Climate change, the so-called consensus.

Global warming alarmists like to claim that there is a scientific consensus that recognizes anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
Well lets see if this claim stands up to scrutiny!

mirror of climatesightful video "It's not just Al Gore"

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2009/media/1021climate_letter.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#
Mirror of ClimateSightful video "It's Not Just Al Gore: Scientific Agreement on Climate Change "

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• global
• warming
• climate
• change
• dissent
• fraud
• censorship
• +climategate
• NWO
• Illuminati
• Al
• Gore

[cristop5]

"An Inconvenient Truth," "this indoctrination is obscene" etc

I suggest you read the judgment. Despite the 'errors' Mr Justice Barton wrote: "I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that: 'Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.' "

Regardless of Gore's film and your views on how significant the errors are, we are still adversely changing the climate. That's the real issue.

[4SmallGov]

97.4 % of how many scientists? How many of them rely on funding that they may lose if they do not go along with the "consensus" of the other liberals, err, I mean the other scientists? Just like the "Coming Ice Age" from 1975. The "consensus" can't decide if we're causing it to be cold or hot, so they'll just call it "climate change" then they can't be wrong. Liberals are so transparent that they can't see how transparent they are.

[cristop5]

@4SmallGov

1. The 97.4% refers to 75 out of 77 publishing climatologists (see ht tp://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/01­2009_Doran_final.pdf)

2. Don't you think more funding would be flow if people claimed they didn't know why the earth was warming?

3. There was no 1970s ice age 'consensus'. Of the relevant papers published from 1965-79, 7 predicted cooling, 17 were neutral & 42 predicted warming. (see: ht tp://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpap­ers/131047.pdf)

That myth was based on a magazine article.

[klotjohan53]

@cristop5 - No, of course I know that humans affect the climate. Chopping down all the big forests have had a huge effect on climate. What I said was that the guy in the video said that it is human activities that is responsible for climate change. He gave by far too high importance to us humans with regard to climate - actually he hinted that it is human activities alone that forms the climate changes. Without us it would be no change. Which is obviously false.

[cristop5]

@klotjohan53 "actually he hinted that it is human activities alone that forms the climate changes. Without us it would be no change. Which is obviously false."

Watch ALL of Blair's commentary again to understand him fairly. He notes "natural processes" but says that "..the only way to account for the global warming that has taken place - especially over the last 50 years - is by taking into account the changes that humans have made to the atmosphere - the addition of greenhouse gases."

[klotjohan53]

This is all nonsense. The so called scientist in the interview said climate change is due to human activities. What kind answer is that? We all know climate changes perfectly well without the help of humans. The climate have been changing for hundreds of millions of years. We had a small ice age in the 1600s and the temperature has been going up since. And 10.000 years ago we had a real ice age. Totally without the help of humans.

[cristop5]

@klotjohan53 "We all know climate changes perfectly well without the help of humans. The climate have been changing for hundreds of millions of years."

You seem to be arguing that because the climate can change without human activities it must be impossible for human activities to affect climate. This is a non sequitur. Here's another one for you:

"Everyone know trees grow better with more water, so how could adding nitrogen possibley have an effect?"

ps. Why is it warming?

[TheElasticJesusRez]

Human beings discharge 73 million tonnes CO2 per day.

No human beings discharge 0 tonnes CO2 per day.

Human beings chop down 11 million hectares Rainforest per year.

No human beings chop down 0 hectares.

Rainforest alone recycles 20-25% of CO2.

These facts come independent of climatologists or the Democratic Party.

Yes, the indoctrination that counters - and puts spin - on these irrefutable facts is most definitely OBSENE.

[1000frolly]

Radical environmentalists have been using the public schools to brainwash children for decades, and it works. The British High Court ruled in October 2007 that Al Gore's global warming propaganda, "An Inconvenient Truth," is so riddled with factual errors that schools can't show it unless they acknowledge it is scientifically debatable, and the nine main errors are listed on an information pamphlet and handed out. But schoolchildren still believe the exaggerations, this indoctrination is obscene

[dmlt12]

Great video. Lets get on with the actions to improve renewable technologies, both in qualities & quantities of use! To not do so invites too much RlSK. Yeah sure just like the Medicos & other Scientists that spent time & a lot of effort researching Tobacco & Cancer; because many are paid - their conclusions are necessarily false? lf there is a dishonesty relationship with the more $ someone is paid, we should therefore doubt all our top Professionals & Business Leaders?