Why Climate Change Denial Is Just Hot Air

[Cigar]

I was thinking of writing a lengthy post about climate change denial being completely unscientific nonsense, but then geochemist and National Science Board member James Lawrence Powell wrote a post that is basically a slam-dunk of debunking. His premise was simple: If global warming isn’t real and there’s an actual scientific debate about it, that should be reflected in the scientific journals.

He looked up how many peer-reviewed scientific papers were published in professional journals about global warming, and compared the ones supporting the idea that we’re heating up compared to those that don’t. What did he find? This:



Oh my. Powell looked at 13,950 articles. Out of all those reams of scientific results, how many disputed the reality of climate change?


Twenty-four. Yup. Two dozen. Out of nearly 14,000.

So let this be clear: There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 percent made-up political and corporate-sponsored crap.

It’s nonsense. And worse, it’s dangerous nonsense. Because they’re fiddling with the data while the world burns.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astro...src=most_viral

[Chris]

So let this be clear: There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 percent made-up political and corporate-sponsored crap.

So let this be clear: There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change alarmism is purely, 100 percent made-up political crap.



BTW, science is not a matter of popular opinion or subjective analysis.

[GrassrootsConservative]

It’s nonsense. And worse, it’s dangerous nonsense. Because they’re fiddling with the data while the world burns.

such emotion, are you a woman, Cigar?

This place is for serious discussion, not emotion-fuelled propaganda.

[RightWingHomosexual]

Cigar,

I will be the first tell you that "peer reviewed" anything doesn't necessarily make it true.

I was one of the first HIV/AIDS educators in Texas (along with hundreds of physicians and epidemiologists) who stood up and declared that HIV was not the cause of AIDS. HIV, like climate change is now politically reviewed, which makes its beginning premise false and therefore inconclusive. Any peer reviewed case of anything must be made blind then peer reviewed from independent scientists who are not paid or accept money from the peer committee (which the majority do in Climate Change).

HIV turned out to be nothing more than a harmless retrovirus that all human beings possess.

Though I do agree that there is a *slight* bit of man-made climate change for the same reason that HIV in a person who is immune-suppressed (after the application of the Western Blot confirming HIV positivity) I doubt the specifics since Climate Change is politically peer-reviewed, like HIV.

Case in point.

See the video below about HIV.

The Nobel Prize winning physician who discovered HIV in 1982 (Dr. Luc Montagnier) states here that HIV is not deadly and that "it comes into your body during oxidative stress and then leaves." Forever destroying the myth of "The Killer Virus."

[Red Green]

this place is for serious discussion, not emotion-fuelled propaganda.

[Carygrant]

Do you actually mix with anybody who denies Climate Change?
That's like being in the company of Holocaust deniers or Flat Earthers .
By all means debate causes of the change , but being contrary for the sake of it , and now being stupid restricts productive discussion .

[Agravan]

Climate change is cyclical and natural. Not caused nor preventable by man. You leftists just use hysteria to increase taxes. It's a scam.

[Chris]

Do you actually mix with anybody who denies Climate Change?
That's like being in the company of Holocaust deniers or Flat Earthers .
By all means debate causes of the change , but being contrary for the sake of it , and now being stupid restricts productive discussion .

Do you actually mix with anybody who denies Climate Change?

Same should be said of climate alarmists.

By all means debate causes of the change , but being contrary for the sake of it , and now being stupid restricts productive discussion .

By all means, cary, join in the discussion. Aren't you there just being contrary and restricting productive discussion?

[Chris]

such emotion, are you a woman, Cigar?

This place is for serious discussion, not emotion-fuelled propaganda.

One, I think cigar made a good point: "It’s nonsense. And worse, it’s dangerous nonsense". Just as climate alarmism.

Two, once upon a time there was a rule said "Other Discussions are for more serious discussion and stricter moderation. The rules apply but, on the positive side, we will also require that all posts make a contribution be it information, question or argumentation, and on the negative side we will not allow trolling, inflammatory remarks, personal attacks, or off-topic comments." Hey, it's still there. But I haven't seen enforcement of it for some time.

[Chris]

Cigar,

I will be the first tell you that "peer reviewed" anything doesn't necessarily make it true.

I was one of the first HIV/AIDS educators in Texas (along with hundreds of physicians and epidemiologists) who stood up and declared that HIV was not the cause of AIDS. HIV, like climate change is now politically reviewed, which makes its beginning premise false and therefore inconclusive. Any peer reviewed case of anything must be made blind then peer reviewed from independent scientists who are not paid or accept money from the peer committee (which the majority do in Climate Change).

HIV turned out to be nothing more than a harmless retrovirus that all human beings possess.

Though I do agree that there is a *slight* bit of man-made climate change for the same reason that HIV in a person who is immune-suppressed (after the application of the Western Blot confirming HIV positivity) I doubt the specifics since Climate Change is politically peer-reviewed, like HIV.

Case in point.

See the video below about HIV.

The Nobel Prize winning physician who discovered HIV in 1982 (Dr. Luc Montagnier) states here that HIV is not deadly and that "it comes into your body during oxidative stress and then leaves." Forever destroying the myth of "The Killer Virus."

Very good point. I think Kuhn pointed this out, that peer review is somewhat political in that it will tend to maintain the status quo and prevent new scientific explanations from emerging.

The thing many seem to misunderstand about science is that it somehow provides proven truths. Far from it, it is incomplete, tentative, and probabilistic. It is changing all the time. This is as true of evolutionary theory as it is climate science.