulz

[leafs43]

Global warming = the ultimate liberal white guilt


Let's destroy our livelihood that will have zero actual impact on the environment!

[ohsoreal]

This image explains climate change to a tee.

[img]http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/files/2013/06/********_meme_Global_Cooling_11.gif[/img]

Time magazine is not a journal article. Not sure why people do not understand the difference.

[flairon]

Global warming = the ultimate liberal white guilt


Let's destroy our livelihood that will have zero actual impact on the environment!

who's livelihood is being destroyed?

[riptor]

This image explains climate change to a tee.

[img]http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/files/2013/06/********_meme_Global_Cooling_11.gif[/img]

No it doesn't. The image on the left is a fake, and I have posted that on here many times. Here is what the real image looks like.



http://content.time.com/time/magazin...070409,00.html

Notice how Tony Soprano's face his been replaced with Frank Burns' from MASH; how the date was changed from 2007 to 1977; how "Why We Can't Beat the Soviets" was changed from "Beyond Baghdad: Where the Enemy Has Its Own Surge"; notice how the woman in the top left is different; and finally notice how "The Global Warming Survival Guide" was changed to "How to Survive the Coming Ice Age".

So, in this thread we've had references to tabloid newspapers, faked magazine covers, unproven claims of a worldwide conspiracy, tired old arguments like "climate changed in the past", and yet intelligent people are supposed to take these arguments seriously.

[Enso]

It's amazing how angry people get over something that should be a shared common value such as producing clean, cheap energy. Just goes to show how corrupt our society is with greed.


Supposed 'Conservatives' aren't actually conservative at all. If they were, they'd be all over cheap, clean energy and conserving the natural environment. Instead, they are just small government types who want to use capitalistic greed for their own personal gain with no regard for the well being of others outside it's ability to serve themselves. Liberals have their downsides as well, but at least when it comes to matters of the environment they aren't strangled into stupidity over oil and energy lobbyist.

So, in this thread we've had references to tabloid newspapers, faked magazine covers, unproven claims of a worldwide conspiracy, tired old arguments like "climate changed in the past", and yet intelligent people are supposed to take these arguments seriously.

I suppose you are not surprised by this though. You are dealing with people who prefer political rhetoric to statistical evidence to support their claims. Everyone knows climatologist are communist hell bent on destroying 'merica.

[leafs43]

It's amazing how angry people get over something that should be a shared common value such as producing clean, cheap energy. Just goes to show how corrupt our society is with greed.


Supposed 'Conservatives' aren't actually conservative at all. If they were, they'd be all over cheap, clean energy and conserving the natural environment. Instead, they are just small government types who want to use capitalistic greed for their own personal gain with no regard for the well being of others outside it's ability to serve themselves. Liberals have their downsides as well, but at least when it comes to matters of the environment they aren't strangled into stupidity over oil and energy lobbyist.

brb, people are so greedy yet can't be bothered to save money on cheap energy.

[Enso]

brb, people are so greedy yet can't be bothered to save money on cheap energy.

You think that if it was available they wouldn't use it?

Do you even brain?

Society has it's demands, which is why having clean energy is important. If the world population was only 1 billion, maybe burning fossil fuels to support our lifestyle would not be as big of a deal as it is now.

Burning fossil fuels in and of itself is not the problem. It is the amount we are burning. Earth can buffer to a point, but our finger prints are all over the excess that is tipping the scales. We have the science to back it up.

[leafs43]

You don't think that if it was available they wouldn't use it?

Do you even brain?

brb, people are so greedy that they don't buy a magical source of energy that exists in a secret bunker somewhere.

[flairon]

which magical energy source are we talking about

[Enso]

brb, people are so greedy that they don't buy a magical source of energy that exists in a secret bunker somewhere.

Yes. I'm sure if clean, cheap energy was available tomorrow..the oil and energy sector would embrace it over night.

Not sure what you are brb'ng about. I suppose that is some form of troll speak.

which magical energy source are we talking about

It's just troll speak. He has no answer to the problem, so he feels his life is better served by shooting down people who want to think outside the box and make things better.

[leafs43]

Yes. I'm sure if clean, cheap energy was available tomorrow..the oil and energy sector would embrace it over night.

Not sure what you are brb'ng about. I suppose that is some form of troll speak.

brb, energy companies are so greedy that they don't want to make easy money cornering the market on a new clean cheap energy source

[flairon]

brb, energy companies are so greedy that they don't want to make easy money cornering the market on a new clean cheap energy source

Its not like your average oil company can just shift gears to making green energy

[AtxBrah]

Just got off the phone with Neil Degrassi, said OP was a *******.
That guy knows everything.

[leafs43]

Its not like your average oil company can just shift gears to making green energy

Why not?

If its a sound reasonable investment and provides energy, imagine the good PR, which will in turn generate more profits for entities that are so greedy.

[flairon]

Why not?

If its a sound reasonable investment and provides energy, imagine the good PR, which will in turn generate more profits for entities that are so greedy.

In the grand scheme of things, its because of how supply and demand affect a market/product. Right now oil companies have a product that practically isn't being produced any longer, and is essentially finite. There is only so much, it isn't created anywhere near as fast as we use it and the worlds requirements for oil will only increase. Right now is the sweet spot for oil companies. Why would they even want to bother creating their own competition which really doesn't have the acceptance or infrastructure in place to support it fully anyway, when they have a product now that is only going to increase in already outrageous income and profit for them. If it aint broke, don't fix it.

[Enso]

Its not like your average oil company can just shift gears to making green energy

That is what the resistance is. They know we need it, but they are afraid of losing power. And considering that money owns Washington, it is easy to see how Washington likes to speak out of both sides of it's mouth.

On the one hand they want it. On the other, they are saying..."Whoa! Not so fast!".

[flairon]

That is what the resistance is. They know we need it, but they are afraid of losing power. And considering that money owns Washington, it is easy to see how Washington likes to speak out of both sides of it's mouth.

On the one hand they want it. On the other, they are saying..."Whoa! Not so fast!".

exactly. It isn't so easy to completely control things like wind and solar as oil is controlled

[MediaDeit]

Not only is it amazing that the right wing has decided to position themselves against a global consensus among science... they have actually decided to position themselves against facts... they are proud of their ignorance; they are the bottom of the barrell.

But also I hate the crazy soccer mom hippies who are against vaccination because some other hippie soccer mom blogs about it, also going against every research study and a global consensus among scientists.

[Forty0zFreedom]

Here's a thought: Get "global warming"/"climate change" away from people who want to use it politically and maybe people won't be so skeptical about it. I'm not gonna argue with scientists, but I'm sure as hell not trusting politicians to handle it.

[indosthetic]

ITT conservatives are expert scientists on:

- climatology
- meterology


in other threads conservatives are experts on:

- biology
- geology
- astronomy
- physics


Who knew that such people would know more about science than actual scientists!

[Mulyark]

ITT conservatives are expert scientists on:

- climatology
- meterology


in other threads conservatives are experts on:

- biology
- geology
- astronomy
- physics


Who knew that such people would know more about science than actual scientists!

And how many Libs here are scientists? Oh that's right: NONE

Amazing how Libs worship science like a god....something we haven't seen since 1933.

[indosthetic]

And how many Libs here are scientists? Oh that's right: NONE

Amazing how Libs worship science like a god....something we haven't seen since 1933.

libs, like most normal people, tend to accept scientific consensus.


conservatives, unlke most people, like to pretend they know more about science than actual scientists.

[MediaDeit]

No it doesn't. The image on the left is a fake, and I have posted that on here many times. Here is what the real image looks like.



http://content.time.com/time/magazin...070409,00.html


Notice how Tony Soprano's face his been replaced with Frank Burns' from MASH; how the date was changed from 2007 to 1977; how "Why We Can't Beat the Soviets" was changed from "Beyond Baghdad: Where the Enemy Has Its Own Surge"; notice how the woman in the top left is different; and finally notice how "The Global Warming Survival Guide" was changed to "How to Survive the Coming Ice Age".

So, in this thread we've had references to tabloid newspapers, faked magazine covers, unproven claims of a worldwide conspiracy, tired old arguments like "climate changed in the past", and yet intelligent people are supposed to take these arguments seriously.

Well the sad part is even pointing out those falseties will change nothing, the right wing are proud of their ignorance..... I am sure they are photoshopping images and making up for falsities as we speak for the mornings right wing email blast.

[Mulyark]

libs, like most normal people, tend to accept scientific consensus.


conservatives, unlke most people, like to pretend they know more about science than actual scientists.

We CHALLENGE scientific "theories" and orthodox consensus. Libs just buy whatever their entrenched academic establishment sells them. Funny, isn't it? In 1968 it was the Libs that questioned authority and manufactured consensus. Now It's us battling these false idols.