Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
gadgetmac said:
Vanden Saab said:
Did his insistence that climate scientists might have got it wrong while on university grounds violate their 'safe space'
He says himself he’s not a climate denier. He’s an outlier though who’s views on the coral reef being damaged by climate change are the opposite to what his colleagues believe. He publicly denigrated his colleagues in the media and by doing so broke the Uni’s code of conduct repeatedly.
After all, his colleagues weren’t saying he wasn’t to be trusted to the media as he was doing to them repeatedly.
Lets see how it pans out. I believe the case is still live.
One of the things JCU is so upset about is his publicising that he was being censured. Without which publicity he would have been unable to raise funds to fight it. Extraordinarily there are enough people agreeing with his position that $160k was raised. In two days!
More by Jennifer Marohasy
This has so scared other JCU employees that many are not using collegiate emails anymore. Jo Nova notes from an interview with Ridd's colleague Prof. Brodie on the ABC (aussie version of the BBC). Even though Prof. Brodie was a target of Ridd's criticisms he too is voicing concerns over the way this is going.
jet_noise said:
gadgetmac said:
Vanden Saab said:
Did his insistence that climate scientists might have got it wrong while on university grounds violate their 'safe space'
He says himself he’s not a climate denier. He’s an outlier though who’s views on the coral reef being damaged by climate change are the opposite to what his colleagues believe. He publicly denigrated his colleagues in the media and by doing so broke the Uni’s code of conduct repeatedly.
After all, his colleagues weren’t saying he wasn’t to be trusted to the media as he was doing to them repeatedly.
Lets see how it pans out. I believe the case is still live.
One of the things JCU is so upset about is his publicising that he was being censured. Without which publicity he would have been unable to raise funds to fight it. Extraordinarily there are enough people agreeing with his position that $160k was raised. In two days!
More by Jennifer Marohasy
This has so scared other JCU employees that many are not using collegiate emails anymore. Jo Nova notes from an interview with Ridd's colleague Prof. Brodie on the ABC (aussie version of the BBC). Even though Prof. Brodie was a target of Ridd's criticisms he too is voicing concerns over the way this is going.
Given how much the deniers all scream that its all a great big worldwide conspiracy you’d expect more Scentists to be sacked for going against the establishment and speaking out, but they’re not.
And lets put it in perspective, his argument isn’t with AGW but how Climate Warming will or will not affect the Corals. Any professors at Universities being sacked for speaking out against MMGW?
I will jump momentarily to the believer side...
We know the world is warming at an unprecedented rate. The ice is melting, sea level is climbing ever faster. Why, oh why, are politicians allowing the worlds population to move/migrate ever closer to coastal areas? Surely the migrants must know they are putting themselves in harms way. Surely the politicians should start to call a halt to this ever increasing phenomenon! Why are people not moving away from coastal areas? Why hasn’t coastal property value tanked! The data is clear.
Why, oh why, won’t somebody listen, think of the children!
We know the world is warming at an unprecedented rate. The ice is melting, sea level is climbing ever faster. Why, oh why, are politicians allowing the worlds population to move/migrate ever closer to coastal areas? Surely the migrants must know they are putting themselves in harms way. Surely the politicians should start to call a halt to this ever increasing phenomenon! Why are people not moving away from coastal areas? Why hasn’t coastal property value tanked! The data is clear.
Why, oh why, won’t somebody listen, think of the children!
Start with Hawaii
I quote
“ it’s worse than we previously thought”
https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2018/10/11/study-wev...
I quote
“ it’s worse than we previously thought”
https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2018/10/11/study-wev...
Kawasicki said:
I will jump momentarily to the believer side...
We know the world is warming at an unprecedented rate. The ice is melting, sea level is climbing ever faster. Why, oh why, are politicians allowing the worlds population to move/migrate ever closer to coastal areas? Surely the migrants must know they are putting themselves in harms way. Surely the politicians should start to call a halt to this ever increasing phenomenon! Why are people not moving away from coastal areas? Why hasn’t coastal property value tanked! The data is clear.
Why, oh why, won’t somebody listen, think of the children!
I would guess it's because most people aren't hysterical lunatics.We know the world is warming at an unprecedented rate. The ice is melting, sea level is climbing ever faster. Why, oh why, are politicians allowing the worlds population to move/migrate ever closer to coastal areas? Surely the migrants must know they are putting themselves in harms way. Surely the politicians should start to call a halt to this ever increasing phenomenon! Why are people not moving away from coastal areas? Why hasn’t coastal property value tanked! The data is clear.
Why, oh why, won’t somebody listen, think of the children!
durbster said:
Kawasicki said:
I will jump momentarily to the believer side...
We know the world is warming at an unprecedented rate. The ice is melting, sea level is climbing ever faster. Why, oh why, are politicians allowing the worlds population to move/migrate ever closer to coastal areas? Surely the migrants must know they are putting themselves in harms way. Surely the politicians should start to call a halt to this ever increasing phenomenon! Why are people not moving away from coastal areas? Why hasn’t coastal property value tanked! The data is clear.
Why, oh why, won’t somebody listen, think of the children!
I would guess it's because most people aren't hysterical lunatics.We know the world is warming at an unprecedented rate. The ice is melting, sea level is climbing ever faster. Why, oh why, are politicians allowing the worlds population to move/migrate ever closer to coastal areas? Surely the migrants must know they are putting themselves in harms way. Surely the politicians should start to call a halt to this ever increasing phenomenon! Why are people not moving away from coastal areas? Why hasn’t coastal property value tanked! The data is clear.
Why, oh why, won’t somebody listen, think of the children!
durbster said:
Kawasicki said:
I will jump momentarily to the believer side...
We know the world is warming at an unprecedented rate. The ice is melting, sea level is climbing ever faster. Why, oh why, are politicians allowing the worlds population to move/migrate ever closer to coastal areas? Surely the migrants must know they are putting themselves in harms way. Surely the politicians should start to call a halt to this ever increasing phenomenon! Why are people not moving away from coastal areas? Why hasn’t coastal property value tanked! The data is clear.
Why, oh why, won’t somebody listen, think of the children!
I would guess it's because most people aren't hysterical lunatics.We know the world is warming at an unprecedented rate. The ice is melting, sea level is climbing ever faster. Why, oh why, are politicians allowing the worlds population to move/migrate ever closer to coastal areas? Surely the migrants must know they are putting themselves in harms way. Surely the politicians should start to call a halt to this ever increasing phenomenon! Why are people not moving away from coastal areas? Why hasn’t coastal property value tanked! The data is clear.
Why, oh why, won’t somebody listen, think of the children!
durbster said:
Kawasicki said:
I will jump momentarily to the believer side...
We know the world is warming at an unprecedented rate. The ice is melting, sea level is climbing ever faster. Why, oh why, are politicians allowing the worlds population to move/migrate ever closer to coastal areas? Surely the migrants must know they are putting themselves in harms way. Surely the politicians should start to call a halt to this ever increasing phenomenon! Why are people not moving away from coastal areas? Why hasn’t coastal property value tanked! The data is clear.
Why, oh why, won’t somebody listen, think of the children!
I would guess it's because most people aren't hysterical lunatics.We know the world is warming at an unprecedented rate. The ice is melting, sea level is climbing ever faster. Why, oh why, are politicians allowing the worlds population to move/migrate ever closer to coastal areas? Surely the migrants must know they are putting themselves in harms way. Surely the politicians should start to call a halt to this ever increasing phenomenon! Why are people not moving away from coastal areas? Why hasn’t coastal property value tanked! The data is clear.
Why, oh why, won’t somebody listen, think of the children!
...
But science has spoken. We know sea level rise is accelerating and we know that extreme weather event ferocity is increasing. Both of these combined have put billions of people in increased risk, yet they flock ever more, like lemmings, to a certain death living the “Miami Vice” beach lifestyle. Governments should start compulsory purchases of property nearest the beach, and start moving people inland. Or build a really big ship. Something.
Science has spoken.
Kawasicki said:
Oh, I see you’re also playing along. Swapping sides is fun isn’t it! Back to the game...
...
But science has spoken. We know sea level rise is accelerating and we know that extreme weather event ferocity is increasing. Both of these combined have put billions of people in increased risk, yet they flock ever more, like lemmings, to a certain death living the “Miami Vice” beach lifestyle. Governments should start compulsory purchases of property nearest the beach, and start moving people inland. Or build a really big ship. Something.
Science has spoken.
Why do people live in areas prone to earthquakes or bush-fires or tsunamis or active volcanoes?...
But science has spoken. We know sea level rise is accelerating and we know that extreme weather event ferocity is increasing. Both of these combined have put billions of people in increased risk, yet they flock ever more, like lemmings, to a certain death living the “Miami Vice” beach lifestyle. Governments should start compulsory purchases of property nearest the beach, and start moving people inland. Or build a really big ship. Something.
Science has spoken.
If anyone outside this echo chamber really does wonder whether there's a case against the science of AGW, one thing you can do is simply look at the typical quality of argument presented by those who reject it.
This is a good example of where it's at.
LoonyTunes said:
Thanks GM.
Sources of Deniers Quotes
Ross McKitrick (No credentials)
Heartland Institute (Big Oil funded)
Heartland Institute affiliates/associates/members (ditto)
Tallbloke (No credentials)
49 ex NASA administrators (Not a single paper published between them)
Patrick Moore (ditto McKitrick)
Ottmar Edenhoffer (Misrepresented)
WattsUpWithThat (WUWT receives funding from Heartland Inst)
Richard Lindzen (Dismissed by at least 22 of his Climate Science colleagues at MIT in an open letter to the President/Heartland Inst pin-up)
Willie Wei-Hock Soon (Received over $1 million in funding in the past decade for his research from Big Oil and Coal interests)
Spamming again. Sources of Deniers Quotes
Ross McKitrick (No credentials)
Heartland Institute (Big Oil funded)
Heartland Institute affiliates/associates/members (ditto)
Tallbloke (No credentials)
49 ex NASA administrators (Not a single paper published between them)
Patrick Moore (ditto McKitrick)
Ottmar Edenhoffer (Misrepresented)
WattsUpWithThat (WUWT receives funding from Heartland Inst)
Richard Lindzen (Dismissed by at least 22 of his Climate Science colleagues at MIT in an open letter to the President/Heartland Inst pin-up)
Willie Wei-Hock Soon (Received over $1 million in funding in the past decade for his research from Big Oil and Coal interests)
How about keeping to your commitment? Let us know your climate change credentials as you agreed to do? Or another deluge of weasels words ?
Some more snips from another commentary on the IPCC's latest information pollution,
Inevitably, last Monday, the BBC went into overdrive...But most newspapers gave it only fairly perfunctory coverage, tucked away on an inside page.
What we must do to replace those fossil fuels...is spend a mind-boggling $2.4 trillion (£1.8trillion) every year until 2035 on new "energy infrastructure"...(which) currently supply only three per cent of the world's total energy needs.
Already the world has warmed by one degree...which began when we emerged 200 years ago from the Little Ice Age. Until now, the IPCC has recognised that much of this was due to natural causes. But now, without proper explanation, this is all blamed on human activity.
[note: 0.6 deg C of the ~0.8 deg C claimed near-surface warming since 1910 is adjustments to the data according to NOAA]
So how does the IPCC justify its new mega-panic? This was summarised by one of the report's organisers as "more extreme weather...But even the IPCC itself, in its last major report in 2013, found that there had been no discernible increase in extreme weather events.
[Note: same finding as e,g, Goklany and Pielke]
However much those behind this report may delude themselves and try to delude the rest of us, the fact is that the rest of the world is no longer being taken in by their make-believe.
Except for the BBC, and the IPCC's most faithful disciples. Shooting the messenger in 3 2 1...
Inevitably, last Monday, the BBC went into overdrive...But most newspapers gave it only fairly perfunctory coverage, tucked away on an inside page.
What we must do to replace those fossil fuels...is spend a mind-boggling $2.4 trillion (£1.8trillion) every year until 2035 on new "energy infrastructure"...(which) currently supply only three per cent of the world's total energy needs.
Already the world has warmed by one degree...which began when we emerged 200 years ago from the Little Ice Age. Until now, the IPCC has recognised that much of this was due to natural causes. But now, without proper explanation, this is all blamed on human activity.
[note: 0.6 deg C of the ~0.8 deg C claimed near-surface warming since 1910 is adjustments to the data according to NOAA]
So how does the IPCC justify its new mega-panic? This was summarised by one of the report's organisers as "more extreme weather...But even the IPCC itself, in its last major report in 2013, found that there had been no discernible increase in extreme weather events.
[Note: same finding as e,g, Goklany and Pielke]
However much those behind this report may delude themselves and try to delude the rest of us, the fact is that the rest of the world is no longer being taken in by their make-believe.
Except for the BBC, and the IPCC's most faithful disciples. Shooting the messenger in 3 2 1...
Thanks GM.
Sources of Deniers Quotes
Ross McKitrick (No credentials)
Heartland Institute (Big Oil funded)
Heartland Institute affiliates/associates/members (ditto)
Tallbloke (No credentials)
49 ex NASA administrators (Not a single paper published between them)
Patrick Moore (ditto McKitrick)
Ottmar Edenhoffer (Misrepresented)
WattsUpWithThat (WUWT receives funding from Heartland Inst)
Richard Lindzen (Dismissed by at least 22 of his Climate Science colleagues at MIT in an open letter to the President/Heartland Inst pin-up)
Willie Wei-Hock Soon (Received over $1 million in funding in the past decade for his research from Big Oil and Coal interests)
Horst-Joachim Lüdecke (Quotes: “Climate Specialist I'm not...[I am] not a specialist in technical details of climate physics.”)
Marc Morano (No Climate Science qualifications and received funds from ExxonMobil, Chevron and others)
Sources of Deniers Quotes
Ross McKitrick (No credentials)
Heartland Institute (Big Oil funded)
Heartland Institute affiliates/associates/members (ditto)
Tallbloke (No credentials)
49 ex NASA administrators (Not a single paper published between them)
Patrick Moore (ditto McKitrick)
Ottmar Edenhoffer (Misrepresented)
WattsUpWithThat (WUWT receives funding from Heartland Inst)
Richard Lindzen (Dismissed by at least 22 of his Climate Science colleagues at MIT in an open letter to the President/Heartland Inst pin-up)
Willie Wei-Hock Soon (Received over $1 million in funding in the past decade for his research from Big Oil and Coal interests)
Horst-Joachim Lüdecke (Quotes: “Climate Specialist I'm not...[I am] not a specialist in technical details of climate physics.”)
Marc Morano (No Climate Science qualifications and received funds from ExxonMobil, Chevron and others)
turbobloke said:
Anyone with the time and the beer can track down the origin of these comments about the IPCCs latest fantasy. They derive from a mix of scientific and political sources and while none are offered as authorities their views have a certain appeal 
An implausible conjecture backed by false evidence and repeated incessantly has become politically correct ‘knowledge,’ and is used to promote the overturn of industrial civilization....Given the democratic necessity for non-scientists to take positions on scientific problems, belief and faith inevitably replace understanding, though trivially oversimplified false narratives serve to reassure the non-scientists that they are not totally without scientific ‘understanding.’ The issue of global warming offers numerous examples of all of this.
Richard Lindzen
There is absolutely no science in IPCC reports these days … just political positionings.
Ross McKitrick
The IPCC is in the red rev range of ideology and reality loss...To date, there is no stringent proof that the anthropogenic CO2 has exerted any influence on the climate which is clearly traceable to this source...(talking of this source, this ^ source then adds that the claimed temperature increase by the end of the 20th century is well within the range of natural variability and is not unusual and that CO2 is good for the planet)
Willie Wei-Hock Soon
But the new 2018 UN IPCC not only relied on the discredited 2013 Marcott study to gin up climate alarm, but the UN also misused the Marcott study in a way that the authors of that study explicitly warned should not be done.
Ross McKitrick
What the media is not telling the public is these climate reports are self-serving reports that have predetermined outcomes. The U.N. hypes the climate ‘problem’ then puts itself in charge of the ‘solution.’ And the mainstream media goes along with such unmitigated nonsense.
Marc Morano
I am no longer reading this garbage – and neither does an overwhelming majority of the people. There's absolutely no true, useful, or original content in this stuff. Almost identical predictions have been proven incorrect hundreds of times. Self-described "climate scientists" and their public faces such as Al Gore have been predicting the end of the world for 2000, 2009, 2010, 2015, and every other year. Jehovah's Witnesses can no longer compete in the number of these failed predictions of the end of the world. Nothing that would even remotely resemble their doomsday predictions has ever materialized. These days, similar claims are on par with the spam about penis enlargement. Who was interested in such things has probably undergone the procedure, whatever it is. Others just treat it as the pollution in their mailboxes, newspapers, and on TV screens.
Unnamed Climate Denier's blog
The delicious irony in a not-reading-IPCC-garbage consensus will be lost on theclimate scientists politicians at the tasteless BBC.
their views have a certain appeal An implausible conjecture backed by false evidence and repeated incessantly has become politically correct ‘knowledge,’ and is used to promote the overturn of industrial civilization....Given the democratic necessity for non-scientists to take positions on scientific problems, belief and faith inevitably replace understanding, though trivially oversimplified false narratives serve to reassure the non-scientists that they are not totally without scientific ‘understanding.’ The issue of global warming offers numerous examples of all of this.
Richard Lindzen
There is absolutely no science in IPCC reports these days … just political positionings.
Ross McKitrick
The IPCC is in the red rev range of ideology and reality loss...To date, there is no stringent proof that the anthropogenic CO2 has exerted any influence on the climate which is clearly traceable to this source...(talking of this source, this ^ source then adds that the claimed temperature increase by the end of the 20th century is well within the range of natural variability and is not unusual and that CO2 is good for the planet)
Willie Wei-Hock Soon
But the new 2018 UN IPCC not only relied on the discredited 2013 Marcott study to gin up climate alarm, but the UN also misused the Marcott study in a way that the authors of that study explicitly warned should not be done.
Ross McKitrick
What the media is not telling the public is these climate reports are self-serving reports that have predetermined outcomes. The U.N. hypes the climate ‘problem’ then puts itself in charge of the ‘solution.’ And the mainstream media goes along with such unmitigated nonsense.
Marc Morano
I am no longer reading this garbage – and neither does an overwhelming majority of the people. There's absolutely no true, useful, or original content in this stuff. Almost identical predictions have been proven incorrect hundreds of times. Self-described "climate scientists" and their public faces such as Al Gore have been predicting the end of the world for 2000, 2009, 2010, 2015, and every other year. Jehovah's Witnesses can no longer compete in the number of these failed predictions of the end of the world. Nothing that would even remotely resemble their doomsday predictions has ever materialized. These days, similar claims are on par with the spam about penis enlargement. Who was interested in such things has probably undergone the procedure, whatever it is. Others just treat it as the pollution in their mailboxes, newspapers, and on TV screens.
Unnamed Climate Denier's blog
The delicious irony in a not-reading-IPCC-garbage consensus will be lost on the
See above post.
Edited by LoonyTunes on Monday 15th October 09:24
Meanwhile in the real world another Scientific Institute which doesn't agree with the deniers gets added 
1. The Royal Society
2. NASA
3. The National Center for Atmospheric Research
4. Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
5. International Research Institute for Climate and Society
6. University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
7. Academies des Sciences, France
8. American Geophysical Union
9. American Association for the Advancement of Science
10. The British Antarctic Survey
11. American Chemical Society
12. American Meteorological Society
13. U.S. Global Change Research Program
14. American Physical Society
15. American Association Of State Climatologists
16. Geological Society of America
17. US National Academy of Sciences
18. American Astronomical Society
19. Australian Academy of Science
20. International Arctic Sciences Committee
21. The Royal Society of Canada
22. Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
23. German Academy of Sciences, Leopoldina
24. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
25. The American Quaternary Association
26. The Geological Society (UK)
27. The Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
28. The National Science Academy Of China
29. Indian National Science Academy
30. Hungarian Academy of Sciences
31. Russian Academy of Sciences
32. Academy of Sciences Malaysia
33. The Federation Of American Scientists
34. The Royal Astronomical Society
35. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy)
36. Australian Marine Sciences Association
37. The National Academy of Brazil
38. Tanzania Academy of Sciences
39. Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
40. International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
Anybody got a credible scientific institution who doesn't believe in AGW?
1. The Royal Society
2. NASA
3. The National Center for Atmospheric Research
4. Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
5. International Research Institute for Climate and Society
6. University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
7. Academies des Sciences, France
8. American Geophysical Union
9. American Association for the Advancement of Science
10. The British Antarctic Survey
11. American Chemical Society
12. American Meteorological Society
13. U.S. Global Change Research Program
14. American Physical Society
15. American Association Of State Climatologists
16. Geological Society of America
17. US National Academy of Sciences
18. American Astronomical Society
19. Australian Academy of Science
20. International Arctic Sciences Committee
21. The Royal Society of Canada
22. Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
23. German Academy of Sciences, Leopoldina
24. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
25. The American Quaternary Association
26. The Geological Society (UK)
27. The Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
28. The National Science Academy Of China
29. Indian National Science Academy
30. Hungarian Academy of Sciences
31. Russian Academy of Sciences
32. Academy of Sciences Malaysia
33. The Federation Of American Scientists
34. The Royal Astronomical Society
35. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy)
36. Australian Marine Sciences Association
37. The National Academy of Brazil
38. Tanzania Academy of Sciences
39. Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
40. International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
Anybody got a credible scientific institution who doesn't believe in AGW?
LoonyTunes said:
Thanks GM.
Sources of Deniers Quotes
Ross McKitrick (No credentials)
Heartland Institute (Big Oil funded)
Heartland Institute affiliates/associates/members (ditto)
Tallbloke (No credentials)
49 ex NASA administrators (Not a single paper published between them)
Patrick Moore (ditto McKitrick)
Ottmar Edenhoffer (Misrepresented)
WattsUpWithThat (WUWT receives funding from Heartland Inst)
Richard Lindzen (Dismissed by at least 22 of his Climate Science colleagues at MIT in an open letter to the President/Heartland Inst pin-up)
Willie Wei-Hock Soon (Received over $1 million in funding in the past decade for his research from Big Oil and Coal interests)
Horst-Joachim Lüdecke (Quotes: “Climate Specialist I'm not...[I am] not a specialist in technical details of climate physics.”)
Marc Morano (No Climate Science qualifications and received funds from ExxonMobil, Chevron and others)
More spam, how about keeping to your commitment ?Sources of Deniers Quotes
Ross McKitrick (No credentials)
Heartland Institute (Big Oil funded)
Heartland Institute affiliates/associates/members (ditto)
Tallbloke (No credentials)
49 ex NASA administrators (Not a single paper published between them)
Patrick Moore (ditto McKitrick)
Ottmar Edenhoffer (Misrepresented)
WattsUpWithThat (WUWT receives funding from Heartland Inst)
Richard Lindzen (Dismissed by at least 22 of his Climate Science colleagues at MIT in an open letter to the President/Heartland Inst pin-up)
Willie Wei-Hock Soon (Received over $1 million in funding in the past decade for his research from Big Oil and Coal interests)
Horst-Joachim Lüdecke (Quotes: “Climate Specialist I'm not...[I am] not a specialist in technical details of climate physics.”)
Marc Morano (No Climate Science qualifications and received funds from ExxonMobil, Chevron and others)
LoonyTunes said:
Meanwhile in the real world another Scientific Institute which doesn't agree with the deniers gets added
1. The Royal Society
2. NASA
3. The National Center for Atmospheric Research
4. Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
5. International Research Institute for Climate and Society
6. University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
7. Academies des Sciences, France
8. American Geophysical Union
9. American Association for the Advancement of Science
10. The British Antarctic Survey
11. American Chemical Society
12. American Meteorological Society
13. U.S. Global Change Research Program
14. American Physical Society
15. American Association Of State Climatologists
16. Geological Society of America
17. US National Academy of Sciences
18. American Astronomical Society
19. Australian Academy of Science
20. International Arctic Sciences Committee
21. The Royal Society of Canada
22. Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
23. German Academy of Sciences, Leopoldina
24. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
25. The American Quaternary Association
26. The Geological Society (UK)
27. The Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
28. The National Science Academy Of China
29. Indian National Science Academy
30. Hungarian Academy of Sciences
31. Russian Academy of Sciences
32. Academy of Sciences Malaysia
33. The Federation Of American Scientists
34. The Royal Astronomical Society
35. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy)
36. Australian Marine Sciences Association
37. The National Academy of Brazil
38. Tanzania Academy of Sciences
39. Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
40. International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
Anybody got a credible scientific institution who doesn't believe in AGW?
it was provide to you, but deemed not credible in your esteemed opinion. Let see those qualifications which enables you to make that determination ?1. The Royal Society
2. NASA
3. The National Center for Atmospheric Research
4. Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
5. International Research Institute for Climate and Society
6. University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
7. Academies des Sciences, France
8. American Geophysical Union
9. American Association for the Advancement of Science
10. The British Antarctic Survey
11. American Chemical Society
12. American Meteorological Society
13. U.S. Global Change Research Program
14. American Physical Society
15. American Association Of State Climatologists
16. Geological Society of America
17. US National Academy of Sciences
18. American Astronomical Society
19. Australian Academy of Science
20. International Arctic Sciences Committee
21. The Royal Society of Canada
22. Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
23. German Academy of Sciences, Leopoldina
24. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
25. The American Quaternary Association
26. The Geological Society (UK)
27. The Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
28. The National Science Academy Of China
29. Indian National Science Academy
30. Hungarian Academy of Sciences
31. Russian Academy of Sciences
32. Academy of Sciences Malaysia
33. The Federation Of American Scientists
34. The Royal Astronomical Society
35. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy)
36. Australian Marine Sciences Association
37. The National Academy of Brazil
38. Tanzania Academy of Sciences
39. Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
40. International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
Anybody got a credible scientific institution who doesn't believe in AGW?
With This Staff said:
Neither Greenpeace nor FOE should be permitted to express an opinion on (C)AGW given the lack of appropriately qualified staff.
I'm not sure anybody is quoting Greenpeace or Friends Of The Earth on here.With This Staff said:
Stern wrote an extensive and influential report which should be discredited too, using the same logic.
Or quoting Nicholas Stern as a qualified source.With This Staff said:
As for Gore!
Or Gore for that matter - he's the politician.However if we were agree to not quote unqualified/discredited sources the deniers would be down to Judith Curry from what I've seen on here
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff