Libs, if you found out that there was no scientific concusses on man-made climate change, would you start to question the whole thing?

Libs, if you found out that there was no scientific concusses on man-made climate change, would you start to question the whole thing? Topic: Libs, if you found out that there was no scientific concusses on man-made climate change, would you start to question the whole thing?
April 21, 2019 / By Aiah
Question: I constantly hear/see libs parrot the 97% of scientist thing; even Obama has said it a few times. But, I wonder if they know there is strong evidence that it is completely false? The Myth of the Climate Change '97% http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136 What is the origin of the false belief that nearly all scientists agree about global warming? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/30/the-myth-of-the-97-climate-change-consensus/ 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html Debunking the 97% 'Consensus' on Global Warming http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/02/debunking-97-consensus-on-global-warming.html Peer Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientist Skeptical Of Global Warming http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/ *consensus
Advertisement
Best Answer

Best Answers: Libs, if you found out that there was no scientific concusses on man-made climate change, would you start to question the whole thing?

Susanne Susanne | 5 days ago
All areas of climatology are largely tainted with deception but none are as hopelessly contaminated and patholotically plluted with deliberate fraud and lies as the so called science of anthropogenic global warming. Climatologists, in a frenzied panic to fill the gaping holes in the Earth's climate history, are busy manufacturing models, drawings, artist renderings, and animations on the basis of the weakest evidence imaginable, superficial, conjecturous, and imaginative assumptions, which are then presented to a credulous public as founded on irrefutable scientific evidence and sold as infallible proof for climate change, when in reality no credible evidence for global warming exists at all. How is this deception perpetuated? Well, just follow the money! Climate science is funded almost entirely by the government and by special interest foundations with globalist leanings that control the government, such as the Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation, the Ford Foundation, The Rothchilds, and many others. Funding and sponsorship to almost all organizations involved in climate science, such as universities, laboratories, research organizations, and peer review journals etc, is provided on the condition and mandate of maintaining the status quo and producing and supporting evidence supporting the theory of global warming. These organizations are mandated to recruit only scientists who wholeheartedly support the theory of global warming; they are hired on the condition of being in support of the global warming hoax, and these organizations are headed up and run by individuals that are already deeply stooped and committed to maintaining the global warming propaganda paradigm. Much of what affects the interests of the globalist agenda depends on maintaining the climate propaganda hoax in the western world. By now you're probably thinking this sounds like a typical argument against global warming. Now take the words "climate science" and "global warming", and replace them with "evolutionary biology" and "evolution", and the above is an actual quote from a website disputing the theory of evolution. If climate denialists are using the same arguments, word for word, as people who claim the Earth is 6000 years old, what does this tell you about the validity of such arguments? The parallels don't end with this one example. Visit some other creationist websites, and you'll see endless attacks on Richard Dawkins, the figurehead for evolutionary biology. You'll see frequent discussion of Piltdown man, a scientific hoax that really did occur, with the implication being that it discredits an entire branch of science. The parallels here are so obvious, I don't even need to explain them. When science isn't on your side, these are the type of logical fallacies you have to resort to. Not only do climate denialists use the same "arguments" as people denying other settled sciences, but they are dishonest about irrefutable facts. They frequently claim the Earth hasn't gotten any warmer. You can't argue with historical and present thermometer readings, which is why all scientists agree that the Earth has warmed up 1.53 degrees Fahrenheit in the last century. It's not up for debate whether thermometers are a reliable way to measure temperatures. If they're going to lie about this, why should you believe anything else they say? Climate denialism isn't a science, and it uses the exact same "rebuttals" that are used in denying other settled scientific theories. "Climate gate" was made up merely to confuse the general public, and the scientists involved were cleared of any wrong doing. The only truth in this story is that a computer security breach occcurred. No major scientific organization disputes the theory of anthropogenic global warming. Visit a climate change website, and you'll see arguments about greenhouse gasses, radiative forcing, radioisotpes in ice core samples, and tree rings; an attempt to actually educate people. Visit a denialist website and you'll see conspiracy theories, discussions of Al Gore's hypocrisy, and outright lies. You'll never find any rebuttals to the ice core studies because the denialists don't talk about science itself. Climate denialism isn't about science, it's about manipulating public opinion to protect the profits of coal and petroleum interests. From 2003 to 2010, fossil fuel interests spent $558 million on climate denialism. There is indeed a climate scam occurring, it's just not what you're thinking it is,and it's not what Wall Street wants you to think it is. Climate denialism is itself the only real scam going on. Not only is it funded by big oil and rejected by a vast majority of scientists, big it contradicts what science has known since the 1800's. In 1896, the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first proposed that carbon dioxide caused a greenhouse effect on Earth. He even created a mathematical formula for how many Watts of infrared radiation would be reflected back down to Earth's surface at any given level of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is known as Arrhenius' greenhouse law and it is is still accepted as valid science today. In 1906, he used his mathematical formulas to predict that a doubling of CO2 levels would cause a 1.6 degrees celsius increase in global temperatures, a number that is in agreement with modern IPCC estimates. He even correctly predicted that the poles would warm much more than the Equator. Global warming is no hoax. Scientists have been reaching the exact same conclusions for more than a century, and the debate the debate is over. Permission given to copy this freely with or without modifications. If you found it persuasive, please pass it along. Given the context, excerpt from liveleak is covered under fair use copyright doctrine. Everyone is entitled to their own religious beliefs about the origins of life; the purpose of these analogies is to demonstrate what is and is not considered a valid argument according to scientific methods.
👍 198 | 👎 5
Did you like the answer? Libs, if you found out that there was no scientific concusses on man-made climate change, would you start to question the whole thing? Share with your friends
Susanne Originally Answered: why do so many of you believe there is "No" Climate change?
I do not doubt climate change or the human influence on the environment at all, so I don't really know why there is so much resistance to the facts on this issue, other than to suggest that polluting industries are throwing a great deal of money and effort around in the hope of discrediting the science, maintaining their oversized short-term profit margins, and keeping an edge over competitors who are taking the issue seriously. In fact, I prefer to call it Global Warming. The term "climate change" was coined by the spin doctors of the Bush administration, who were looking for a way to make Global Warming sound less threatening. Global Warming has been researched by many thousands of scientists worldwide, over many decades. It's about as hard to disprove as Gravity. We know it is happening, and that human CO2 emissions are contributing to it, though there has long been debate about how rapidly it is happening. The progression of weather patterns and ecological changes worldwide have demonstrated that is happening quickly enough, and that we will have some major problems in the next few decades. Perhaps civilization will need to reach the stage of mass food and water shortages from the reduction in arable land that will result from it, and only then will there be enough support to turn things around. One of the biggest problems will be the fact that changing our pollution habits will only make a noticeable difference to the environment after about 20 years or so, and in the meantime things will get worse. It will be hard to maintain support for fighting global warming unless the average voter understands that. Then again, we might be still debating whether its real or not, in which case we're as good as f**ked.

Randa Randa
of course, I always weigh both sides before making a decision & am open to changing my mind given new evidence it's just that you haven't presented any
👍 80 | 👎 -3

Mercedes Mercedes
Now, I know you probably don't know how this works because you are trying to use science to disprove science, but use .gov or .org sites if you want any credibility. Anyone can write garbage on the internet. http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/ http://climatechange.procon.org/#backgro... http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html#.VCc5jWddWuI http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ That is your lesson for today. Now read.
👍 76 | 👎 -11

Lenora Lenora
They will never abandon their religion. They will continue to advance it with a fervor that rivals muslim extremists
👍 72 | 👎 -19

Lenora Originally Answered: Is "Climate Change" a religion?
Eh no. Religion is the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power. It really doesn't fit the definition. The theory is that it is down to human activity. __________ geri: How do you have the top answers on here? Are you joking me. Religion requires faith. It's not proven or disproven. Like how Global Warming is scientific theory, it's not proven or disproven. To believe this automatically makes it equivalent to a religion. Belief on faith. How did I get top contributor here because I don't believe in the same thing you do? How far has that kind of thinking got you? Anywho, having faith does not mean something has anything to do with religion! I have faith tomorrow will be a wonderful day for me.... I have faith Mcdonalds is really using 100% beef...... I have faith I'll pass my exams...... tell me what that has to do with religion? Get off your high horse and use your brain.
Advertisement

If you have your own answer to the question Libs, if you found out that there was no scientific concusses on man-made climate change, would you start to question the whole thing?, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.