First, why don’t you go here, http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php , and you’ll see that not every scientist believes this is man-made, BUT you’ll just use the illogical response that this is just some right-wing think tank political agenda.
Why is it "illogical" to point out that they are right-wing think tanks with political agendas? It's not illogical. You honestly don't see a difference between science academies with oversight who must publish facts and research, and Republican political groups who have no oversight, don't do any scientific research, and are allowed to write whatever they want in their newsletters?
If you can't see the difference between those two groups, you've got a problem.
Regardless of whether or not you think it's illogical, I'm still going to point it out. Yes, the Oregon Petition is right-wing propaganda. It was created by Frederick Seitz, a former employee of R.J. Reynolds, the tobacco company, where he published lots of "independent" scientific research showing that cigarettes don't cause cancer and are actually good for you. The petition itself consisted of mailing postcards to registered Republicans with the following text:
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, [sic] 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
Then there were checkboxes where you could pick what level of "scientist" you were. The few times the media was able to actually investigate the list, they found a bunch of fake names, duplicate names, and a few scientists, who, when contacted, claimed they never received the postcard and had never signed anything. After that got out, Seitz made the process private and refused to let anyone oversee the signature gathering or to see how he created the list.
Oh wait you coccydynia, I could just say that global warming is just some left wing fear tactic, but let me continue and show you.
If you have some evidence showing that the united opinion of every accredited scientific community in the world is controlled by Democrats in the U.S., you should present it. I'd be very interested in seeing it.
I will continue with a man who is the leading and most eminent climatologist and geologist in his country.
He is a geologist, but he is not a climatologist.
Dr. Plimer says “Much of what we have read about climate change is rubbish, especially the computer modelling on which much current scientific opinion is based, which he describes as "primitive".
I'm sure he does. As I said, yes, there are scientists who think global warming is a huge conspiracy. But these scientists are shown to be frauds by all accredited scientific organizations. Organizations is the key here, because organizations have oversight, and publish in scientific journals, which are peer reviewed. Individuals can write books on whatever they want, with as many lies as they want, and there doesn't have to be any oversight at all. Oversight and review by others are really key elements of science; if you can't see why it's important, I don't know what to tell you.
What does a ‘dumb’ Aussie and Canuck know? Here again is a list of over 31,000 American Scientists (of which over 9,00 have their PhDs) http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php. I am NOT DISPUTING the influx of climate change. I (as well as these other Scientist) am fundamentally disputing most of the assumptions and projections being made about the current cause (being man-made), mostly led by atmospheric scientists, who have a different perspective on time.
So wait.... you're saying that atmospheric scientists shouldn't be able to research the atmosphere? That the fact that atmospheric research is led by atmospheric scientists is some sort of conspiracy?
Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte examined all peer-reviewed papers pertaining to climate change from 2004 to February 2007...
Schulte is actually a plagiarist who cut and pasted nearly his entire article from Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, who, in turn, is also a plagiarist, and cut and pasted most of his article from a guy named Benny Pieser. Pieser's article, the original, was rejected by Science magazine the first time because it was completely fraudulent. He then redid it, but it turned out that the articles disagreeing with climate change included all articles in non-scientific publications (conspiracy magazines, etc) Finally, after being rejected a third time, condemned publicly, he admitted the article was all lies and stated ""I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous"."
Did you even read that article that you pasted? The part where NASA had actually just published a paper confirming anthropogenic global warming, and that their climatology department called him out as "totally clueless" and "a deep anti-global-warming idealogue"? This article isn't supposed to be support for your conspiracy theory; if anything, it should show that the most of this guy's OWN EMPLOYEES are willing to say that he's deeply misled and confused.
I am finished with having a discussion with a complete neonate.
Yeah, refusing to speak or listen is definitely a sign that you must be right.
You've constantly asked for evidence. Well here you go. Oh yeah you're not going to read any of that because it's all just a bunch of 'right-wing' nut jobs!
Are you denying the fact that they're a bunch of right-wing nutjobs? Or are you just saying that right-wing nutjobs' opinions should be as valid as the full consensus of world scientists? It's clear that you didn't actually do any background research on these people you're quoting. Don't you think you should? Shouldn't you be a little suspicious of googling "global warming is fake" and posting the first things that you see, without bothering to look into it at all?
The entire concept of ACTUAL science relies on experimenting, researching, and having those experiments and research verified and reviewed by others. If you don't have that review process, it's not science, because you can just make up whatever you want and post it on your blog. If you do go through the review process, and every accredited scientific organization in the entire world tells you that your experiment is a fraud, don't you find that even a tiny bit suspicious? Not even a little?