'Mini Ice Age' Looms As NASA Scientist Warns Lack Of Sunspots Could Bring Record Cold

basketcase said:

Maybe you should fix your reading skills because I quoted the actual study data.


Only 0.6% of scientists deny human produced CO2 is playing a role in climate change.

Click to expand...

But that's not what the so called 97% consensus is. The 97% is the belief that human CO2 emissions are the main driver of global warming which could have catastrophic consequences to humanity.
This survey of 6600 scientists disputes that because only 66% of respondents hold that belief. 97% vs 66% is a big difference.
It should also be noted that this survey was done in 2012. I think if it were conducted today that 66% would be closer to 50%.

K Douglas said:

However, I can make the argument the IPCC exhibits some of those traits. They pose as a scientific organization but in reality are a political bureaucracy. NASA should stick to space travel. The AAAS is just playing ignorant.

Click to expand...

Well, you pretty much attacked every scientist in North America to defend your kooky claims.

That places you firmly in the anti-science camp.

K Douglas said:

I think if it were conducted today that 66% would be closer to 50%

Click to expand...

I think you're right about that. John Christy, a very prominent global warming scientist led the way in all this.
He's very brave because he had to put his reputation and career on the line.
He knew there'd be a huge backlash from people who have a lot of money invested in climate change:

His quotes are pretty awesome: https://www.desmogblog.com/john-christy

This one is my favourite:

April, 2015

“Carbon dioxide makes things grow. The world used to have five times as much carbon dioxide as it does now. Plants love this stuff. It creates more food. CO2 is not the problem … There is absolutely no question that carbon energy provides with longer and better lives. There is no question about that.”

Click to expand...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BTW I had to dig my car out of a foot of snow this afternoon because of all that global warming.

(yeah.... yeah.....we know, weather =/= climate )

Phil C. McNasty said:

I think you're right about that. John Christy, a very prominent global warming scientist led the way in all this.
He's very brave because he had to put his reputation and career on the line.
He knew there'd be a huge backlash from people who have a lot of money invested in climate change:

Click to expand...

Ah, yes, so many people are drawn to climatology over the massive research salaries.
Such big money, I hear that people are dropping their oil industry jobs, ditching their oil stocks and running straight to university to pay big bucks in education to cash in on those cushy research jobs.

Hilarious.

And yes, his quotes are also hilarious.
So is the very large list of errors in his work listed your desmog page.

Frankfooter warning us about latest snowstorm caused by global warming

https://moneyweek.com/732/how-to-profit-from-carbon-trading/
https://www.npr.org/2015/01/05/375064516/entrepreneurs-find-ways-to-make-money-from-carbon-emissions
https://redd-monitor.org/2011/11/04...o-will-benefit-meet-the-trillion-dollar-club/

Phil C. McNasty said:

https://moneyweek.com/732/how-to-profit-from-carbon-trading/
https://www.npr.org/2015/01/05/375064516/entrepreneurs-find-ways-to-make-money-from-carbon-emissions
https://redd-monitor.org/2011/11/04...o-will-benefit-meet-the-trillion-dollar-club/

Click to expand...

You think climatologists have spend their massive research money on carbon trading?
Hilarious.

Almost as hilarious as thinking that the oil industry is financially dwarfed by climatology research money.

Speaking of hilarious:

Frankfooter said:

You think climatologists have spend their massive research money on carbon trading?
Hilarious.

Almost as hilarious as thinking that the oil industry is financially dwarfed by climatology research money.

Speaking of hilarious:

Click to expand...

I liked when they said not to bother using condoms because they are only 97% effective. So there is no consensus, right Phil?

shack said:

I liked when they said not to bother using condoms because they are only 97% effective. So there is no consensus, right Phil?

Click to expand...

Scientific progress is never based on consensus. Otherwise, we would still be in the Middle-Ages. A scientific theory is only as good as the next one to come along, and the next one to come along is usually dismissed by the majority.

The IPCC was founded by the UN to prove that human activity was the cause of Global Warming. This they have done by imaginative curve fitting and excluding factors that tend to negate their objective.

Anybody who dismisses evidence or a theory because it doesn't conform to the narrative is halting scientific progress. Instead of dismissing or shouting 'preposterous!', those scientists of the so-called majority should scientifically refute those claims. But they can't because they would lose their funding and their jobs if they wind up contradicting the narrative.

Their premonitions of climate doom have never panned out. They rely exclusively on computerized models, which as being constantly corrected to reflect what actually happened.

If Climate Change was either disproven or found to be driven by other factors such as human activity, thousands of climatologists and meteorologists would lose their jobs, and many universities would lose significant funding. So the narrative has to be perpetuated.

BTW, name calling and snide remarks by those dismissing the objections just make them lose credibility when they resort to such unscientific and childish behaviour.

wilbur said:

Their premonitions of climate doom have never panned out.

Click to expand...

So wrong.



The rest of your post is just nonsense.

Frankfooter said:

So wrong.

The rest of your post is just nonsense.

Click to expand...

Only the weak minded would believe that. There is ample documentation, even amongst the alarmist community, that the models are predicting too much warming. Not to mention the fact that they have adjusted data to warm the present and cool the past.

K Douglas said:

Only the weak minded would believe that. There is ample documentation, even amongst the alarmist community, that the models are predicting too much warming. Not to mention the fact that they have adjusted data to warm the present and cool the past.

Click to expand...

This is the data from the scientific community.

There is no other legit data contrary to this.
This is backed by 120,000 scientists in North America through the AAAS.

Frankfooter said:

This is the data from the scientific community.

There is no other legit data contrary to this.
This is backed by 120,000 scientists in North America through the AAAS.

Click to expand...

LOL......its 120,000 scientists now??!! :spit:

Phil C. McNasty said:

LOL......its 120,000 scientists now??!! :spit:

Click to expand...

Yup.

Founded in 1848, the American Association for the Advancement of Science is an international, nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing science, engineering and innovation for the benefit of all people. With more than 120,000 individual members in more than 91 countries, AAAS is the world’s largest multidisciplinary scientific society and a leading publisher of cutting-edge research through the Science family of journals.

Click to expand...

http://annualreport.aaas.org/?utm_source=aaasorg&utm_medium=aboutpg&utm_campaign=2015AnnualReport

How many do you have backing your conspiracy theories?
Alex Jones, CM, Kirk + ?

Frankfooter said:

This is backed by 120,000 scientists in North America through the AAAS

Click to expand...

Frankfooter said:

Yup.
With more than 120,000 individual members in more than 91 countries

Click to expand...

What did you get in geography class, Frankie??

K Douglas said:

But that's not what the so called 97% consensus is.....

Click to expand...

Are you happier that instead of being with the 3% you are actually with the 0.6% of deniers?

Phil C. McNasty said:

I think you're right about that. John Christy, a very prominent global warming scientist led the way in all this.
He's very brave because he had to put his reputation and career on the line.
He knew there'd be a huge backlash from people who have a lot of money invested in climate change:

His quotes are pretty awesome: https://www.desmogblog.com/john-christy

This one is my favourite:



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BTW I had to dig my car out of a foot of snow this afternoon because of all that global warming.

(yeah.... yeah.....we know, weather =/= climate )

Click to expand...

And no doubt that while increased CO2 is good for plants, it's not good for human society. Glad to see you put the welfare of plants ahead of your own.

Frankfooter said:

This is the data from the scientific community.

There is no other legit data contrary to this.
This is backed by 120,000 scientists in North America through the AAAS.

Click to expand...

So in your warped sense of logic because any scientist pays a membership to the AAAS they automatically believe in AGW. You just summed up the lunacy of the left in a nutshell. Congratulations.

basketcase said:

Are you happier that instead of being with the 3% you are actually with the 0.6% of deniers?

Click to expand...

Did you go to the Frankie school of mathematics? You know, the one where you graduate insolvent

basketcase said:

And no doubt that while increased CO2 is good for plants, it's not good for human society. Glad to see you put the welfare of plants ahead of your own

Click to expand...

Great news for vegetarians. More food for them