Climate Change?

[Infinityshock]

I believe in climate change...its a fact

Its also a fact that humanity has little to nothing to do with it occurring but the corpocracy is using it as a scam to fleece people out of money

Conspiracy, not fact. Do you really think all those scientists are duping the public in order to benefit some corporate master?

Also, it's not like there isn't any evidence linking climate change to human emissions. This article came out only recently:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212096314000163

"The results of our statistical analysis would suggest that it is highly likely (99.999 percent) that the 304 consecutive months of anomalously warm global temperatures to June 2010 is directly attributable to the accumulation of global greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The corollary is that it is extremely unlikely (0.001 percent) that the observed anomalous warming is not associated with anthropogenic GHG emissions. Solar radiation was found to be an insignificant contributor to global warming over the last century, which is consistent with the earlier findings of Allen et al. (2000)."

yes

there are countless examples of so-called scientists fudging their results to receive more funding.  scientists/researches entire premise to exist is depending on other people donating money to their cause (research) and they know this when they fill out the results section of their paperwork at the end of the research

[Slave of the Beast]

I believe in climate change...its a fact

Its also a fact that humanity has little to nothing to do with it occurring but the corpocracy is using it as a scam to fleece people out of money

Conspiracy, not fact. Do you really think all those scientists are duping the public in order to benefit some corporate master?

Also, it's not like there isn't any evidence linking climate change to human emissions. This article came out only recently:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212096314000163

"The results of our statistical analysis would suggest that it is highly likely (99.999 percent) that the 304 consecutive months of anomalously warm global temperatures to June 2010 is directly attributable to the accumulation of global greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The corollary is that it is extremely unlikely (0.001 percent) that the observed anomalous warming is not associated with anthropogenic GHG emissions. Solar radiation was found to be an insignificant contributor to global warming over the last century, which is consistent with the earlier findings of Allen et al. (2000)."

yes

there are countless examples of so-called scientists fudging their results to receive more funding.  scientists/researches entire premise to exist is depending on other people donating money to their cause (research) and they know this when they fill out the results section of their paperwork at the end of the research

That would suggest a global conspiracy to commit scientific fraud. Do you have any evidence of this?

[Obbe]

Not necessarily.   Couldn't it be a global coincidence?

[Slave of the Beast]

Not necessarily.   Couldn't it be a global coincidence?

Where does coincidence factor into the reports of bodies like the IPCC?

[Obbe]

Not necessarily.   Couldn't it be a global coincidence?

Where does coincidence factor into the reports of bodies like the IPCC?

Are you saying conspiracy is more likely then coincidence even though you have no evidence for conspiracy?

[Slave of the Beast]

Not necessarily.   Couldn't it be a global coincidence?

Where does coincidence factor into the reports of bodies like the IPCC?

Are you saying conspiracy is more likely then coincidence even though you have no evidence for conspiracy?

My point is that for an organization like the IPCC, producing reports on global warming that are primarily designed to ensure continued funding rather than openly discussing valid data would require a very large degree of collusion. Hence my comment about conspiracy to commit mass scienitific fraud regarding global warming.

[Montane]

My point is that for an organization like the IPCC, producing reports on global warming that are primarily designed to ensure continued funding rather than openly discussing valid data would require a very large degree of collusion. Hence my comment about conspiracy to commit mass scienitific fraud regarding global warming.

...but the IPCC does discuss valid data? It's just hard when there's so much privately funded and therefore inherently biased research that it has to be picked through. They've compiled plenty of plans and lists of suggested actions, but carbon fuels are so instilled into our civilization that timely change becomes impossible without the fall of some company, and the resulting loss of livelihood for tens of thousands of people.

[Slave of the Beast]

My point is that for an organization like the IPCC, producing reports on global warming that are primarily designed to ensure continued funding rather than openly discussing valid data would require a very large degree of collusion. Hence my comment about conspiracy to commit mass scienitific fraud regarding global warming.

...but the IPCC does discuss valid data? It's just hard when there's so much privately funded and therefore inherently biased research that it has to be picked through. They've compiled plenty of plans and lists of suggested actions, but carbon fuels are so instilled into our civilization that timely change becomes impossible without the fall of some company, and the resulting loss of livelihood for tens of thousands of people.

To clarify re: IPCC, if they didn't discuss valid environmental data it'd probably be due to a massive conspiracy given the size of the organization.

[dragqueen slayer]

Hey, let's chemically and biologically alter all spheres of a planet and then make the ridiculous claim that there might be some sort of reaction from this because preventing human development and progress is where the real money is

What's your sea level temperature?