Nice chart. Could you comment on the possibility of an added ~3% possibly affecting the equilibrium of natural CO2 intake and emissions? Could you also add human contributions of other green house gases? That would be real interesting to see.
That's just simply wrong http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/01/02/dark-money-funds-to-promote-global-warming-alarmism-dwarf-warming-denier-research/ prove what?
An Op/Ed from an author of the Hearland Institude, a conservative think tank. I'm sorry, I'm going with the academic paper. The author is also studying the climate change movement and will compare spending between the two sides. http://drexel.edu/now/news-media/releases/archive/2013/December/Climate-Change/ Anyway, side tracked enough. There is Science consensus on AWG. These talk about money influences on the science isn't worth arguing over anymore. It's simply silly. I did have a major error. I said Billion when it should be Million.
You claim they make tons so that data would help us in our discussions. I provide links which provide proof of the 97% and you come back with rhetoric with no ounce of data to back it up. In addition, if these publishers do it for the money (subsidies), wouldn't they get TONS more money if they sided with the oil/coal industry? If your claim is true, the subsidies they would get from the gov't would pale in comparison to what the oil/coal industry can pay them.
You want proof that college departments and institutions rely on subsidies and grants? rly? No. you provided proof that you were wrong. You showed that the number was referring to 97% of published articles not 97% of scientists. Even your 97% of published articles is a skeptical number
Your claim is very specific. You said those publishers are doing it for the money. Now you bring up college institutions? Just like the saying goes and I am saying this in the most respectful way... put up or shut up. When scientists wants to share their work with the world or reviewed by their peers, they want to publish their work and they want it published by scientific publications. Before any of their articles or studies gets published, they are first reviewed by folks to make sure that proper scientific and logical processes were followed for those studies. Those that get published, pass those criteria and will now be open to scrutiny and review. The ones that don't pass, don't even get the light of day just like creationist scientists, climate change deniers, etc - ones that use pseudo science. Publishing your work means it will be open to review, scrutinity and debunking from the science community. So if nodobdy is able to refute your claims, it makes your study valid. Now do you understand why it makes sense to take consensus from scientific publications rather than some random guy making claims?
No I didn't. I said there is a financial incentive that skews the results of your posted data. Which is obvious. None of that has to do with your claim. Absolutely none of it. you claimed 97% of scientist and then listed articles claiming 97% of published works. Those are not synonymous. Not even close. Why didn't you just say 97% of published works on the subject?
If you have proof of any significant number of these climate change studies being rejected by peer review and have evidence of a financial motive behind those studies, then present it. Otherwise you're just being silly.
All this stuff about "no temperature change in the last 17 years" or "global warming is just about greedy scientists" have been addressed repeatedly before. These guys just keep on trotting out the same old tired stuff. This makes about as much sense as guys in Minnesota saying global warming isn't happening because it got cold this winter.
It's only obvious to the biased eyes who can't get themselves to accept truth and facts and will resort to all sorts or rhetoric and conspiracies and the only proof they can muster is that.. it's obvious -- NOT. Scientific publications are synonymous with scientists because the first question you ask about a specific scientific claims is, where was this published? You don't even get that you are making the climate change even more convincing because taking a consensus of scientists who's body of work has never been reviewed does not compare to publications that are open for review and debunking. If 97% of PUBLISHED articles does not convince you, nothing will. I will leave you with that as I have more April fools stories to amuse myself.
This chart taken way out of context, bigtexxx. You need a chart that puts human generated greenhouse gases in relation to all greenhouse gases. I think if you find such a chart, you will see that human effect is smaller than the 3.5%.
I don't see that's logical. Showing electricity exists will get you lots of money. But that money incentive doesn't mean electricity doesn't exist then.
The National Science Foundation has spent nearly $700,000 on a climate change-themed theatrical production http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/theater/04arts-SCIENCEFOUND_BRF.html?_r=0
Who are these people saying 'prove it' when the IPCC models have all been wrong, the doomsday predictions about sea levels rising and glaciers melting have all been wrong, and the predictions about the temperatures rising have all been wrong? They have all been wrong. Despite this, these theories still have supporters? Why? It's no wonder the left is trying to bully people on this issue and call them names like deniers and flat earthers. Intimidation and bullying is all they have left because their underlying data has disproved them. You'd try to shout over your opponents too with mantras like "the science is settled" if you didn't have an argument to point to.
Global Warming reminds me of the Efficient Market Hypothesis. Academia really ended up on the wrong side of that one, but they were significantly financially incentivized to.
Predicting isn't really the science part. Recorded evidence has been proven and it shows man made climate change. Why do nuts disagree with 97% of published climatologist reports on the issue? Why do nuts claim that scientists who support global warming do it for money, when the most money spent is from those trying to disprove man made climate change? The biggest money to be made would be for Scientists to disagree with man made climate change, yet despite that they almost all agree that it's real.
