15 Replies to “The Sound Of Settled Science”

  3. Good list. It will be thoroughly trashed and deliberately misunderstood, of course. The climate alarmists refuse to acknowledge that most skeptics believe there has been natural global warming and anthropogenic global warming. The disagreement is about the ratio of each, is it catastrophic, the causes and political solutions. How that became heresy and anti-science only shows how political the thing is.

  5. This is how ridiculous the eco-fanatics have gotten:
    The Green Party of England and Wales has called for a purge of government advisors and ministers who do not share its views on climate change…Pressed on the issue, she agreed that even the chief veterinary officer should be removed if he didn’t sign up to the view on climate change also taken by the Green Party.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26187711
    I can’t think of any issue in my lifetime where people needed to be “purged” because they didn’t proclaim their faith to a scientific hypothesis. A hypothesis that has yet to be proven as evidenced by the pause, the denial of the pause, the many (unproven)explanations for the pause and the simultaneous denial and explanation by climate consensus scientists. It’ Abbot and Costello material, really.

  6. Peer reviewed by “Climate Deniers” all paid for by “Big Oil”.
    CAGW is a religion and as Jonathan Swift pointed out, “It is pointless to attempt to reason someone out of a position they were never reasoned into in the first place.”

  8. These scientists would be outside the “95% of climatology researchers who agree the science is settled, AGW is for real”

  9. You are kidding of course.
    Or
    Perhaps you are a scientologist.
    Or
    Perhaps you are religionist of the mother earth.
    Or
    Perhaps you are see things in bluer light.
    Or
    Maybe you just go with the flow and see where you end up.

  10. The currently fashionable anti-fracking religion is another branch of this anti-everything church; the same folks who believe that our comfortable lifestyle causes global warming, the climate to change, as well as fire, floods and pestilence. Like all religions it’s based on unquestioning faith, the word of messiahs, and a unilateral denial of anything that doesn’t fit the accepted dogma.
    It’s good for folks to have religions, faith can bring comfort in times of confusion and uncertainty.
    For good reason the separation of religion and government is enshrined in our political process. This separation applies equally to new religions as it does to those thousands of years old.

  12. The ‘settled science’ mobsters are somewhere very close to the Spanish Inquisition in their censor-rather-than-debate stance towards those skeptical of or those challenging CAGW authoritarian dogma.
    I particularly enjoy those parroting the scriptures stating that 93% or 95% or whatever percent of ‘scientists’ agree with the CAGW hypothesis. Ignoring for a moment the scientific nullity of ‘consensus’, any verification I have seen offered doesn’t amount to more than a few hundred government / UN rent seekers.

  13. This list has been a long-term project. Back when it was 450
    Better Recheck That List
    Posted by Roger Pielke, Jr. 16 November 2009
    My attention has just be called to a list of “450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming.” A quick count shows that they have 21 papers on the list by me and/or my father. Assuming that these are Hypothesis 1 type bloggers they’d better change that to 429 papers, as their list doesn’t represent what they think it does.
    UPDATE 11/11/11 By email, Professor Russell Dickerson, University of Maryland has asked that I add his comment to this post:
    After repeated communication with the authors of http://www.populartechnology.net I have concluded that the content of the site is intentionally inaccurate and misleading. That list a paper on which I am a coauthor as “skeptical.” Our paper supports the view that man-made climate change is a substantial danger to human health and the environment. The site refused to remove our paper(s) from their list after repeated written requests to do so.
    UPDATE 3/3/13 The owner of the list mentioned in this post emails and provides a comment below notifying me that the paper was finally removed.

  14. Dizzy, please read the “Rebuttals to Criticism” section of the list,
    Rebuttal to Roger Pielke Jr. – “Better Recheck That List”
    Pielke’s years old post has no relation to the current version of the list. When the Popular Technology.net peer-reviewed paper list was first published in 2009 an alarmist notified Roger Pielke Jr. Ph.D. Political Science that some of his papers as well as his fathers appeared on it. Contacting him was intentional as Roger Pielke Jr. is an enigma in the climate science debate. He is someone who spends extensive amounts of time arguing against alarmist positions but outright refuses to be labeled a skeptic and will spend just as much time arguing that he is not. He is thus great for alarmists to use for soundbites, in this case against the list. No attempt was ever made to imply a specific personal position to him or any of the authors. All of this was explained to him in the comments to his blog post.
    The irony here is every single alarmist using Roger Pielke Jr.’s comments to attack the list would never use his papers in support of their arguments.
    * Roger Pielke Jr. never contacted Popular Technology.net directly about the list.
    * Roger Pielke Sr. never asked me to remove any papers. He did directly contact Popular Technology.net and requested some changes, such as the Disclaimer state that they “…cannot be labeled skeptics” and I added based on his concerns, “Various papers are mutually exclusive and should be considered independently”.
    1. Roger Pielke Jr. falsely assumed why his papers and his father’s were listed, “Assuming that these are Hypothesis 1 type bloggers…”
    Papers can be listed for two reasons,
    (1) They support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW (His Hypothesis 1)
    (2) They support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW Alarm defined as, “concern relating to a negative environmental or socio-economic effect of ACC/AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic.” (Not defined or mentioned by him)
    All of the Pielke’s papers were listed because they support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW Alarm not because they support skepticism of ACC/AGW (His Hypothesis 1).
    When contacted by the lead author of the paper Roger Pielke Sr. he said the paper he co-authored with Dickerson supports arguments against the IPCC.

  15. What a wonderful resource for challenging junk science hysterics – all the counter scientific argument in one place.- bookmarked it. The rebuttal page is a joy t read.
    Not that reason, fact and rational argument ever meant anything to a climate zealot in the throes of alarmist delirium.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation