How dare you question climate change propaganda!!

Originally posted by dadudemon
And many claims that are false or didn't happen were made by scientists. Some of those claims were by non-fringe Climatologists.

I posted one link that shows many scientists making wrong predictions along with politicians.

Since I only need one example to prove you wrong, behold, the very first entry where a scientist is making a proven-false claim:

🙂

Paul R Elhrich didn't conduct research into or publish scientific papers on climate change and it's predictions. So it's not a scientific prediction.

Really don't see why this is difficult to get.

How many damn excuses are we gonna make?

I'm gonna take medication meant to help with sea sickness cuz there is gonna be spinning:

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Paul R Elhrich didn't conduct research into or publish scientific papers on climate change and it's predictions. So it's not a scientific prediction.

Really don't see why this is difficult to get.

Firstly, you are changing your position. You originally said this...

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Her point about previous predictions being wrong claiming they were predictions made by scientists. They weren't. They were claims made by media outlets reporting incorrectly.

lol

Secondly, he did publish scientific papers on climate change:

https://www.pnas.org/content/99/9/6070.short

And here is a longlist:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=paul+r+ehrlich+climate+research+scholarly+articles&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

He's changing his position faster than a hurricane caused by Trump!

Man if this man can cause hurricanes how is Jim Acostas house still standing?

I'm just here for the show.

But I will say, if the other sides best argument is "Politicians and the media misrepresent climate science", I'd ask who they think makes policy in the first place?

It isn't scientists. They are the prostitutes of policy makers and businessmen.

Originally posted by Surtur
He's changing his position faster than a hurricane caused by Trump!

Man if this man can cause hurricanes how is Jim Acostas house still standing?

I've not changed my position at all.

It's not difficult understand.

Here's an example.

If an eminent professor goes on TV and says "by 2050 I predict the moon will be entirely made of cheese" the media will report "scientists predict moon will be made of cheese by 2050"

When you ask what research that's based on and the answer is... nothing...

Well then scientists didn't actually predict it.

This is what she, and DDM, are doing.

The video I posted addresses that very thing.

Originally posted by cdtm
I'm just here for the show.

But I will say, if the other sides best argument is "Politicians and the media misrepresent climate science", I'd ask who they think makes policy in the first place?

It isn't scientists. They are the prostitutes of policy makers and businessmen.

On the other hand:

Why Scientists Are Distrusted

"Toward the end of the article is this stunning statement from Christopher Williams, an ecologist at Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts, who is studying the issue:

“I have heard scientists say that if we found forest loss cooled the planet, we wouldn’t publish it.”

Originally posted by dadudemon
Firstly, you are changing your position. You originally said this...

lol

Secondly, he did publish scientific papers on climate change:

https://www.pnas.org/content/99/9/6070.short

And here is a longlist:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=paul+r+ehrlich+climate+research+scholarly+articles&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

Great. And a publication from this year shows that prediction to be happening.

Now where's his paper on famines?

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
I've not changed my position at all.

It's not difficult understand.

Here's an example.

If an eminent professor goes on TV and says "by 2050 I predict the moon will be entirely made of cheese" the media will report "scientists predict moon will be made of cheese by 2050"

When you ask what research that's based on and the answer is... nothing...

Well then scientists didn't actually predict it.

This is what she, and DDM, are doing.

The video I posted addresses that very thing.

Is the professor a scientist?

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
I've not changed my position at all.

It's not difficult understand.

Here's an example.

If an eminent professor goes on TV and says "by 2050 I predict the moon will be entirely made of cheese" the media will report "scientists predict moon will be made of cheese by 2050"

When you ask what research that's based on and the answer is... nothing...

Well then scientists didn't actually predict it.

This is what she, and DDM, are doing.

The video I posted addresses that very thing.

Just so you can't edit this post.

Originally posted by cdtm
I'm just here for the show.

But I will say, if the other sides best argument is "Politicians and the media misrepresent climate science", I'd ask who they think makes policy in the first place?

It isn't scientists. They are the prostitutes of policy makers and businessmen.

And that's exactly why I said that the science was ignored in the Greta Thunberg thread. Policy never matches their recommendations.

Largely because 1. Policy makers are bought and paid for by lobbyists and 2. A large proportion of them are scientifically illiterate.

Originally posted by Surtur
On the other hand:

Why Scientists Are Distrusted

[b]"Toward the end of the article is this stunning statement from Christopher Williams, an ecologist at Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts, who is studying the issue:

“I have heard scientists say that if we found forest loss cooled the planet, we wouldn’t publish it.” [/B]

I don't get why, though.

Are they just that hung on activism? Or, are the activists controlling the scientists? And if so, why?

Or is something else going on entirely?

I mean, what if this really is about a few bad apples in the bunch, and the bulk of science says "sound the alarms"?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Just so you can't edit this post.

Why would I?

Originally posted by cdtm
I don't get why, though.

Are they just that hung on activism? Or, are the activists controlling the scientists? And if so, why?

Or is something else going on entirely?

I mean, what if this really is about a few bad apples in the bunch, and the bulk of science says "sound the alarms"?

The question for me is just how many bad apples there are. How did this man know people would lie unless they stated it? Not every scientist is gonna be so up front about dishonesty. They probably thought they were in like minded company. Not all will be so dumb.

And some people just can't stand to be proven wrong. Now consider the egos some intellectuals have.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Why would I?

To save yourself some embarrassment.

From what? Being right?

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
From what? Being right?

A scientist lying about their evidence doesn't change the fact they made a prediction. it just means the prediction was based on a lie.

Me to climate alarmists:

YouTube video