T Nation

How to Combat Anti-Climate Change Fools


#1

I thought this article had a pretty interesting little chart in it. I found it right after I read an article somewhere about a study showing that 97% of scientific studies into climate change argue that climate change is indeed occurring and man is the force acting upon the climate and provoking this change. I always hear the argument that there isn't a consensus within the science community about this issue, and sure, there isn't. ONLY 97% of the scientific community agrees that the rapid acceleration of climate change that we are witnessing is man-made. There's still a stubborn 3% out there clinging to other theories. I'm sure those 3 percenters are probably funded by the oil industry.


#2

New data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are continuing to rise but global temperatures are not following suit. The new data undercut assertions that atmospheric carbon dioxide is causing a global warming crisis.

Global temperatures are essentially the same today as they were in 1995, when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were merely 360 ppm. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose 10 percent between 1995 and 2012, yet global temperatures did not rise at all. Global warming activists are having a difficult time explaining the ongoing disconnect between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures.


#3

Amazing that a Financial rag has a different opinion than most Scientists wow


#4

LMAO....the Forbes piece is a joke.


#5

Sorry Max, but I'll err on the side of caution and go with the near-consensus view of the scientific community rather than an article in a financial magazine. I especially like the second-to-last paragraph in that article, in which the entire issue is basically turned into an economic one. It's essentially an article designed to downplay the effects of carbon dioxide emissions on climate change as a way to combat proposed legislation that would basically be bad for big businesses guilty of pumping the atmosphere full of such emissions. This article clearly has an ulterior motive and was probably part of the 3% of studies funded by the oil industry.


#6

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#7

I think Forbes opinions in this article would be like asking Scientific American for stock advice or Bill Maher on which church to go to or the Police on if we are winning the war on drugs


#8

Kinda like looking to one of the most liberally biased websites in existence to aggregate one line talking points for you concerning a topic with the enormity of global climate change.


#9

I would love to see the reference verifying that "97% of scientific studies into climate change argue that climate change is indeed occuring and man is the force acting upon the climate and provoking this change." Would you please post this up for me?


#10

A snail fart affects the climate. Man, alas, is a natural being on the planet. Hence, what we do is also simply natural, and naturally we affect the climate, so does every other living thing. I like the idea of man-made climate change, like nothing else on the planet affects the planet's climate. Further, that we're arrogant to believe we can control how the planet's climate behaves. Further, further, the most amusing piece of this whole horseshit, is that the planet will only get exponentially warmer and warmer until we fry.
So few people understand climatology at all. Not the political left-wing horseshit, but the actual science.
Climate changes perpetually, it has never stayed stagnant in the history of this planet. Further, with the ebbs and flows of climate, it does not change gradually and steadily, it goes through long periods of stagnation with periods of extreme and sudden change, followed by stagnation. Just check the fossil record it verifies that very fact. The 100 year record in the 4.5 billion year record of the Earth's existence is so statistically insignificant, no statistically significant conclusion can be drawn from that small a sample, much less why it happens. There are literally millions of factors involved in climate.

Lastly, if there has been an artificially induced warming on the Earth, the only thing it will yield is an acceleration toward the next cooling period. That is unless of course the climate ceases to function as it has the past 2 billion years. And if man is capable of that, we are truly amazing creatures.
If you like it cold, be patient, it will happen


#11

You mean, you don't take 'thinkprogress's word for it? Just because they are a liberal bullshit, partisan rag, high on propaganda and short of facts doesn't mean you shouldn't take it seriously. Every good lie is at least 20% true.


#12

He's new to the PWI vortex. He doesn't know how to use real, actual sources yet. Or when to use them. Let him post his liberal propaganda. For the record, the Forbes peice has as much or more credibility than thinkprogress. It's tit-for-tat, one bad source meets another an balance is achieved.


#13

Kinda :slight_smile:


#14

Yeah, I remember the old climate change science "consensus" from the 70's in many circles,
Same shit...different generation, 'xept last time it was....drum roll..."The Coming Ice Age", which also
was an old book I still have, complete with charts, graphs, CIA reports and warnings, consensus
reports from climate experts from around the world, lions and tigers and bears oh my!!
This is all horseshit because it's all about CONTROL...funny how libs wanna "save the planet"...but
"fuck the unborn, we don't care about them".


#15

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

There you go.


#16

The Earth is 4.5 Billion years old, and only humanity can have a ballsack big enough to think it can predict the climate.


#17

Here's another:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130515203048.htm

If you simply type "academic scientific studies about climate change" into your Google search bar you can read all sorts of articles from scientific journals about the realities of climate change. You won't find Forbes or the Wall Street Journal publishing many articles, if any, that fit into this criteria.


#18

"...If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available - raw data PLUS results from all intermediate calculations - I will not submit any further papers to RMS journals." - Ben Santer, Lead Author IPCC (1995)

"The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone." - Phil Jones, Director Climatic Research Unit (CRU)

"I cant see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" - Phil Jones, Director Climatic Research Unit (CRU)

I think you put way too much faith in global warming scientists coop. They've been getting paid to say the same fucking shit for years now.


#19

Thanks for the Scientific FACTS :slight_smile:


#20

I delved extremely deeply into the subject of anthropogenic global warming in college. I was a stat major, and I noticed an extreme amount of bullshit in pretty much every study presented at the time.

I just want followers of this thread to look at this picture and tell me what you see.