Extent of Antarctic sea ice reaches record levels, scientists say

[JohnR! 5,495]

Climate change is part of the big scam that peddles myths such as the Holocaust, the Moon landing and British cuisine... [eos]

Supplanted only by the "earth being round" scam perpetuated by one Christopher Columbus some 500 years ago.

[eieio 1,594]

Some people are more susceptible to getting scammed than others.

[GandD 5,966]

Some people are more susceptible to getting scammed than others.

That much is certain.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Period.

[Karee 4,191]

Period.

Got a source for that, or are you just having some afternoon fun with MS Paint?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Got a source for that, or are you just having some afternoon fun with MS Paint?

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-1-chart-exposes-climate-science-deniers-as-frauds-2014-09-19?dist=afterbell

[Karee 4,191]

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-1-chart-exposes-climate-science-deniers-as-frauds-2014-09-19?dist=afterbell

Opinion: This 1 chart exposes climate-science deniers as frauds

[Dan and Judy 614]

this is going to cause the earth to spin off it's axis. buildings will fall down. The earth's magnetic polarity will flip and

maps will become useless. Google will cease to function.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Gotta wonder what the VT Superman is up to. Maybe he went and joined the Ukraine army and he's gearing up to go toe to toe with the Ruskies.

I loved that guy. He was the master at whipping the unwashed masses in frothing hysteria with some absurd comment. It was like fishing. They had to know it was a lure but still had to strike so what you want but the guy was smart and played with many here

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I loved that guy. He was the master at whipping the unwashed masses in frothing hysteria with some absurd comment. It was like fishing. They had to know it was a lure but still had to strike so what you want but the guy was smart and played with many here

Says all lot about you really doesn't it ;-)

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Opinion: This 1 chart exposes climate-science deniers as frauds

I see you don't like the opinion but you haven't refuted the chart.

[Karee 4,191]

I see you don't like the opinion but you haven't refuted the chart.

It's a waste of time trying to refute charts based on opinions. You should know that better than anyone. You've been attempting to point that out to the RWNJs around here for years. I could whip up a pie chart in about 15 minutes that shows that 13,900 articles reject global warming. What's constitutes an article anyway?

Point being anyone can come up with some chart and call it fact. That doesn't make it so.

[Rob L 3,811]

It's a waste of time trying to refute charts based on opinions. You should know that better than anyone. You've been attempting to point that out to the RWNJs around here for years. I could whip up a pie chart in about 15 minutes that shows that 13,900 articles reject global warming. What's constitutes an article anyway?

Point being anyone can come up with some chart and call it fact. That doesn't make it so.

Please do go and find > 13K peer reviewed scientific articles rejecting global warming and place your results in a chart. That should keep you busy.

[Karee 4,191]

Please do go and find > 13K peer reviewed scientific articles rejecting global warming and place your results in a chart. That should keep you busy.

Why would I? It's obvious the guy that came up with that chart didn't do any such thing. Here's his latest chart:

I doubt you could find 10,885 people with 2 dissensions when asking if water is wet. I suspect it would be much higher than 2. Yet below someone is saying something totally different and also basing his article on peer review. I tend to believe the article below based on simple math and human nature.

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”

The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.

The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. “In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”

Another group of scientists fit the “Fatalists” model. These scientists, comprising 17 percent of the respondents, “diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling.” These scientists are likely to ask, “How can anyone take action if research is biased?”

The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of respondents, fit the “Economic Responsibility” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy.”

The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents, fit the “Regulation Activists” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.” Moreover, “They are also skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate.”

Taken together, these four skeptical groups numerically blow away the 36 percent of scientists who believe global warming is human caused and a serious concern.

One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist bent of the survey takers. They frequently use terms such as “denier” to describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they refer to skeptical scientists as “speaking against climate science” rather than “speaking against asserted climate projections.” Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate denial machine.’

Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists. We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis, yet the bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media and suck up to government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite of what their scientist members actually believe.

People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It's a waste of time trying to refute charts based on opinions. You should know that better than anyone. You've been attempting to point that out to the RWNJs around here for years. I could whip up a pie chart in about 15 minutes that shows that 13,900 articles reject global warming. What's constitutes an article anyway?

Point being anyone can come up with some chart and call it fact. That doesn't make it so.

The chart is not based on opinion but on a study which reviewed all peer reviewed articles on global warming within the stipulated time period. That review found that of the vast amount of peer reviewed articles that were published, only two dozen denied man made global warming. There are other such reviews out there producing similar results. So that chart is not opinion. Rather, the opinion is formed on the result of said study which the chart illustrates. You know that, of course, but the facts don't align with your belief so you must pretend that you don't know that.