Climate Change: What Do Scientists Say?

[Chom Noamsky]

What do scientists say about climate change? Does the data validate the
politicians, celebrities and journalists who say humans are causing the
earth to catastrophically warm? Richard Lindzen, an MIT atmospheric
physicist and one of the world's leading climatologists, summarizes the
science behind climate change.

https://www.facebook.com/prageru/videos/1054440531265469/

[Gordon Levi]

Chom Noamsky <chomch...@chom.chom> wrote:

>What do scientists say about climate change?

"As of 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists
released a revised statement,no scientific body of national or
international scientists rejects the findings of human-induced effects
on climate change"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Opposing>.
The Wikipedia article will provide you with further details of what
scientists say.

[Chom Noamsky]

On 4/19/2016 7:14 AM, Gordon Levi wrote:
> Chom Noamsky <chomch...@chom.chom> wrote:
>
>> What do scientists say about climate change?
>
> "As of 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists
> released a revised statement,no scientific body of national or
> international scientists rejects the findings of human-induced effects
> on climate change"

And neither does Lindzen nor the rest of "group 2". The idea that Group
2 rejects the idea of human influence is entirely fabricated by Group 3
and Group 1.

[Unum]

On 4/19/2016 8:57 AM, Chom Noamsky wrote:
> What do scientists say about climate change? Does the data validate the
> politicians, celebrities and journalists who say humans are causing the earth
> to catastrophically warm? Richard Lindzen, an MIT atmospheric physicist and
> one of the world's leading climatologists, summarizes the science behind
> climate change.

Lindzen retired from MIT 3 years ago, hasn't published anything in 5 years,
and isn't "one of the world's leading" anything.

[gordo]

On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 14:19:32 -0500, Unum <non...@yourbusiness.com>
wrote:

"Lindzen was a keynote speaker at the Heartland Institute's 2009
International Conference on Climate Change. [6]

Sponsors of the 2009 conference have collectively received over $47
million from energy companies and right-wing foundations."
"Lindzen has published work with the conservative think-tank, the Cato
Institute, a think tank that has received $125,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998. In his 1995 article, “The Heat Is On,” Ross Gelbspan notes
that Lindzen charged oil and coal organizations $2,500 per day for his
consulting services.

Lindzen has described ExxonMobil as “the only principled oil and gas
company I know in the US."

[Chom Noamsky]

... notice how the greenmob attacks the messenger and never the message.

[Catoni]

On Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 4:28:33 PM UTC-4, gordo wrote:

> "Lindzen was a keynote speaker at the Heartland Institute's 2009
> International Conference on Climate Change. [6]
>
> Sponsors of the 2009 conference have collectively received over $47
> million from energy companies and right-wing foundations."
> "Lindzen has published work with the conservative think-tank, the Cato
> Institute, a think tank that has received $125,000 from ExxonMobil
> since 1998. In his 1995 article, "The Heat Is On," Ross Gelbspan notes
> that Lindzen charged oil and coal organizations $2,500 per day for his
> consulting services.
>
> Lindzen has described ExxonMobil as "the only principled oil and gas
> company I know in the US."

Gordo wants to play the "follow the money" game. Okay.....


Now.... how much does Saint Suzuki the fruit fly doctor charge for a talk ? ? (Take a guess)

How much does Al Gore charge for a two hour speech ? ? (Take a guess...)

Easy game to play..... my turn......Michael Mann, for example, has received some U.S. $6 MILLION, mostly in government grants -- according to a study by The American Spectator -- including $500,000 in federal stimulus money while he was under investigation for his Climategate e-mails.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414359/global-warming-follow-money-henry-payne

Okay.... your turn again Gordo..... but I'll warn you.... my next post will be about how much money James Hansen has received......... to be followed later by how much Al Gore has received..


Do you really want to play the "Follow the money" game Gordo ? ? We''l really see which side gets the most cash.... won't we ? ?

Good luck.... ! ! !

[Catoni]

And what ...exactly.... are Bill Nye's qualifications to discuss Global Warming/Climate Change ? ?

How exactly does being a Zoologist and Fruit Fly Doctor give Dr. David Suzuki's qualifications to discuss Climate Change/Global Warming ? ?

Is Al Gore some kind of climate Scientist ? ?

[AlleyCat]

On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 06:57:02 -0700, Chom Noamsky says...

Subject: Here Ya Go, Basement Dwelling Nerds, Who Think ONLY Those That
Have Published "Peer-Reviewed" Papers, Can Be Believed On Climate Matters
From: AlleyCat <a...@aohell.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.global-warming

User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/3.0.4
Organization: AlleyCat Computing


Here Ya Go... For You Basement Dwelling Nerds, Who Think ONLY Those That
Have Published "Peer-Reviewed" Papers, Can Be Believed On Climate
Matters... IS a Published and PEER-REVIEWED Author and Atmospheric
Physicist.

By the way... what papers have YOU published?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwqIy8Ikv-c

I'm an atmospheric physicist. I've published more than 200 scientific
papers. For 30 years I taught at MIT, during which time the climate has
changed remarkably little. But the cry of "global warming" has grown ever
more shrill.

In fact, it seems that the less the climate changes, the louder the voices
of the climate alarmists get. So, let's clear the air and create a more
accurate picture of where we really stand on the issue of global warming
or, as it is now called... climate change.

There are basically three groups of people dealing with this issue. Groups
one and two are scientists. Group three consists mostly, at its core, of
politicians, environmentalists and media. Group one is associated with the
scientific part of the United Nation's International Panel on Climate
Change or IPCC (Working Group 1).

These are scientists who mostly believe that recent climate change is
primarily due to man's burning of fossil fuels: oil, coal and natural gas.
This releases C0², carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere and, they believe,
this might eventually dangerously heat the planet.

Group two is made up of scientists who don't see this as an especially
serious problem. This is the group I belong to. We're usually referred to
as skeptics.

We note that there are many reasons why the climate changes: the sun,
clouds, oceans, the orbital variations of the earth, as well as a myriad
of other inputs. None of these is fully understood, and there is no
evidence that CO² emissions are the dominant factor. But actually there is
much agreement between both groups of scientists.

The following are such points of agreement.

(1) The climate is always changing.

(2) CO² is a greenhouse gas without which life on earth is not possible,
but adding it to the atmosphere should lead to some warming.

(3) Atmospheric levels of CO² have been increasing since the end of the
Little Ice Age in the 19th century.

(4) Over this period (the past two centuries), the global mean
temperature has increased slightly and erratically by about 1.8°F
degrees Fahrenheit or one degree Celsius; but only since the 60's
have man's greenhouse emissions been sufficient to play a role.

(5)) Given the complexity of climate, no confident prediction about
future global mean temperature or its impact can be made. The IPCC
acknowledged in its own 2007 report that, "The long-term prediction
of future climate states is not possible."

Most importantly, the scenario that the burning of fossil fuels leads to
catastrophe isn't part of what either group asserts. So why are so many
people worried, indeed, panic stricken about this issue?

Here's where Group Three comes in: the politicians, environmentalists, and
media.

Global Warming Alarmism provides them, more than any other issue, with the
things they most want... for politicians it's money and power. For
environmentalists it's money for their organizations and confirmation of
their near religious devotion to the idea that man is a destructive force
acting upon nature.

And for the media it's ideology, money, and headlines -- doomsday
scenarios sell.

Meanwhile, over the last decade, scientists outside of climate physics
have jumped on the bandwagon, publishing papers blaming global warming for
everything from acne to the Syrian Civil war. And, crony capitalists have
eagerly grabbed for the subsidies that governments have so lavishly
provided.

Unfortunately, group three is winning the argument because they have
drowned out the serious debate that should be going on. But while
politicians, environmentalists and media types can waste a lot of money
and scare a lot of people, they won't be able to bury the truth.

The climate will have the final word on that.

I'm Richard Lindzen, emeritus professor of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT,
for Prager University.

[Unum]

Merely pointing out an obvious lie in the initial appeal to authority
above. Why should anyone look farther?

Lindzen retired from MIT 3 years ago, hasn't published anything in 5 years,

and isn't "one of the world's leading" anything.

[gordo]

On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 17:41:16 -0500, Unum <non...@yourbusiness.com>
wrote:

He also lied in the video but why give him anymore publicity.

[gordo]

Do you mean follow the Koch and Exxon funding machine in the billions?
Read the heading. An old video filled with lies is what was posted.
Try the 97% consensus, all the governments of the world acting
together to respond to the reality of AGW. Give your head a shake.
What can it mean? It means that nobody is listening to bullshit.

[gordo]

They have read and understood the IPCC reports. Try it and you too can
be educated.

[Catoni]

Cite ? ?

What reports have Suzuki read ? ? He doesn't even know what UAH is... he doesn't know what HadCRUT is... he doesn't know what RSS is.. doesn't know what GISS is.... .

So I'm not sure what reports you think he might have read... because he's actually pretty ignorant ...

I read in the Third Assessment Report for Policy Makers that between 1880 - 2012 we only warmed 0.85 degree C.

Advance the video to the 2:00 minute mark and begin to listen....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mIVZnnqm7o

So why are you living in fright and horror about the climate...especially since the climate has improved a lot since 1850.

? ?

[AlleyCat]

On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 13:28:27 -0700, gordo says...

> >Lindzen retired from MIT 3 years ago, hasn't published anything in 5 years,
> >and isn't "one of the world's leading" anything.

Ever consider the guy might be tired? LOL He's 76 years old, you dumb
fuck. Who said he should be publishing ANYTHING? He retired three years
ago... was he SUPPOSED to publish something in his last two years?

Why?

If he had, you wouldn't give a shit, but since he didn't, he's old and
ancient, and hasn't kept up with whatever's been happening?

Clue to the stupid and old... NOTHING HAS "happened". Climate's the
same... weather's the same.

Please, list all the climate and weather events that have NEVER happened
before. Never. It's impossible, moron... we haven't been able to KNOW what
has happened in the past, and you leftard nerds COUNT on that, and keeping
people in the dark.

Omission of fact, is the same as a lie.

Global Warming and climate change, has been a bone of contention for close
to nearly FIVE decades... nothing's changed, so Richard Lindzen doesn't
HAVE to be in on the "cutting edge" of ANYTHING climate related... it's
the same bullshit as back in the 70's when scientists had a consensus that
the globe was cooling off and a coming Ice Age was inevitable.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

What are YOUR qualifications on ANYTHING, but pissing and moaning on
Usenet about we denierrrrrrs? Fucking whiner... grow the fuck up, you
crazy-ass fuck.

Please... see if YOU compare.

From 1983 until his retirement in 2013, he was Alfred P. Sloan Professor
of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He was a lead
author of Chapter 7, "Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks," of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Third Assessment Report on
climate change. He has criticized the scientific consensus about climate
change and what he has called "climate alarmism."

THAT'S why you and all the other sniveling worms on the Left hate HIM, not
his science credentials... because he dared to go against the takers, who
only want power and money shifted from the right to the left.

> "Lindzen was a keynote speaker at the Heartland Institute's 2009
> International Conference on Climate Change. [6]

So? Does that disqualify him from knowing a shit-load more than you and
99.99% of all other idiots YOU call scientists, ONLY because they shill
and lie FOR the government?

LOL... it's notated. Which far-left winger website did you pull THAT off,
gourdhead?

http://www.desmogblog.com/richard-lindzen

Oh... sorry... truth hurts you pansies on the left, huh?

"The DeSmogBlog team is led by Jim Hoggan, founder of James Hoggan &
Associates, one of Canada's leading PUBLIC RELATIONS firms. By training a
LAWYER (LOL), by inclination a ski instructor and cyclist, Jim Hoggan
believes that integrity and public relations should not be at odds - that
a good public reputation generally flows from a record of responsible
actions. His client list includes real estate development companies, high
tech firms, pharmaceutical, forest industry giants, resorts and academic
institutions. He is also a Board Member of the David Suzuki Foundation."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Pretty fucking lame, to accuse people of selling out their scientific
principles over money, when that's ALL the leftist shills at NASA and The
NOAA DO!

Everything else you screechers use, are bloggers and other screeching
government officials, hoping to cash in on all that money that's being
stolen from the people.

I find it so fucking amusing, that you leftists, who complain about the
government, ESPECIALLY "right-controlled" governments, taking too much in
taxes, aren't pitching a bitch about the $22 billion taken from us yearly,
to pay people to lie about what's causing warming, and the so-called
change in out climate.

Please, list the "changes" in our climate.

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

Your so-called "scientists" want money from the government to keep their
wifey in big SUVs, contributing to the "so-called "problem" YOU think we
have.

They willingly gives it to them to keep up their bullshit of blaming man
for something, (actually, not much at all) up, so power and money will go
from right to left.

Do you REALLY think we aren't ONTO this bullshit? If so, you are a LOT
stupider than you think, old man.

Stealing $22 billion dollars a year from the taxpayer needs to stop. THAT
money will do NOTHING to stop the temps from going up NATURALLY. It's not
about saving the planet... it's to transfer money and power... settled
science.

[Baron Mind]

On 4/19/2016 9:12 PM, AlleyCat wrote:
>
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 13:28:27 -0700, gordo says...
>
>>> Lindzen retired from MIT 3 years ago, hasn't published anything in 5 years,
>>> and isn't "one of the world's leading" anything.
>
> Ever consider the guy might be tired?

Or senile, like yourself?

--
"Conservatives have no ideas; just irritable mental gestures
which seek to resemble ideas" -Lionel Trilling

[Lantern Jaw]

On 4/19/2016 8:20 PM, Baron Mind wrote:
>> Ever consider the guy might be tired?
>
> Or senile, like yourself?

At least not paid to LIE by the gubmint like:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation
Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to
get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker.

[Catoni]

On Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 10:20:07 PM UTC-4, Baron Mind wrote:
> On 4/19/2016 9:12 PM, AlleyCat wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 13:28:27 -0700, gordo says...
> >
> >>> Lindzen retired from MIT 3 years ago, hasn't published anything in 5 years,
> >>> and isn't "one of the world's leading" anything.
> >
> > Ever consider the guy might be tired?
>
> Or senile, like yourself?

"Baron Mind" has nothing .......

A more accurate name for him would be "Barren Mind" LOL


- "Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."
- British Prime Minister The Right Honourable Lady Margaret Thatcher Feb. 5, 1976

[Gordon Levi]

You asked what scientists say but you not only ignored the rest of my
link, you snipped it.

"Since 2001, 34 national science academies, three regional academies,
and both the international InterAcademy Council and International
Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences have
made formal declarations confirming human induced global warming and
urging nations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases".
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change>.
Which "Group" do they belong to?

[Chom Noamsky]

On 4/21/2016 8:04 AM, Gordon Levi wrote:
> Chom Noamsky <chomch...@chom.chom> wrote:
>
>> On 4/19/2016 7:14 AM, Gordon Levi wrote:
>>> Chom Noamsky <chomch...@chom.chom> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What do scientists say about climate change?
>>>
>>> "As of 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists
>>> released a revised statement,no scientific body of national or
>>> international scientists rejects the findings of human-induced effects
>>> on climate change"
>>
>> And neither does Lindzen nor the rest of "group 2". The idea that Group
>> 2 rejects the idea of human influence is entirely fabricated by Group 3
>> and Group 1.
>
> You asked what scientists say but you not only ignored the rest of my
> link, you snipped it.

I didn't ask what scientists say, I posted a video of what scientists
say, according to Dr. Lindzen. Comprehend much?

> "Since 2001, 34 national science academies, three regional academies,
> and both the international InterAcademy Council and International
> Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences have
> made formal declarations confirming human induced global warming and
> urging nations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases".
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change>.
> Which "Group" do they belong to?

