Open Thread — Global Warming

global warming


  1. Let’s just look at the facts:

    1. 97% of scientists who actually study global climates agree that climate change is real.

    2. Follow the money. The funding promoting the denailism of climate change far exceeds that any group promoting the cause.

    Personally, I don’t care about the climate change issue, but I do acknowledge it. I have no children and when I’m gone I’m gone. But my question out there for anyone who does have children is “What evidence would convince you to think otherwise?” What would make you not automatically write off the idea as a “left wing”, a “main stream media scam” or a “money making scheme”?

    • Well since it is been shown that the earth isnt warming anymore – in 16 years – and during that period greenhouse gasses were increased it kinda follows that we werent the problem. Also the periods of warming a lot worse than this with no suvs or human isdustry spoils it too.

      Maybe if so many climate researchers and scientists werent caught collaborating hiding findings that didnt fit and only using those that did, I might be less skeptical

  2. What IS known is that the earth has throughout history gone through warming and cooling stages. They’ve also discovered much relationship to sun spot activity. What has never been proven, but much asserted, is that man has anything to do with climate change.

  3. Well since it is been shown that the earth isnt warming anymore – in 16 years – and during that period greenhouse gasses were increased it kinda follows that we werent the problem.


    Maybe if so many climate researchers and scientists werent caught collaborating hiding findings that didnt fit and only using those that did, I might be less skeptical

    Rather isolated incident, no? Still, it’s hard to ignore an overwhelming agreement from the experts in the field. (as opposed to the partisan voices out there who don’t have any idea what they’re talking about)

    We know why the deniers who stand to benefit so greatly from promoting the controversy, but it confuses me why folks like you stand to firm in your position when the facts just aren’t on your side.

  4. John,
    “Well since it is been shown that the earth isnt warming anymore – in 16 years – and during that period greenhouse gasses were increased it kinda follows that we werent the problem.”

    “They’ve also discovered much relationship to sun spot activity.”


  5. Oh, well – I guess you’ve already reached your conclusion and no amount of evidence presented by experts in their field could ever change that. At least the money spent by all the organizations trying to promote the denial is paying off for them.

    • It was widespread collusion that they skewed and overlooked data that didnt confirm their idea. And multiple sources show no warming for nearly 2 decades

  6. paynehollow says:

    Yes, that’s right. There is a great widespread conspiracy amongst scientists – tens of thousands of people cooperating together to convince the world that something that isn’t happening is happening. Is that seriously what you’re suggesting?

    Ten Southern Baptists couldn’t meet together to secretly do something and keep a secret, what chance to thousands of scientists scattered across the globe from different cultures, languages and agendas/philosophies?

    Beware of anyone advocating a cause that involves a conspiracy where thousands of people secretly cooperating together to do anything. Conspiracy theorists are either liars or, more often, simple fools with an vague agenda.

    How to deal with this delusion? I prescribe: Reading up on how irrational conspiracy theories are, by nature.

    ~Dan Trabue

  7. paynehollow says:

    You have evidence of a conspiracy to knowingly spread false “facts” by tens of thousands of scientists? Produce it.

    Until such time as you provide solid evidence that tens of thousands (or whatever the number is) of serious scientists are engaged in a conspiracy, I’ll be forced to consider you a nutty conspiracy theorist, with good cause.


  8. paynehollow says:

    I’m familiar with the non-issue. Google led me to this…

    wiki report

    which reported, “Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged by the end of the investigations”

    and this

    “As always, context is key. Once the real context is understood, the emails make sense and the idea of conspiracy, scientific malfeasance, or fraud, is revealed to be unfounded.”

    Among other things.

    Again, YOU’re the one making the crazy claim that thousands of serious scientists are involved in a vast conspiracy to fool the public. The onus is on you to provide support for the nutty-sounding claim if you don’t want to be considered a conspiracy theory nut.


  9. paynehollow says:


    not widely reported.

    In fact, it was very quite widely reported. The idea that you appear to think that the MSM is involved in the “cover-up” is consistent with a belief in conspiracy theories.

  10. paynehollow says:

    So you have no evidence to support this conspiracy theory?


    Interesting you should mention echo chambers. Those are good places to build “evidence” for conspiracy theories. You should avoid them.


  11. paynehollow says:

    Glenn, I am a reasonable person and Christian of good faith who does not find your evidence convincing. Trying to paint those who disagree with your opinions as “uninterested in facts” as opposed to simply being a reasonable person who disagrees with you is another sign that you might be a rabid conspiracy theorist and, by extension, a bit nutty.

    From what I read from dozens of sources says that 90+ % of climatologists believe that the science supports the notions that, 1. the earth’s temperature is rising and 2. there are likely anthropogenic reasons contributing to or driving this climate change.

    See here, for instance.

    In fact, about the only place one can find support against anthropogenic climate change is the more rabid conspiracy theorist places.

    Glenn, John: Do you actually believe that 97% of experts on this topic are involved in a scam and cover up? Or is it the case that you doubt that there is a massive majority that believes as reported?

    I’ll say it again: If your belief system requires you to believe that a mass of humanity and those who disagree with you are either evil and uninterested in facts or truth or morality OR that they are involved in a plot to twist facts, you might be a bit crazy and you might consider spending some time with a psychologist.

    The problem there, of course, is that many of you all appear to believe that psychologists are all part of other plots against morality.


    • Dan

      You checked the links I posted?

    • Trabue,
      You have NEVER been a reasonable person when propagating all that is from the liberal ideology.

      You want to believe stats about what percentage of climatologists support the crap you promote when the stats are themselves developed by those biased towards “man caused” global warming. The fact that over 31,000 scientists have signed a petition against the propaganda of man-caused global warming means nothing to you. The fact that there are over 1100 peer-reviewded papers written against it means nothing to you. The fact that there has been no actual record of global warming in at least 17 years means nothing to you.

      There is NOTHING rational about your thinking processes – you are a lemming following the LEFT.

  12. paynehollow says:

    “Unfortunately, the Met Office prediction has resulted in quite a few confused articles in the mainstream media. For example, the Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail, Daily Express, Canada’s National Post, the Times, and the Indian Express all incorrectly reported that the Met Office is admitting that global warming has “stalled”, or some similar variant. These headlines are in direct contradiction to the Met Office forecast, which specifically stated:

    “The forecast of continued global warming is largely driven by increasing levels of greenhouse gases.”


    In short, that you have misunderstood a report based on insufficient evidence is not evidence that your misunderstanding is correct.

  13. paynehollow says:

    Says the conspiracy theorist…

    • So you label agw skeptics “conspiracy theorists” so you dont have to address contrary facts. Gotcha. Cant wait to call you a heretic next time we differ on theology and doctrine so I dont have to address you at all.

  14. paynehollow says:

    What are your opinions on the moon landing and Kennedy’s “assassination…”? Are they part of this vast conspiracy by so-called “experts” and “people knowledgeable in their fields” to fool the world and do evil? Is that my intent, too, Glenn? What’s the reading from the tin hat crowd, silly man?

    (You’ll have to excuse me, please, if I meet your belligerent huffing and puffing with a little mild mocking of this crazyland mindset. If you’re actually crazy, my apologies – I would never intentionally mock someone with mental illness – but I suspect it’s more that you’re just confused and emotionally-overwrought by listening to too much partisan wingnuttery.)


  15. paynehollow says:


    So you label agw skeptics “conspiracy theorists” so you dont have to address contrary facts.

    The problem with conspiracy theories is that they are just SO far out there and people holding to them so enwrapped with their conspiracies that they have what appears to be a mental break from reality, at least on these issues. It’s just insane to think that all the experts are part of a conspiracy to deliberately lie and fool people because… what? It’s fun to fool people and they’re not really interested in science?

