Global Warming or Fraud?

[oldno7]

http://www.principia-scientific.org/breaking-new-climate-data-rigging-scandal-rocks-us-government.html

[dougr]

We've known for years the warming movement is fraudulent. Yet more proof.

[oldno7]

peer reviewed papers.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/peerreviewedskeptics.php

The "other" side, always want's "peer" reviewed papers.:nod:

[rockgremlin]

The truth is boring...only catastrophes sell.

Follow the money....

[dougr]

The other side purposely ignores skeptic articles and suppresses their publication in peer journals. Then they claim, gee look these people don't have peer reviewed articles. It's a self fulfilling cycle of aggressive suppresion and fradulent discrediting for lack of breaking through the suppresson.

[deagol]

umm

http://denierlist.wordpress.com/tag/principia-scientific-international/

[rockgremlin]

umm

http://denierlist.wordpress.com/tag/principia-scientific-international/

Your link lists several individuals as "climate deniers," but none of the individuals on that list were in the link that oldno7 posted. The article oldno7 posted was researched and written by Steven Goddard.


My take with Global Warming is.....I do believe the earth is in a warming cycle currently, but whether or not it is anthropogenic is debatable.

Depending on your agenda, you can PROVE or DISPROVE global warming using the same data. The climate deniers will interpret the data to prove no warming and the other side will interpret the same data to prove otherwise. But like I mentioned above, there is no $$$$ in taking the "no warming" stance. There are scientists and professors who receive government funding to prove anthropogenic warming is real, and how we can avert a future disaster (which is impossible in my opinion). No Warming = No Funding.

[Absolute Gravity]

But like I mentioned above, there is no $$$$ in taking the "no warming" stance. There are scientists and professors who receive government funding to prove anthropogenic warming is real, and how we can avert a future disaster (which is impossible in my opinion). No Warming = No Funding.

Please, the anti--warming guys need funding too. They just get it from the fossil fuel industry. Seems a far bigger potential conflict of interest then receiving it from the government.

[Sombeech]

For those who think the big oil companies are the main source of Global Warming denial, just to protect their product and sales, who do you think is leading the search for alternative fuels?

And I mean successful companies, not failed government sponsored folks like Solyndra.

[Absolute Gravity]

I wasn't questioning big oil companies motives. I was questioning the denier's motives. Now that it has been brought up though I'd love to know their motives if not product and sales.

[reverse_dyno]

I do not understand why the global warming deniers dislike oil companies so much. I mean, just because Exxon Mobile (http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/environment/climate-change/managing-climate-change-risks/global-stabilization?parentId=fbec4340-be1d-41ff-b55b-988cc9e44881) publicly states that global warming poses significant risks to our society, I mean, is that really a reason to dislike big oil?

"Rising greenhouse-gas emissions pose significant risks to society and ecosystems. Since most of these emissions are energy-related, any integrated approach to meeting the world’s growing energy needs over the coming decades must incorporate strategies to address the risk of climate change."

From Exxon Mobile's climate policy website
http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/environment/climate-change

[Sombeech]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-09/global-warming-slowdown-due-to-pacific-winds-study-shows.html

"Scientists have been trying to find out why the rate of global warming has eased in the past 20 years while greenhouse-gas emissions have surged to a record."

[greyhair biker]

Too many air breathers maybe? :-)