Obviously the page represents Group 1 but not Group 2. An apt groups
description:

Group 1: people who say the sky is falling
Group 2: people who doubt the sky is falling
Group 3: people who get money and power telling you the sky is falling

Here's a Wikipedia page listing some Group 2 scientists:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Here's 9,029 more phudded Group 2 scientists:

http://www.petitionproject.org/

[Unum]

On 4/21/2016 10:04 AM, Gordon Levi wrote:
> Chom Noamsky <chomch...@chom.chom> wrote:
>
>> On 4/19/2016 7:14 AM, Gordon Levi wrote:
>>> Chom Noamsky <chomch...@chom.chom> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What do scientists say about climate change?
>>>
>>> "As of 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists
>>> released a revised statement,no scientific body of national or
>>> international scientists rejects the findings of human-induced effects
>>> on climate change"
>>
>> And neither does Lindzen nor the rest of "group 2". The idea that Group
>> 2 rejects the idea of human influence is entirely fabricated by Group 3
>> and Group 1.
>
> You asked what scientists say but you not only ignored the rest of my
> link, you snipped it.

You are trying to have a conversation with an internet troll.

> "Since 2001, 34 national science academies, three regional academies,
> and both the international InterAcademy Council and International
> Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences have
> made formal declarations confirming human induced global warming and
> urging nations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases".
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change>.
> Which "Group" do they belong to?

Then you get the usual garbage. What else should you really expect?

[Gordon Levi]

Chom Noamsky <chomch...@chom.chom> wrote:

>On 4/21/2016 8:04 AM, Gordon Levi wrote:
>> Chom Noamsky <chomch...@chom.chom> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/19/2016 7:14 AM, Gordon Levi wrote:
>>>> Chom Noamsky <chomch...@chom.chom> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What do scientists say about climate change?
>>>>
>>>> "As of 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists
>>>> released a revised statement,no scientific body of national or
>>>> international scientists rejects the findings of human-induced effects
>>>> on climate change"
>>>
>>> And neither does Lindzen nor the rest of "group 2". The idea that Group
>>> 2 rejects the idea of human influence is entirely fabricated by Group 3
>>> and Group 1.
>>
>> You asked what scientists say but you not only ignored the rest of my
>> link, you snipped it.
>
>I didn't ask what scientists say,

Yes you did! Your subject line is "What Do Scientists Say?".

> I posted a video of what scientists
>say, according to Dr. Lindzen. Comprehend much?

I can see why you want to retract the question now that I have
answered it but I can't see why you doubt my comprehension of your
simple question.

>
>> "Since 2001, 34 national science academies, three regional academies,
>> and both the international InterAcademy Council and International
>> Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences have
>> made formal declarations confirming human induced global warming and
>> urging nations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases".
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change>.
>> Which "Group" do they belong to?
>
>Obviously the page represents Group 1 but not Group 2. An apt groups
>description:
>
>Group 1: people who say the sky is falling

So now you know the answer to your question. According to Lindzen and,
presumably you, almost all scientists say that the sky is falling.

>Group 2: people who doubt the sky is falling
>Group 3: people who get money and power telling you the sky is falling
>
>Here's a Wikipedia page listing some Group 2 scientists:
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Several of those listed belong in Group 3b - people who get money and
power telling you not to take action on AGW.

>
>Here's 9,029 more phudded Group 2 scientists:
>
>http://www.petitionproject.org/

That petition was launched almost 20 years ago. I'm sure that many of
the signatories have learned enough about the subject to join the sky
is falling group by now.

[Chom Noamsky]

On 4/21/2016 11:01 PM, Gordon Levi wrote:
> Chom Noamsky <chomch...@chom.chom> wrote:
>
>> On 4/21/2016 8:04 AM, Gordon Levi wrote:
>>> Chom Noamsky <chomch...@chom.chom> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/19/2016 7:14 AM, Gordon Levi wrote:
>>>>> Chom Noamsky <chomch...@chom.chom> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> What do scientists say about climate change?
>>>>>
>>>>> "As of 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists
>>>>> released a revised statement,no scientific body of national or
>>>>> international scientists rejects the findings of human-induced effects
>>>>> on climate change"
>>>>
>>>> And neither does Lindzen nor the rest of "group 2". The idea that Group
>>>> 2 rejects the idea of human influence is entirely fabricated by Group 3
>>>> and Group 1.
>>>
>>> You asked what scientists say but you not only ignored the rest of my
>>> link, you snipped it.
>>
>> I didn't ask what scientists say,
>
> Yes you did! Your subject line is "What Do Scientists Say?".
>> I posted a video of what scientists
>> say, according to Dr. Lindzen. Comprehend much?
>
> I can see why you want to retract the question now that I have
> answered it but I can't see why you doubt my comprehension of your
> simple question.

Of course you noticed the link goes to a video titled "Climate Change:
What Do Scientists Say?"

Are you deliberately trying to be obtuse, or do you think I produced the
video?

>>
>>> "Since 2001, 34 national science academies, three regional academies,
>>> and both the international InterAcademy Council and International
>>> Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences have
>>> made formal declarations confirming human induced global warming and
>>> urging nations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases".
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change>.
>>> Which "Group" do they belong to?
>>
>> Obviously the page represents Group 1 but not Group 2. An apt groups
>> description:
>>
>> Group 1: people who say the sky is falling
>
> So now you know the answer to your question. According to Lindzen and,
> presumably you, almost all scientists say that the sky is falling.

Incorrect. Almost all scientists agree that the sky exists, .i.e, the
climate is warming. Not all scientists agree why or how much.

>> Group 2: people who doubt the sky is falling
>> Group 3: people who get money and power telling you the sky is falling
>>
>> Here's a Wikipedia page listing some Group 2 scientists:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
>
> Several of those listed belong in Group 3b - people who get money and
> power telling you not to take action on AGW.

Please do list some examples.

>> Here's 9,029 more phudded Group 2 scientists:
>>
>> http://www.petitionproject.org/
>
> That petition was launched almost 20 years ago. I'm sure that many of
> the signatories have learned enough about the subject to join the sky
> is falling group by now.

The more scientists learn and become educated on the topic, the more
likely they are to migrate from Group 1 to Group 2. Judith Curry
originally drank the Kool-aid, then later migrated to Group 2. I too
believed the sky was falling, once upon a time.

[Wally W.]

... as seen on TV.

After all, professional journalists are supposed to check the veracity
of a story before they put their talking heads in front of TV cameras,
aren't they?

... Aren't they??!!!

Why *don't* they?

The First Rule of MSM: Be first and loudest with a story. If
necessary, use facts.

Why can't reporters resist giving exposure to climastrologists who
say, "It's worse than we thought"?

[Gordon Levi]

No. I did notice that you repeated your question in the post itself.

>
>Are you deliberately trying to be obtuse, or do you think I produced the
>video?

No, but it was clear from the link it was a video and on Facebook at
that. Of course I didn't follow it. I assume that a video is provided
because either the poster is unable to read or the presenter is unable
to write. Why would anybody choose to watch a "talking head" video
when they can read the same content for themselves in a fraction of
the time?

[Gordon Levi]

Chom Noamsky <chomch...@chom.chom> wrote:

>On 4/21/2016 11:01 PM, Gordon Levi wrote:
>>> Here's a Wikipedia page listing some Group 2 scientists:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
>>
>> Several of those listed belong in Group 3b - people who get money and
>> power telling you not to take action on AGW.
>
>Please do list some examples.

Here's a list of those paid by the Heartland Institute
<http://climatechangereconsidered.org/nipcc-scientists/>. "Power" is a
more difficult to define but being invited to testify to Congress, for
example John Christy, probably counts
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy#Reputation_and_views>.

[Catoni]

On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 10:26:31 AM UTC-4, Gordon Levi wrote:

> Here's a list of those paid by the Heartland Institute
> <http://climatechangereconsidered.org/nipcc-scientists/>.

Oh..... something wrong with getting paid? Do you work for free ? ? If you work for free... do you sleep on a park bench since you don't have income to pay for a roof over your head ? ?

Idiots..... I bet somebody paid you also....

A couple of guys paid big bucks by the government... James Hansen, Michael E. Mann...

A guy paid by investing in company dealing in carbon credits... Al Gore... who also charges minimum $75,000.00 U.S. to give a talk... he's made a couple of hundred million since leaving Capitol Hill.

The guy getting paid by Heartland are poor in comparison...

The BIG money is screaming that the sky is falling and we're all going to die from Global Warming..

Want to try again. ? ? ?

[Chom Noamsky]

Do you know anyone in Group 1 or Group 3 who doesn't get paid?

[Chom Noamsky]

Did you say the same thing about Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth"?