    Do you not understand how, as soon as you embrace a conspiracy theory – at least one that requires thousands of respectable people to deliberately conspire to keep secrets and at great costs – you lose credibility in the adult conversational world?

  16. paynehollow says:

    So, tell me directly, John: DO you believe that there are 97% of climatologists out there who believe that the earth is warming and that there is likely a human reason?

    • Cook stated that abstracts of nearly all papers expressing an opinion on climate change endorsed consensus, which, however, traditionally has no scientific role; used three imprecise definitions of consensus interchangeably; analyzed abstracts only; excluded 67% expressing no opinion; omitted some key results; misstated others; and thus concluded that 97.1% endorsed the hypothesis as defined in their introduction, namely that the “scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)”. The authors’ own data file categorized 64 abstracts, or only 0.5% of the sample, as endorsing the consensus hypothesis as thus defined. Inspection shows only 41 of the 64, or 0.3% of the entire sample, actually endorsed their hypothesis. — Source

      The paper, Cook et al. (2013) ‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature‘ searched the Web of Science for the phrases “global warming” and “global climate change” then categorizing these results to their alleged level of endorsement of AGW. These results were then used to allege a 97% consensus on human-caused global warming.

      To get to the truth, I emailed a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper. Their responses are eye opening and evidence that the Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists’ papers as “endorsing AGW”, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. — Source

    • Don’t you just love how Trabue keeps using that unsubstantiated 97% claim? All one has to do is make up a bogus stat to support an agenda, and Dan will accept it as fact regardless of how much evidence is placed against it.

  17. paynehollow says:

    NASA believes and has reported that 97% of climatologists believe it. Does that mean that NASA is involved in this conspiracy?

  18. paynehollow says:

    It’s not Trabue, Mr Chatfield, it’s NASA!

    Also, the American Association for the Advancement of Science believes it. As do…

    The American Chemical Society
    The American Geophysical Union
    The AMA!
    The American Meteorological Society

    Even the US military believes in at least climate change, and from what I see, the top brass believes, along with so many serious scientists, that it’s likely anthropogenic in nature.

    Now, to say that the globe is not warming and likely due to human causes, you have to say that all these quite serious organizations are either fooled or lying.

    Do you think that NASA is fooled or are they out and out lying and part of a conspiracy to make up facts?

    Do you think the AMA is fooled or are they part of the conspiracy, too?

    Do you think that the AMS is fooled or part of the conspiracy?

    How deep does this conspiracy go, in your mind?

    • No comment on any link I provided by dan as of yet in this thread.

    • Wow, all those agencies accept something, so that must make it right.

      The American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association both say homosexuality is just another normal sexual choice and nothing at all wrong with it. So therefore, we know it’s true.

      By the way, an organization does not speak for all of its members, especially if the member disagrees.

      • Glenn by dans standard homosexuality is immoral and a sin because 97%+ of Jews and Christians and the rest of the world through out history said so. Unless theyre all lying or fooled. Sounds like we got a conspiracy theorist on our hands!!

  19. paynehollow says:

    I need to go on the record here and now and say that I am not a scientist. I’m not making any claims about the science. I’m just reporting what THE AMA, the AMS, the US military and NASA all seem to agree upon and report. If you have a problem with this fact, you’ll have to take it up with the liars or fools at NASA and the AMS, etc.

    I, for one, do not think I have more knowledge on this point than the folks at NASA do.

    Do you, Glenn, John, think you are more knowledgeable than NASA’s scientists on this topic?

  20. paynehollow says:


    No comment on any link I provided by dan as of yet in this thread.

    You cite a conspiracy theory site (globalwarmingskeptic).

    I cite NASA.

    I am not a scientist. I don’t know the science behind it. But I DO know enough to trust a site like NASA over globalwarmingskeptic.

    We know NASA’s credentials. What are the credentials of gws folk? Why should we take their word over NASA?

  21. Oh, and these same “scientists” go on record as believing in evolution!

    And Trabue claims he is rational.

  22. paynehollow says:

    John, be reasonable: I don’t know anything about GWS, but I DO know about NASA, about the AMS, about the AMA (Glenn’s further craziness notwithstanding). Think about this:

    WHY would a reasonable non-scientist take the word of a group called “globalwarmingskeptic” over NASA’s word?

    And IF you can’t answer a simple question like, “Do you think NASA is lying or that they’re fooled and just haven’t read the GWS website?” then on what basis would a reasonable person take your word that your unknown source is more trustworthy and rational than NASA?

  23. paynehollow says:

    ?? So, what? You think that NASA is in a plot to profiteer off of lying about climate change? Where is your evidence for that? Do you have a SINGLE BIT of evidence to support that?

    The interest that skeptics have is the interest in getting their crazy theories out there, not to mention a good bit of funding, at least at times.

  24. paynehollow says:

    ? I don’t know nothing about your sources. I’m not a scientists, but I’m generally distrustful of unknown people on the internets making crazy claims.

    Answer MY question: ON WHAT BASIS would I think that NASA is mistaken and why would I trust an unknown cite over NASA? Answer directly, John.

    If you think that NASA is deliberately lying because they are going to make money off of fake stories about climate change, then throw that bit of craziness out there along with your proof.

    I suspect you ignore all my questions because you recognize how crazy it sounds to say, “um, uh, yes, I do think that nasa and the ama and the ams are all working to deliberately fool everyone into thinking that climate change is real. I think this, um, because, well, um, I think they stand to make money off of fooling people. I don’t really have any evidence of this huge conspiracy amongst all these agencies and thousands of people, but i uh, i sorta think that the lack of evidence is all the evidence you need to prove that there is a cover up… uh, or something…”

    • Unlike you I read both sides of an issue and dont need to be a scientist to understand conclusions. Sorry, I’m not so lazy as to read a headline and buy it with no investigation.

      Im done arguing this with you because you admit you dont understand it and you wont read the other side. Reply in vain.

  25. paynehollow says:

    So, then, stand up and say it, Glenn, John. Say, “YES! I think NASA is part of a vast conspiracy to mislead the public by lying to them about climate change. They are doing this to make money… somehow. My evidence for this is… well, I just think it probably is, but I have no hard evidence for it. Still, I know it’s true because I think it is true…”

    If you think it, then say it. This mealy-mouthed and cowardly innuendo and half-accusations only speaks to your unwillingness to take a stand for what you seem to be saying, as if even YOU recognize how crazy it sounds.

    OR, come out and clarify, “NO! I don’t think NASA is part of a conspiracy…”

    Just clarify, make your point clear. If you have an accusation, put it out there. If not, back off from what it sounds like you’re saying.

    John, as to “reading the other side,” I don’t “read the other side” of the case for racism, I don’t read the KKK’s case as to why we should listen to them and kill minorities. I don’t read all manner of crazy-sounding stuff. You know why? BECAUSE I’M NOT CRAZY and I don’t find it amusing. Saying that NASA and the AMA, APA, AMS and other reputable institutions are part of a plot to lie to the world is CRAZY. If you have evidence of this hidden plot (are there Nazis involved, Hitler’s frozen brain, maybe? Combined with Saddam’s and Hannibal Lecter’s? …and this Super-Evil Brain is the organizer of this plot, pulling together a League of Villains to assassinate Cap’n Crunch and place Quisp in power as Supreme Leader???), produce it, otherwise, I’ll assume that it’s as crazy as it sounds.


    • Trabue keeps using that word, “Conspiracy.” I don’t think it means what he thinks it means.

      NASA is like everyone else sucking the government’s teat – they will say whatever it takes to keep the money flowing. That has nothing to do with a conspiracy and everything to do with sucking my tax dollars.

      • He has to use it. Its the only way to make the opposing side look crazy enough to dismiss without investigation. Like he said, anyone he deems crazy he doesnt have to listen to what they have to say. Thats how he keeps his head in the sand.

        You saw how he rejected his own rationale when I applied it to his love of homosexuality.

  26. John,

    “Unlike you I read both sides of an issue and dont need to be a scientist to understand conclusions.”

    As you say, one doesn’t need to be a scientist to understant that AGW is a truth.

    1. It has been demonstrated that CO2 increases greenhouse warming effect.
    2. There has been a registered increase of atmospheric CO2 only explainable by human activity.
    3. The human activity causes global warming.

    • If you look it up the amount of CO2 humans are responsible for is minute and negligible. The temps have remained flat over the last decade and a half. There is evidence to suggest temps affect CO2 levels and not the other way around. You are bloviatingly regurgitating faulty science.

    • Isu is just another lemming like Trabue. Two of a kind. All the data in the links we have provided is totally ignored as they suck up the fake claims by those making money off such claims.

  27. paynehollow says:

    How exactly is NASA, the AMS and the AMA making money off this conspiracy, Glenn? Be specific and provide evidence, please.


    Oh, and who is funding the GWS types? Are they making money at this?


  28. paynehollow says:

    Show me the line item where NASA, AMS and AMA received “budget increases” directly tied to climate change, thanks. How much was the increase? If there is a budget increase for climate change, is it inappropriate for NASA to study climate change, which the US MILITARY lists as one of our greatest threats? Has the AMA actually received a budget increase related to climate change? Where is the evidence?

    And who is funding the GWS types? Do they do this out of the goodness of their hearts or are they getting paid? How much? By whom?

    Evidence, fellas. If you don’t want to be taken as nuts for making a nutty claim, provide evidence.

    • To say that climate change is one or our greatest threats is nothing more than pandering to Obama and his agenda for taking over industries. It is not a threat at all, and even if it was truly a threat to the earth’s existence, there is nothing which can be done about it. If you think God is going to allow the planet to destroy itself before He is ready to end it all, then that shows more ignorance of Scripture – which I expect from a heretical blasphemer.

  29. John,

    “If you look it up the amount of CO2 humans are responsible for is minute and negligible.”

    There are measures of CO2 concentration in ice cores along several millenniums and currently there is an unprecedent spike in CO2 concentration.
    Fossil combustion releases CO2 and deforestation reduces CO2 absorbed by plants. This makes millions and millions of CO2 tons increase.
    The isotope rate changes shows that fossil combustion has a mayor impact.

    “The temps have remained flat over the last decade and a half.”

    There are other factors that can reduce the warming. Those doesn’t make the AGW less true.

    “There is evidence to suggest temps affect CO2 levels and not the other way around.”

    Clearly false. The experiments with CO2 have demostrated that higher concentrations in a controled atmosphere increase temperature.

    “You are bloviatingly regurgitating faulty science.”

    You are the one with faulty science.

  30. paynehollow says:


    To say that climate change is one or our greatest threats is nothing more than pandering to Obama and his agenda for taking over industries.

    So, the military and President of the US are involved in this conspiracy, too, Glenn?

    Come on, John, do you at least see how silly this looks?

    And why won’t you take a stand for what you are hinting at? DO YOU believe that NASA is involved in a conspiracy to lie about climate change? Yes? No? IF you believe it, make it clear. If you don’t, make it clear.

    DO YOU believe that the US military is involved in this scam, too? If you believe it, make it clear. Don’t just do mealy-mouthed hints and innuendo.

    And, if you believe it, provide the evidence. Where is the evidence that NASA is lying? That the military is lying? At this point, I’m not even talking about climate change. I’m talking about the accusations/innuendo that the military, NASA, the AMA, AMS, etc are all involved in a plot to lie to the world about climate change. Where is the evidence for that?


    • The president has said its ok to kill children in the womb and refused to suppot a bill to save the lives of children born alive via botched abortion. The president has been caught lying about the reason for the attacks on Benghazi. Thr president has been caught lying on multiple occasions in order to further his agenda. I dont trust him. He controls the military, they answer to him. You are not allowed to speak against him while in the military. Of course you take hi word as gospel, but im too informed for that.

    • Notice how Trabue refuses to PAY ATTENTION!!!!

      OBAMA is the one who initially said it is such a great threat, and his military brass in his cabinet (not the military guys who are actually doing their jobs) who are nothing but his lackeys just regurgitate what he said.

      All the Trabues and Isus and the same ilk are nothing but lemmings who accept everything the liberals say without any rational thought expended.

      Ya’ll have a nice day – I can’t stomach such stupidity, and I have better things to do.

  31. paynehollow says:


    To say that climate change is one or our greatest threats is nothing more than pandering to Obama and his agenda for taking over industries.

    Oh, wait! The military first began advising that climate change was a threat to national security way back in at least 2007! UNDER THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION!!

    Oh, snap! The plot isn’t limited to Obama. It STARTED WITH BUSH!

    Is there NO ONE safe from the many-tentacled arms of this vast international conspiracy!!??


  32. paynehollow says:

    John, why will you not answer a straight question?

    Do you not have the moral wherewithal to own up to what your position actually is?

    DO YOU THINK THAT NASA is part of an intentional plot to spread lies about climate change science?

    The AMA? The AMS? The US military UNDER BUSH?

    Do you think this is true, yes or no? IF yes, then where is your hard evidence that they are deliberately lying? Where is the evidence of money going to them to buy their agreement in this conspiracy?

    You can’t ask us to believe the unbelievable UNLESS you have hard evidence. That is what scientific, objective thinking is all about, right?

    • That you got an answer from me is more than you deserve. You admitted you dont read both sides of an issue, that yiu dont consider yourself qualified to understand the issue (and so you accept one side without question). I dont have any reason to discuss this with you.

  33. paynehollow says:

    And so, John, you don’t have the courage to take a stand and answer the question and clarify your position. I suspect this is because, somewhere, deep inside, you know how crazy it sounds to say that all these agencies are in a conspiracy to spread lies and fool the world. I hope you eventually listen to that more sane and less cowardly part of yourself and come clean, take a stand like a man.

    I mean at least Glenn, as crazy as he sounds, is willing to put it out there. “Yes!” he says, “NASA, the AMA, the AMS, the US Military, etc, etc are ALL in a plot to lie to the world to get rich by promoting the idea of global climate change…” Crazy, I know, but at least he has the courage of his wacky convictions and puts it out there for all to see.


  34. paynehollow says:

    Where, John? HOW LONG would it take you to say, “Yes, I think NASA is lying…”? Why not just do that, IF that is what you think?

    Or, if not, then why not say, “I don’t think that NASA is lying.” or “I don’t have enough evidence to know if NASA et al are lying, but I’m wary of what they’re saying…”?? Why not just clarify in a few words this simple question? Are you a coward? Do you recognize how crazy it sounds and that’s why? Why not?

  35. paynehollow says:

    Okay, maybe now we’re getting somewhere. So you DON’T think they’re deliberately lying?

    You see, that’s the part that makes you all sound crazy – that thousands of scientists are out there deliberately colluding to lie to the world about this issue. But maybe you’re not saying that. Are you? Do you think they’re deliberately lying in a conspiracy to fool the world?

    • There are hundreds who were caught via their emails being leaked that they intentionally disgarded and altered data that conflicted with the idea that AGW was a fact. Call me a conspiracy theorist if you want but the fact remains that they were caught.

    • If anything they are deluded. They are so convinced of it they will dismiss any counter evidence .

  36. paynehollow says:

    But John, that is not what I’m asking you. I’m asking you a clear and direct question: Thousands of scientists and professionals associated with NASA, with the AMA, with AMS, with the US military, etc, etc, all believe that the earth is warming and that there is likely a human factor contributing to it.

    I’m not asking you if you think that some/many scientists, even respected professionals, are making a bad mistake in judgment and thinking that the evidence is there when it’s not. I’m not asking you if you think they’ve made a mistake in judgment.

    I’m asking you if you think ALL these scientists from ALL these organizations in all these nations with all their varied philosophies… if they are all collaborating and deliberately lying to fool the world, in an effort to convince the world of something they know is false?

    Do you think NASA is lying deliberately, John?

    That is the question I’m asking you. If you don’t know, saying “I don’t know” is fine to do. If you think they are, then why not just say, “Yes, I think they are…” and then provide the evidence FOR THEIR LYING (not for their being mistaken, but deliberately lying)?


  37. John, thank you for your patent cherry picking on data. It is meaningful.

    • I look at the temp from a decade and a half ago and the latest temp on the chart and there is little fluctuation up and down, but is about the same. Thanks for making my case, there has been no upward trend in the last decade and a half.

  38. “There is a clear long-term global warming trend”

  39. So I’m reading this stuff and see that John used the phrase, “widespread collusion”, which Dan immediately altered to “widespread conspiracy”. This may seem like semantics, but then again, there is the context in which John made the comment. He was speaking, I think, of collusion between a specific set of people, whereby Dan seems to indicate an accusation that John is referring to all scientists in the world who buy into the AGW story. I don’t know that John made any suggestion that “tens of thousands” of scientists were caught exchanging emails. A conspiracy, assuming anyone is suggesting one, would not require the involvement of all who lean toward the position of the conspirators. It only requires the conspirators themselves to push their position in a manner that influences tens of thousands. Are tens of thousands of scientists immersing themselves in all the AGW research, studies, papers and reports, perusing them in great detail and weighing them against all research, studies, papers and reports that offer the other side? I doubt it.

    Dan also fixates upon this “97%” number and uses NASA (and a few others) to validate his fixation. But in going to his NASA link, I find that NASA only mentions the “stat” with a reference to a source of that “97%”. There’s nothing on the link that suggests NASA has done anything to confirm or deny that percentage is true. They merely cite a source as if it is gospel truth.

    In the meantime, John offers a source that offers an explanation for how that “97%”

  40. Sorry. Computer issues. I’m using another computer that is freakin’ me out. Anyway…

    In the meantime, John offers a source that offers an explanation for how that “97%” was had. Sounds like they could have made it 100% if they eliminated ALL that did not support the company line. Nothing Dan has offered has done anything to dispel that explanation in any way. I also note that the first comment above suggests that 97% agree there is global warming, while what Dan’s links suggest is that 97% believe it is caused by man. Quite a distinction.

    I don’t think there are many who adamantly oppose the notion that some level of warming is taking place, whether or not it currently stalled, but the issue is whether or not man has much impact on it as opposed to natural forces, whether or not we can do anything about it, and who should foot the bill for what could very well be futile attempts to do so. I also think it is laughable to suggest that it is our greatest threat.

    Finally, of all the links offered thus far, impresssed with Glenn’s offering of, the second of his large list above. When my own computer is backfrom the shop, I will link to that for the wealth of peer-reviewed papers by AGW skeptics. It’s truly a great site from what I can see so far.

  41. One also must realize that the 97% figure Dan touts is based on a survey from 6 years ago. The opinions measured in the survey are of necessity based on data from more than six years ago, which doesn’t take into account the current data. It is also based on a survey with a return rate of less than 40%. The bottom line is the total number of people represented by the 97% number is a whopping 79 actual people. Impressive.

    • But more than that Craig, at least half a dozen of the climate scientists were contacted about the report and they claim their view was misrepresented. So it’s worse than that.

  42. But, John, it’s evidence.

  43. John, do you have any sort of link for that?

  44. Thanks, I found some stuff also.

Any Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: