Wait. Hold on -- I ask you a simple question, and you go off on an insult-laden post like this....and I'm the troll? Umm, actually you're the one not engaging in a dialogue but instead using personal insults as a crutch when you cannot defend yourself.
Engage when you feel like it. Show proof that they aren't objective, and we can talk. Or don't show it, and I don't care. I wasn't using an insult at all. At least I can't imagine that you'd take being labeled a troll as insulting. You try hard at it.
I completely understand but I think you are not hearing me. Last response since it's off topic. Seems you didn't watch the link to the video nor read the article I provided. It stated what happen. The video one is very informative and interesting (and a good lesson). One of the amazing thing is there were not much of any scientific consensus early on all the way through the late 70s. In fact, a few studies by NIH in the late 70s showed that there were no link between fat and heart diseases. In the 80s, two more studies by NIH (very expensive but not Billion) basically show that low fat AND drugs (statin type) lower risk of heart disease. Interesting how drug got in there, but as the presenter pointed out, the result weren't wrong but you can't mix drug and diet in the same study and conclude that diet (low fat) reduces heart disease. The NIH head ran with it anyway and pushed this "myth". In the 90s and through now, further studies again show no link between fat and heart diseases. Again, no scientific consensus and in fact, science is what pushed to correct this (still, today, there is more study needed as these studies that show no fat link to heart diseases stated). This is far from the consensus we have with GW. Look, it's feasible that one day, someone come up with better ways and methods to understand GW and disprove that GW is happening or is caused by human. That is not out of the question, however unlikely. Yet, we have to face current reality and deal with it.
People ask you questions all the time to engage in dialogue and you run away undoubtedly because you can't defend yourself. Shameful, clown post brah.
As long as he diverts attention from the topic or issues onto himself or towards a quibbling point, the objective is achieved.
Guys I just wanted to chime in a say that the notion of climate change is false because it's potentially devastating to my business. Thanks.
But actually you're the one not engaging! I asked you a simple question and you get all defensive and launch into insults.
That is because your question questioned the reliability of the IPCC without any evidence whatsoever. Perhaps you should consider that his decision not to engage further is the direct result of your previous bad behavior.
I asked you to elaborate. That's part of discussion. Your inability or unwillingness to do that ended the discussion.
Gosh you people and your insults! How can you libs treat people like this? Barack Hussien Obamarama must have taught you lib pigs how to be defensive and not answer simple questions brahs. brahs.
Ha! no. I asked a simple question on whether or not you believe IPCC is biased. I didn't even state my own opinion on the matter. I asked you a simple question. You chose to respond with insults.
Those who falsely claim that "the science is settled" must rely on the type of suppression and intolerance seen in the story below in order to preserve their flawed argument. There is an orchestrated movement to suppress analysis that contradicts the global warming thesis. There is also intimidation and bullying that occurs to prevent opposition research in this area. Scientists who dare come out against the false consensus are blackballed and their careers are jeopardized. This is not science at all -- this is politics -- which is why this movement has zero credibility. Honest people have nothing to hide. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-covered-claimed-fuel-climate-scepticism.html Study which doubts global warming is ‘covered up’ 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 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. The research, if made public, would be a huge challenge to the finding of the UN’s Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that the global average temperature would rise by up to 4.5C if greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were allowed to double. The paper suggested that the climate might be less sensitive to greenhouse gases than had been claimed by the IPCC in its report last September, and recommended that more work be carried out ‘to reduce the underlying uncertainty’. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ed-fuel-climate-scepticism.html#ixzz31qRInyQA Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
And now for the part that FV Conspiracy left out. Basically the guy joins some "non-profit" think tank lobbying group founded by a politician (shocking) and now wants a study published backing up his new think tank group. Seems legit. http://www.spiegel.de/international...oins-climate-skeptic-think-tank-a-968856.html The debate over climate change is often a contentious one, and key players in the discussion only rarely switch sides. But late last month, Lennart Bengtsson, the former director of the Hamburg-based Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, one of the world's leading climate research centers, announced he would join the academic advisory council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). GWPF, based in Britain, is a non-profit organization and self-described think tank. Conservative politician Nigel Lawson founded the organization in 2009 in order to counteract what he considered to be an exaggerated concern about global warming. The organization uses aggressive information campaigns to pursue its goals. The lobby group's views markedly differ from those of the UN climate panel, the IPCC, whose reports are the products of the work of hundreds of scientists who classify and analyze vast amounts of climate knowledge accumulated through years of research. The most recent IPCC report states that man-made emissions of greenhouse gases are leading to significant global warming, with serious environmental consequences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a think tank in the United Kingdom, whose stated aims are to challenge "extremely damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming.[3][4] The Independent describes the foundation as "the UK's most prominent source of climate-change denial".[5] According to a press release on the organization's website, GWPF "is funded entirely by voluntary donations from a number of private individuals and charitable trusts. In order to make clear its complete independence, it does not accept gifts from either energy companies or anyone with a significant interest in an energy company."[4] Annual membership contributions are "a minimum of £100".[26] Citing privacy concerns, Director Benny Peiser declined to reveal the sources of funding for the GWPF. Peiser said GWPF does not receive funding "from people with links to energy companies or from the companies themselves."[18] In accounts filed at the beginning of 2011 with the Charities Commission and at Companies House, it was revealed that only £8,168 of the £503,302 the Foundation received as income, from its founding in November 2009 until the end of July 2010, came from membership contributions.[20] In response to the accounts, Bob Ward commented that "We can now see that the campaign conducted by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which includes lobbying newspaper editors and MPs, is well-funded by money from secret donors. Its income suggests that it only has about 80 members, which means that it is a fringe group promoting the interests of a very small number of politically motivated campaigners."[20]
of course the first thing the liberals will do is try to attack the source by calling them "conservative"! lol how many scientists are liberal? pwn3d
Wow leaving this softball out here? Research funded by a conservative think tank is nothing like the political beliefs of scientists. And thank you for acknowledging that many scientists are liberal. It's not like we live and improve our lives from this silly science nonsense.
Science is never "settled", it's always a consensus of opinions. In this case it's a 96% consensus so there will always be a opposite view if you look to the 4% of dissenters. Hell, there is still a Flat Earth Society and a significant group that think the world is 6,000 years old. Considering the overwhelming consensus and the grave implications for our children's world, isn't the prudent course to consider ways to mitigate the damage?
