Links on Climate Change

This is very unbiased, showing how the topic of anthropogenic climate change is still highly debated and not so clear as the media wants you to think.

http://climatechange.procon.org/

Next is a “blog post” (yes blog post, but shouldn’t be immediately discredited.. remember that consensus isn’t science … remember that underdogs who tackled the accepted science of the time ultimately shaped our understanding of the universe… remember Galileo…. remember that the Peer Review system is corrupted with money and politics, a stanglehold on science itself because it is practically impossible to present an opposing theory when all your peers believe the other side to be true, thus forcing conformity if you want to keep your career as a scientist…. Remember to Question Everything.)

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/11/derivation-of-entire-33c-greenhouse.html?m=1

Here is a list of Climate Scientists who disagree with the popular view of Anthropogenic Forced Climate Change

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?view=article&id=289

Here is another “blog post” showing how there is no Greenhouse effect on Venus. Greenhouse effect is basically,  +CO2 = rise in temperature due to the gases trapping the heat.

http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html?m=1

This is where obungo and everyone else got there 97% consensus. An article posted on a blog:

In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97%

The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming

Mr. Cook’s work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found “only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent- had been found to endorse” the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming.

////////

It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed “97 percent of climate scientists agree” that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.

The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.

The “97 percent” figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

///////

Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous. The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus

-Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question

-The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

Look up The Petition Project http://www.petitionproject.org/

Many papers that Cook “reviewed” were falsely classified

The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/#6ceccb7a5909

http://www.petitionproject.org/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

http://climatechangedispatch.com/97-articles-refuting-the-97-consensus/

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/16/propoganda-top-mit-climate-scientist-trashes-97-consensus-claim/

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nature12786.html

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/10/29/cooks-97-scam-debunked/

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle

http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/jack-kelly/2014/05/29/The-facts-don-t-add-up-for-human-caused-global-warming/stories/201405290275

http://www.popsci.com/blizzard-opens-up-starcraft-to-googles-deepmind-ai?src=SOC&dom=fb

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *