Global Warming on Free Republic
Consensus is science!
if you disagree you’re a heretic to goddess gaia!
More lies from the global warming people.
Those heavily involved in these global frauds should be arrested, tried and sent to prison.
It’s never been about data. Just power.
Too late, too complicated. The narrative becomes reality, at least for the 51 per cent. Just keep repeating the lies, keep them simple, have late-night comics mock reasoned dissent, and the lies will stick.
"And yet it moves".
Picturing hililiary kkklinton shrugging shoulders, scowling and saying “What difference does it make?”
It makes no differecne that they were caught lying- they could have a video of these pukes erasing answers and puttign in the opposite answers to support their hype- and NOTHING will ever be done about it- the workld powers have decided that coem hell or high water, they ARE goign to punish peopel for simply being alive and requiring energy- This is a HUGE golden goose for them- a cash cow- and there’s no way they aere goign to let truth stand i ntheir way
The global warmists go far beyond alarmism well into the extreme reaches of fanaticism. There is nothing in the way of principles, truth or reason to anchor their fanaticism, nothing for steering them away from corruption, just a blind determination to control the world, even if it means fudging all their data to make it conform to their propaganda. There is nothing in any of the so called “scientific data” gathered by warmist fanatics that can be trusted as real science.
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.
In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.
>> “Most skeptics, like most alarmists, believe humans have caused some global warming” <<
.
Human Events takes a deep dive into insanity!
There has been no ‘warming’ and now the thugs are trying to say that GW has slowed the cooling?
Global Warming on Free Republic
“97 percent of those scientists we want to count believe in this claptrap!”
Kind of like those car repair insurance ads that claim “All future covered repairs will be paid directly to the shop.”
Silly me, I thought a “covered repair” was DEFINED as one they paid for. D’oh!
Scafetta is correct that his paper was misclassified. The sun gained about 1 W/m2 from 1900 to 2000 which is 1/4 watt distributed over the sphere of the earth. That's not going to cause much temperature change. OTOH Scafetta may include other effects of high solar activity like modulatin of the clouds. But those are somewhat speculative. So while the consensus does not include Scafetta it is still pretty strong.
The correct argument against the consensus nonsense is that the effects of mild warming are fewer storms (more northerly storm track and decreased temperature gradient from north to south). So claims of more storms are counter to the models and speculative at best. Claims of cooling from global warming are just ridiculous. It's obviously more subtle and may not be easy to explain. But it is the correct counterargument.
Global warming alarmists are starting to panic...