Barbara Hollingsworth: Who's who on climate fraud

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Are you a scientist? Have you ever studied science beyond high school? Have you ever done any scientific research? Do you know what a scientific theory is? Do you know what the scientific process is? You make it about yourself by posting nonscientific ####### as if you can even tell the difference.

While I grant you, my degree is not in science....... one need not be a gynecologist to know when one is good or bad.

You're right, Mr. Hyperbole, you don't need a degree in science, but you should at least have a college level understanding of science before you spew the kind of nonscientific bull ####### that you keep pimping here on VJ. It's about as credible as your claim that Obama wasn't a U.S. born citizen.

so steven, how many credit hours of college level science classes did you take? just wanna make sure you're qualified to pimp global warming.

I'm not the one discounting the bodies of science out there whose expertise is what matters. You know, like the World Meteorological Organization, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, or the the American Association for the Advancement of Science. When all the bodies of science whose expertise is in climate science all have reached the same conclusions - that human activity is having a significant impact on our climate, you'd have to be pretty arrogant or just dumb as a rock to dismiss them all as being in cahoots with one another to deceive the public into doing what...riding bicycles, because it amuses them? Hahaha...oh my...so stupid.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

Are you a scientist? Have you ever studied science beyond high school? Have you ever done any scientific research? Do you know what a scientific theory is? Do you know what the scientific process is? You make it about yourself by posting nonscientific ####### as if you can even tell the difference.

While I grant you, my degree is not in science....... one need not be a gynecologist to know when one is good or bad.

You're right, Mr. Hyperbole, you don't need a degree in science, but you should at least have a college level understanding of science before you spew the kind of nonscientific bull ####### that you keep pimping here on VJ. It's about as credible as your claim that Obama wasn't a U.S. born citizen.

so steven, how many credit hours of college level science classes did you take? just wanna make sure you're qualified to pimp global warming.

I'm not the one discounting the bodies of science out there whose expertise is what matters. You know, like the World Meteorological Organization, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, or the the American Association for the Advancement of Science. When all the bodies of science whose expertise is in climate science all have reached the same conclusions - that human activity is having a significant impact on our climate, you'd have to be pretty arrogant or just dumb as a rock to dismiss them all as being in cahoots with one another to deceive the public into doing what...riding bicycles, because it amuses them? Hahaha...oh my...so stupid.

you're discounting some noteable scientists that dispute it. is this a case of do as you say, not as you do?

and regarding the bolded - i dispute it's "significant". maybe observable or identifiable, but significant is not used in your previous quote:

In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

even your holy un does not use that word.

[HAL 9000 96]

Exactly what qualifies a scientist as being 'notable' Charles?

I'd ask this of anyone, to be honest. This isn't as clear cut as knowing the full specifications of an assault rifle, or shooting a certain score at a range.

But then again we're still falling into the same trap- avoiding qualifying science and we're having a tail circling party here with the same people talking out their recta without really understanding the first thing about that which the talking heads are doling out to them on the precept of policy and conspiracies.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Are you a scientist? Have you ever studied science beyond high school? Have you ever done any scientific research? Do you know what a scientific theory is? Do you know what the scientific process is? You make it about yourself by posting nonscientific ####### as if you can even tell the difference.

While I grant you, my degree is not in science....... one need not be a gynecologist to know when one is good or bad.

You're right, Mr. Hyperbole, you don't need a degree in science, but you should at least have a college level understanding of science before you spew the kind of nonscientific bull ####### that you keep pimping here on VJ. It's about as credible as your claim that Obama wasn't a U.S. born citizen.

so steven, how many credit hours of college level science classes did you take? just wanna make sure you're qualified to pimp global warming.

I'm not the one discounting the bodies of science out there whose expertise is what matters. You know, like the World Meteorological Organization, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, or the the American Association for the Advancement of Science. When all the bodies of science whose expertise is in climate science all have reached the same conclusions - that human activity is having a significant impact on our climate, you'd have to be pretty arrogant or just dumb as a rock to dismiss them all as being in cahoots with one another to deceive the public into doing what...riding bicycles, because it amuses them? Hahaha...oh my...so stupid.

you're discounting some noteable scientists that dispute it. is this a case of do as you say, not as you do?

and regarding the bolded - i dispute it's "significant". maybe observable or identifiable, but significant is not used in your previous quote:

I call bullsh!t. There are NO notable bodies of climate scientists who dispute it. That's what you've been fed by the Manufactured Doubt Industry, but do the search yourself. I'll buy you a 6 pack of your favorite beer if you can find a real, bonafide body of science...the kind that publishes peer-review studies, that contradicts the conclusion of all those bodies of science I listed above.

Show me....and not some journalist hack like Miss Hollingsworth.

[HAL 9000 96]

A fake petition and a 'research group' whose scientists put out such a fake petition don't count either...

(But maybe HAL 9000 will buy Chuck the 6-pack anyway and invite Steven over for some pizza)

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

Are you a scientist? Have you ever studied science beyond high school? Have you ever done any scientific research? Do you know what a scientific theory is? Do you know what the scientific process is? You make it about yourself by posting nonscientific ####### as if you can even tell the difference.

While I grant you, my degree is not in science....... one need not be a gynecologist to know when one is good or bad.

You're right, Mr. Hyperbole, you don't need a degree in science, but you should at least have a college level understanding of science before you spew the kind of nonscientific bull ####### that you keep pimping here on VJ. It's about as credible as your claim that Obama wasn't a U.S. born citizen.

so steven, how many credit hours of college level science classes did you take? just wanna make sure you're qualified to pimp global warming.

I'm not the one discounting the bodies of science out there whose expertise is what matters. You know, like the World Meteorological Organization, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, or the the American Association for the Advancement of Science. When all the bodies of science whose expertise is in climate science all have reached the same conclusions - that human activity is having a significant impact on our climate, you'd have to be pretty arrogant or just dumb as a rock to dismiss them all as being in cahoots with one another to deceive the public into doing what...riding bicycles, because it amuses them? Hahaha...oh my...so stupid.

you're discounting some noteable scientists that dispute it. is this a case of do as you say, not as you do?

and regarding the bolded - i dispute it's "significant". maybe observable or identifiable, but significant is not used in your previous quote:

I call bullsh!t. There are NO notable bodies of climate scientists who dispute it. That's what you've been fed by the Manufactured Doubt Industry, but do the search yourself. I'll buy you a 6 pack of your favorite beer if you can find a real, bonafide body of science...the kind that publishes peer-review studies, that contradicts the conclusion of all those bodies of science I listed above.

Show me....and not some journalist hack like Miss Hollingsworth.

did i say notable bodies? no, i didn't - you used that word. i said there are some notable scientists that dispute it. how you take that and make it into a body is a mystery to me.

the fact remains there are some that dispute it. and while i'll agree that humans have an impact, i question how much of an impact and whether this impact is meaningful.

A fake petition and a 'research group' whose scientists put out such a fake petition don't count either...

(But maybe HAL 9000 will buy Chuck the 6-pack anyway and invite Steven over for some pizza)

that's nice, steven gets the pizza and i get cheap beer

[HAL 9000 96]

What makes you question it Charles?

No pizza is bad pizza and as for the beer... I never disappoint.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

What makes you question it Charles?

No pizza is bad pizza and as for the beer... I never disappoint.

i'm skeptical of everything. like congress, for example.......

[HAL 9000 96]

What makes you question it Charles?

No pizza is bad pizza and as for the beer... I never disappoint.

i'm skeptical of everything. like congress, for example.......

My closest scientist-congressman is Steven Foster. D-IL

A physicist.

[HAL 9000 96]

Skepticism is one thing well known to scientists and practiced on a daily basis as part of all experimental design until the evidence overcomes skepticism. Currently, the denialist side claims to be skeptical but has yet to produce sufficient credible evidence and thusly defines what they claim as skepticism as something quite different. Preconcluding based on politics is something completely different from healthy skepticism.

There are people that can be reasoned with and there are people that are beyond any hope of accepting reason (until, perhaps, something hardcore happens to their backyard enough for them to be convinced. Then again... they could likely blame something else for lack of reasoning ability).

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

What makes you question it Charles?

No pizza is bad pizza and as for the beer... I never disappoint.

i'm skeptical of everything. like congress, for example.......

My closest scientist-congressman is Steven Foster. D-IL

A physicist.

no relation to vince i hope.

[HAL 9000 96]

Oh boy more conspiracies...

[HAL 9000 96]

What utterly non-scientific post that hasn't been recycled (ironic, huh?) as it relates to climate science and data can we expect now?

[scandal 951]

I call bullsh!t. There are NO notable bodies of climate scientists who dispute it. That's what you've been fed by the Manufactured Doubt Industry, but do the search yourself. I'll buy you a 6 pack of your favorite beer if you can find a real, bonafide body of science...the kind that publishes peer-review studies, that contradicts the conclusion of all those bodies of science I listed above.

Show me....and not some journalist hack like Miss Hollingsworth.

Steve, very nearly all of the significant and relevant scientific bodies have indeed issued strong statements endorsing views of human caused global warming and its effects on climate change. There are however still some organizations with weaker statements, particularly the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which has this official position (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#American_Association_of_Petroleum_Geologist

s):

The American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) Position Statement on climate change states that

the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases ... Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models.[69]

Prior to the adoption of this statement in June 2007, the AAPG was the only major scientific organization that rejected the finding of significant human influence on recent climate, according to a statement by the Council of the American Quaternary Association.[70] Explaining the plan for a revision, AAPG president Lee Billingsly wrote in March 2007 that

Members have threatened to not renew their memberships... if AAPG does not alter its position on global climate change.... And I have been told of members who already have resigned in previous years because of our current global climate change position.... The current policy statement is not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members.[71]

[yogib37 3]

Knock it off charlies

:lol: