Is Global Warming The Greatest Lie In Human History?

[Metsfanmax]

demonfork, have you considered the possibility that the reason you don't know any Ph.D.'s that accept the IPCC view on climate change is that none of them would be interested in associating with someone who insists that their life's work is fueled by a Huffington Post conspiracy theory? Your point on this makes about as much sense as Flat Earth believers saying that they don't know any Ph.D.'s who believe the Earth is round.

[jusplay4fun]

Your comment that IPCC is a joke and uses JUNK science does not deny the evidence.

Data and conclusions linking more intense hurricanes to Global Warming:

Global Warming and Hurricanes

An Overview of Current Research Results
Last Revised: Sept. 20, 2018

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/

1. Summary Statement
Two frequently asked questions on global warming and hurricanes are the following:
• What changes in hurricane activity are expected for the late 21st century, given the pronounced global warming scenarios from IPCC models?
• Have humans already caused a detectable increase in Atlantic hurricane activity or global tropical cyclone activity?
The IPCC AR5 presents a strong body of scientific evidence that most of the global warming observed over the past half century is very likely due to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. But what does this change mean for hurricane activity? Here, we address these questions, starting with those conclusions where we have relatively more confidence. The main text then gives more background discussion. “Detectable” change here will refer to a change that is large enough to be clearly distinguishable from the variability due to natural causes. Our main conclusions are:

Likelihood Statements
The terminology here for likelihood statements generally follows the conventions used in the IPCC assessments, i.e., for the assessed likelihood of an outcome or result:
• Very Likely: > 90%,
• Likely: > 66%
• More Likely Than Not (or Better Than Even Odds) > 50%

• Sea level rise–which very likely has a substantial human contribution to the global mean observed rise according to IPCC AR5–should be causing higher storm surge levels for tropical cyclones that do occur, all else assumed equal.

• Tropical cyclone rainfall rates will likely increase in the future due to anthropogenic warming and accompanying increase in atmospheric moisture content. Modeling studies on average project an increase on the order of 10-15% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm for a 2 degree Celsius global warming scenario.

• Tropical cyclone intensities globally will likely increase on average (by 1 to 10% according to model projections for a 2 degree Celsius global warming). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size. Storm size responses to anthropogenic warming are uncertain.

• The global proportion of tropical cyclones that reach very intense (Category 4 and 5) levels will likely increase due to anthropogenic warming over the 21st century. There is less confidence in future projections of the global number of Category 4 and 5 storms, since most modeling studies project a decrease (or little change) in the global frequency of all tropical cyclones combined.


2. Global Warming and Atlantic Hurricanes

A. Statistical relationships between SSTs and hurricanes

Observed records of Atlantic hurricane activity show some correlation, on multi-year time-scales, between local tropical Atlantic sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the Power Dissipation Index (PDI) —see for example Fig. 3 on this EPA Climate Indicators site. PDI is an aggregate measure of Atlantic hurricane activity, combining frequency, intensity, and duration of hurricanes in a single index. Both Atlantic SSTs and PDI have risen sharply since the 1970s, and there is some evidence that PDI levels in recent years are higher than in the previous active Atlantic hurricane era in the 1950s and 60s.
Model-based climate change detection/attribution studies have linked increasing tropical Atlantic SSTs to increasing greenhouse gases, but proposed links between increasing greenhouse gases and hurricane PDI or frequency has been based on statistical correlations. The statistical linkage of Atlantic hurricane PDI to Atlantic SST suggests at least the possibility of a large anthropogenic influence on Atlantic hurricanes. If this statistical relation between tropical Atlantic SSTs and hurricane activity is used to infer future changes in Atlantic hurricane activity, the implications are sobering: the large increases in tropical Atlantic SSTs projected for the late 21st century would imply very substantial increases in hurricane destructive potential–roughly a 300% increase in the PDI by 2100 (Figure 1a).

The IPCC is a joke and uses junk science to demonize Co2 for political reasons. Governments knew that they couldn't easily use fluctuations in solar activity as a means to control & tax the masses but they sure knew that they could with C02. I don't recognize this so-called authority.

This dude pretty much breaks it down.

https://medium.com/@pullnews/what-i-lea ... 3ae4712ace

[jusplay4fun]

One article by one man (David Siegel) does not refute the overwhelming scientific facts and observations. His refutation is very cursory and not at all cogent.

[demonfork]

One article by one man (David Siegel) does not refute the overwhelming scientific facts and observations. His refutation is very cursory and not at all cogent.

One article- NO
One man - NO
Overwhelming - NO
Scientific facts - NO

This one article by one man references over 200 other articles/videos made by many other men & women, climate scientists, professors etc.

His refutation is very cursory and not at all cogent

You didn't read the article and research it's content. It took me 2 weeks. No way that your cursory look provided you with the data to extrapolate that his view was cursory.


In this article he references this statement from ORNL



I work very closely with ORNL and have done joint projects with their energy division & have had many after hours discussions with many of the scientists there and not a single one of them, that I've had discussions with, buys into the alarmism of climate change.

[demonfork]

Your comment that IPCC is a joke and uses JUNK science does not deny the evidence.

Data and conclusions linking more intense hurricanes to Global Warming:

Global Warming and Hurricanes

An Overview of Current Research Results
Last Revised: Sept. 20, 2018

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/

1. Summary Statement
Two frequently asked questions on global warming and hurricanes are the following:
• What changes in hurricane activity are expected for the late 21st century, given the pronounced global warming scenarios from IPCC models?
• Have humans already caused a detectable increase in Atlantic hurricane activity or global tropical cyclone activity?
The IPCC AR5 presents a strong body of scientific evidence that most of the global warming observed over the past half century is very likely due to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. But what does this change mean for hurricane activity? Here, we address these questions, starting with those conclusions where we have relatively more confidence. The main text then gives more background discussion. “Detectable” change here will refer to a change that is large enough to be clearly distinguishable from the variability due to natural causes. Our main conclusions are:

Likelihood Statements
The terminology here for likelihood statements generally follows the conventions used in the IPCC assessments, i.e., for the assessed likelihood of an outcome or result:
• Very Likely: > 90%,
• Likely: > 66%
• More Likely Than Not (or Better Than Even Odds) > 50%

• Sea level rise–which very likely has a substantial human contribution to the global mean observed rise according to IPCC AR5–should be causing higher storm surge levels for tropical cyclones that do occur, all else assumed equal.

• Tropical cyclone rainfall rates will likely increase in the future due to anthropogenic warming and accompanying increase in atmospheric moisture content. Modeling studies on average project an increase on the order of 10-15% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm for a 2 degree Celsius global warming scenario.

• Tropical cyclone intensities globally will likely increase on average (by 1 to 10% according to model projections for a 2 degree Celsius global warming). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size. Storm size responses to anthropogenic warming are uncertain.

• The global proportion of tropical cyclones that reach very intense (Category 4 and 5) levels will likely increase due to anthropogenic warming over the 21st century. There is less confidence in future projections of the global number of Category 4 and 5 storms, since most modeling studies project a decrease (or little change) in the global frequency of all tropical cyclones combined.


2. Global Warming and Atlantic Hurricanes

A. Statistical relationships between SSTs and hurricanes

Observed records of Atlantic hurricane activity show some correlation, on multi-year time-scales, between local tropical Atlantic sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the Power Dissipation Index (PDI) —see for example Fig. 3 on this EPA Climate Indicators site. PDI is an aggregate measure of Atlantic hurricane activity, combining frequency, intensity, and duration of hurricanes in a single index. Both Atlantic SSTs and PDI have risen sharply since the 1970s, and there is some evidence that PDI levels in recent years are higher than in the previous active Atlantic hurricane era in the 1950s and 60s.
Model-based climate change detection/attribution studies have linked increasing tropical Atlantic SSTs to increasing greenhouse gases, but proposed links between increasing greenhouse gases and hurricane PDI or frequency has been based on statistical correlations. The statistical linkage of Atlantic hurricane PDI to Atlantic SST suggests at least the possibility of a large anthropogenic influence on Atlantic hurricanes. If this statistical relation between tropical Atlantic SSTs and hurricane activity is used to infer future changes in Atlantic hurricane activity, the implications are sobering: the large increases in tropical Atlantic SSTs projected for the late 21st century would imply very substantial increases in hurricane destructive potential–roughly a 300% increase in the PDI by 2100 (Figure 1a).

The IPCC is a joke and uses junk science to demonize Co2 for political reasons. Governments knew that they couldn't easily use fluctuations in solar activity as a means to control & tax the masses but they sure knew that they could with C02. I don't recognize this so-called authority.

This dude pretty much breaks it down.

https://medium.com/@pullnews/what-i-lea ... 3ae4712ace

You don't understand the concept of "garbage in = garbage out" and how that relates to the "evidence"

back to the statement by ORNL



because the system is so completely complex this means that with regards to modeling, many "estimations" (a knob that can be subjectively adjusted) are part of the equation. This is why there isn't a lot of reconciliation between models... garbage in = garbage out.

[jusplay4fun]

Again, you do not refute any of the Scientific evidences, overwhelming or not.

These points remain standing because no one has disputed them. OH, one dispute about 97% consensus.....still lots of evidence in favor and nearly all remain unchallenged.

I do not think any of these points has been refuted in this thread.

Let's look at the scientific data.

Climate change: How do we know?

The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.

Scientific Consensus
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:

Sea level rise
Global sea level rose about 8 inches in the last century. The rate in the last two decades, however, is nearly double that of the last century.

Global temperature rise
The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 2.0 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.

Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with 16 of the 17 warmest years on record occurring since 2001. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year — from January through September, with the exception of June — were the warmest on record for those respective months.

Warming oceans
The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.

Shrinking ice sheets
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005

Declining Arctic sea ice
Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.

Glacial retreat
Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.

[demonfork]

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/env ... ns-suspect

People such as Prince Charles, Gore, Pachauri, Brown, and Hansen don’t deal in real science; they pedal fear masquerading as science to the gullible. When challenged, they pull out the “97 percent of scientists agree on global warming” malarkey, as if that ends all discussion on the subject. They compare skeptics of anthropogenic global warming to holocaust deniers, as if there were some moral equivalence between the two. They willingly prevaricate, obfuscate, and outright lie in order to frighten the masses.

But the masses have caught on. Polls show that climate change is consistently near the bottom of issues that people are concerned about.

As the climate-alarmist movement ever so slowly fades from our consciousness, the alarmists are becoming more desperate; their shrill cries and declarations of doom sounding even more unhinged than they were before.

Wanna talk consensus? Here is some consensus for you...

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/most- ... oblem.aspx

99% of Americans aren't all that concerned about climate change.

[riskllama]

99% of Americans aren't all that concerned about climate change.

isn't that just because most 'muricans spend most of their time wondering when the McRib will make it's next appearance?

[tzor]

Well then, I guess I don't exist.

Damn it man, you have a PhD in Physics. You know damn well that it cannot be determined if you exist or not until someone actually observes you and these forums don't count.

isn't that just because most 'muricans spend most of their time wondering when the McRib will make it's next appearance?

Some people are always talking about the number of the beast but only a few talk about the fast food of the beast. Stop bringing up the end times!

[HitRed]

Well then, I guess I don't exist.

Damn it man, you have a PhD in Physics. You know damn well that it cannot be determined if you exist or not until someone actually observes you and these forums don't count.

isn't that just because most 'muricans spend most of their time wondering when the McRib will make it's next appearance?

Some people are always talking about the number of the beast but only a few talk about the fast food of the beast. Stop bringing up the end times!

I went into a MDs this week and had to order at a computer (most employees are gone just a computer instructor to help train you). #McVendingMachine

[riskllama]

I went into a MDs this week and had to order at a computer (most employees are gone just a computer instructor to help train you).

thank you, President Trump...

[HitRed]

I went into a MDs this week and had to order at a computer (most employees are gone just a computer instructor to help train you).

thank you, President Trump...

It does have a golf course out back.

[jusplay4fun]

One quote from ORNL does not negate other scientific data and observations.

And your quote does NOT deny Global Warming; it says that the evidence is NOT 100% sure is not a totally sure correlation. So what is new there? I would argue you cannot make sense of all the data of a complex phenomenon such as weather. That quote is rather useless and is not worth repeating. And from 1800? There has to be holes in the data from that long ago.

BTW when did ORNL do research on Global Warming? At least I use NOAA data and their website. What is NOAA? Oh, they study the Atmosphere, RIGHT?

One article by one man (David Siegel) does not refute the overwhelming scientific facts and observations. His refutation is very cursory and not at all cogent.

One article- NO
One man - NO
Overwhelming - NO
Scientific facts - NO

This one article by one man references over 200 other articles/videos made by many other men & women, climate scientists, professors etc.

His refutation is very cursory and not at all cogent

You didn't read the article and research it's content. It took me 2 weeks. No way that your cursory look provided you with the data to extrapolate that his view was cursory.


In this article he references this statement from ORNL



I work very closely with ORNL and have done joint projects with their energy division & have had many after hours discussions with many of the scientists there and not a single one of them, that I've had discussions with, buys into the alarmism of climate change.

[riskllama]

just show him your conq. medal and end this madness, df...

[DoomYoshi]

One time my sister and I dressed up in semiformal masquerade wear; went and ordered a McRib as a Mac, then got a big Mac with no mustard. This really confused the kid, who couldn't find the "no mustard" button, so he went to get the manager. She looked at us and said "there's no mustard on a Big Mac" so we said - well, you better add mustard then!

They weren't very amused by the whole thing but they complied willingly.

[demonfork]

One quote from ORNL does not negate other scientific data and observations.

And your quote does NOT deny Global Warming; it says that the evidence is NOT 100% sure is not a totally sure correlation. So what is new there? I would argue you cannot make sense of all the data of a complex phenomenon such as weather. That quote is rather useless and is not worth repeating. And from 1800? There has to be holes in the data from that long ago.

BTW when did ORNL do research on Global Warming? At least I use NOAA data and their website. What is NOAA? Oh, they study the Atmosphere, RIGHT?

One article by one man (David Siegel) does not refute the overwhelming scientific facts and observations. His refutation is very cursory and not at all cogent.

One article- NO
One man - NO
Overwhelming - NO
Scientific facts - NO

This one article by one man references over 200 other articles/videos made by many other men & women, climate scientists, professors etc.

His refutation is very cursory and not at all cogent

You didn't read the article and research it's content. It took me 2 weeks. No way that your cursory look provided you with the data to extrapolate that his view was cursory.


In this article he references this statement from ORNL



I work very closely with ORNL and have done joint projects with their energy division & have had many after hours discussions with many of the scientists there and not a single one of them, that I've had discussions with, buys into the alarmism of climate change.

Cut your losses bro... no one is alarmed about climate change.

Don't you know there is a consensus? 99% of the masses aren't concerned about it.

[demonfork]

just show him your conq. medal and end this madness, df...

It's on display for all to see, but nonetheless a valid point.

[Dukasaur]

Well then, I guess I don't exist.

Damn it man, you have a PhD in Physics. You know damn well that it cannot be determined if you exist or not until someone actually observes you and these forums don't count.

I know someone who observed metsfanmax outside of these fora.

[jusplay4fun]

I don' know where you get 99% from, but you are CLEARLY wrong. That makes me doubt OTHER stats you quote, DemonF.

The majority of American think Global Warming is REAL; 66%

"Broad Agreement Among Americans on Some Aspects of Global Warming

Majorities of Americans overall say most scientists think global warming is occurring (66%), it is caused by human activities (64%) and its effects have begun (60%). Yet, the net effect of increased political polarization over the past year is that opinions on each of these measures have edged down slightly.

At the same time, the 45% who think global warming will pose a serious threat in their lifetime is the highest percentage recorded for this measure since Gallup first asked the question in 1997. This is the only issue that saw increased concern among both major party groups.

The 43% of Americans who say they worry a great deal about global warming or climate change is similar to last year's record-high 45% and is still up significantly from 32% in 2015."

https://news.gallup.com/poll/231530/glo ... hifts.aspx

MARCH 28, 2018
Global Warming Concern Steady Despite Some Partisan Shifts
BY MEGAN BRENAN AND LYDIA SAAD

One quote from ORNL does not negate other scientific data and observations.

And your quote does NOT deny Global Warming; it says that the evidence is NOT 100% sure is not a totally sure correlation. So what is new there? I would argue you cannot make sense of all the data of a complex phenomenon such as weather. That quote is rather useless and is not worth repeating. And from 1800? There has to be holes in the data from that long ago.

BTW when did ORNL do research on Global Warming? At least I use NOAA data and their website. What is NOAA? Oh, they study the Atmosphere, RIGHT?

One article by one man (David Siegel) does not refute the overwhelming scientific facts and observations. His refutation is very cursory and not at all cogent.

One article- NO
One man - NO
Overwhelming - NO
Scientific facts - NO

This one article by one man references over 200 other articles/videos made by many other men & women, climate scientists, professors etc.

His refutation is very cursory and not at all cogent

You didn't read the article and research it's content. It took me 2 weeks. No way that your cursory look provided you with the data to extrapolate that his view was cursory.


In this article he references this statement from ORNL



I work very closely with ORNL and have done joint projects with their energy division & have had many after hours discussions with many of the scientists there and not a single one of them, that I've had discussions with, buys into the alarmism of climate change.

Cut your losses bro... no one is alarmed about climate change.

Don't you know there is a consensus? 99% of the masses aren't concerned about it.

[jusplay4fun]

I quoted you NOAA and NASA data and conclusions and you call it hypothetical? You need to look up the definition of hypothetical. And actually READ the data and conclusions I already shared with you. And my sources won't take you two weeks to read and understand. They are clear, cogent, succinct, and understandable.

Global warming is real and is happening and MOST Americans (66%) believe it to be real, despite what your friends tell you.

You need to get your head out of the sand and look up simple definitions, while you're at it, DF.


DemonFork said:

"The only answer that I could give you would be hypothetical & if you could produce the evidence based on this hypothetical scenario, then I would accept that there is a consensus. "

[jusplay4fun]

So for his authority figure, DemonFork uses NOT a scientist, but a Republic Hack, one who spreads partisan politics and has a political agenda and NOT a scientific desire to seek truth. (please see below)

Scientists do not start with a preconceived and prejudiced view and try to find evidence to support that premise. Scientist use empirical evidence, data, and logic to make informed conclusions.

Your source uses NONE of these. He merely tries to confuse people and apparently you drank his Kool-Aid. Detox, now, DemonFork, before it's too late.

Rather than using POLITICAL sources, DF, try to find a scientist (preferably more than ONE) who can substantiate any of your claims.

You failed that test already. Do you want to try again?

JP


David A. Siegel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Politics[edit]
Siegel campaigned for George W. Bush in 2000.[16]
In a February 2012 interview by Susan Berfield, Siegel elaborated:
"Whenever I saw a negative article about Gore, I put it in with the paychecks of my 8,000 employees. I had my managers do a survey on every employee. If they liked Bush, we made them register to vote. But not if they liked Gore. The week before [the election] we made 80,000 phone calls through my call center—they were robo-calls. On Election Day, we made sure everyone who was voting for Bush got to the polls. I didn’t know he would win by 527 votes. Afterward, we did a survey among the employees to find out who voted who wouldn’t have otherwise. One thousand of them said so."[17]
During the 2012 United States elections, Siegel caused controversy and public debate when he sent a mass email to his employees, suggesting that they vote for Republican Party candidate Mitt Romney or he might have to take drastic measures in how he operated the company (including cutting back on his company's workforce).[18][19] In January 2015, it was noted that his company had experienced "the best year in our history" and he raised his company's minimum wage to $10 per hour.[20]

Politics[edit]
Siegel campaigned for George W. Bush in 2000.[16]
In a February 2012 interview by Susan Berfield, Siegel elaborated:
"Whenever I saw a negative article about Gore, I put it in with the paychecks of my 8,000 employees. I had my managers do a survey on every employee. If they liked Bush, we made them register to vote. But not if they liked Gore. The week before [the election] we made 80,000 phone calls through my call center—they were robo-calls. On Election Day, we made sure everyone who was voting for Bush got to the polls. I didn’t know he would win by 527 votes. Afterward, we did a survey among the employees to find out who voted who wouldn’t have otherwise. One thousand of them said so."[17]
During the 2012 United States elections, Siegel caused controversy and public debate when he sent a mass email to his employees, suggesting that they vote for Republican Party candidate Mitt Romney or he might have to take drastic measures in how he operated the company (including cutting back on his company's workforce).[18][19] In January 2015, it was noted that his company had experienced "the best year in our history" and he raised his company's minimum wage to $10 per hour.[20]

[jusplay4fun]

This wonderful poll that DF cites does NOT even mention the term Global warming, so another FALSEHOOD claimed by DF. Further, it asks for the MOST IMPORTANT problem, so of course Global Warming is not at the top of that list. BUT to draw a conclusion that 99% do not care is STRETCHING THE TRUTH, DF. Is that you entire reasoning process? Stretch the truth to fit your preconceived narrative and to deny scientific facts??

Here is HIS LINK:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx

Try again. You failed again.

JP

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/29748-failed-predictions-of-climate-alarmists-make-future-predictions-suspect

People such as Prince Charles, Gore, Pachauri, Brown, and Hansen don’t deal in real science; they pedal fear masquerading as science to the gullible. When challenged, they pull out the “97 percent of scientists agree on global warming” malarkey, as if that ends all discussion on the subject. They compare skeptics of anthropogenic global warming to holocaust deniers, as if there were some moral equivalence between the two. They willingly prevaricate, obfuscate, and outright lie in order to frighten the masses.

But the masses have caught on. Polls show that climate change is consistently near the bottom of issues that people are concerned about.

As the climate-alarmist movement ever so slowly fades from our consciousness, the alarmists are becoming more desperate; their shrill cries and declarations of doom sounding even more unhinged than they were before.

Wanna talk consensus? Here is some consensus for you...

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/most- ... oblem.aspx

99% of Americans aren't all that concerned about climate change.

[jusplay4fun]

Clearly DemonFork is wrong and misuses sources. He is not to be believed. FAKE info from DemonFork.

WoW...I am SHOCKED.......NOT....

That is the way of most deniers. They confuse political rhetoric for science. And they misuse data. AND then they accuse scientists of the same SIN they commit. REALLY, DF. Get your head out of the sand.

99% of Americans aren't all that concerned about climate change.

isn't that just because most 'muricans spend most of their time wondering when the McRib will make it's next appearance?

[jusplay4fun]

NOTE that DF totally ignored this (from MetsFanMax) since he cannot refute this.

Try again, DF, and this time use real data and real facts, not the fake stuff you have tried to use TWICE in the past few days. You proved that your sources are totally worthless. I am sorry that you wasted two weeks to try to understand a worthless source (David Siegel). Next time, consider the source BEFORE spending ALL that time "researching" fake science.

JP

demonfork, have you considered the possibility that the reason you don't know any Ph.D.'s that accept the IPCC view on climate change is that none of them would be interested in associating with someone who insists that their life's work is fueled by a Huffington Post conspiracy theory? Your point on this makes about as much sense as Flat Earth believers saying that they don't know any Ph.D.'s who believe the Earth is round.

[riskllama]

nice quintuple post, jusplay.... that's gotta be a record, i think.