MCGW Cult Has Been Exposed to Another of Their Lies

[Felix_Nietzsche]

MCGWC = Man Causes Global Warming Cult
MCGWC has claimed that the science behind MCGW is a slam dunk and the only people that oppose their claims are in the pocket of BIG OIL companies.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/f...1-5c755457a8af

Notable quotes:
"Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled."
So said Al Gore ... in 1992. Amazingly, he made his claims despite much evidence of their falsity.

"A Gallup poll at the time reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren't sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun."
*****Ooooops! Care to take that line back Algore?

"Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn't think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable"
*******Hmmmmm....this is a slam dunk consensus?????

"Now, after profiling more than 20 deniers, I do not know when I will stop -- the list of distinguished scientists who question the IPCC grows daily, as does the number of emails I receive, many from scientists who express gratitude for my series.

Somewhere along the way, I stopped believing that a scientific consensus exists on climate change. Certainly there is no consensus at the very top echelons of scientists -- the ranks from which I have been drawing my subjects -- and certainly there is no consensus among astrophysicists and other solar scientists, several of whom I have profiled. If anything, the majority view among these subsets of the scientific community may run in the opposite direction. Not only do most of my interviewees either discount or disparage the conventional wisdom as represented by the IPCC, many say their peers generally consider it to have little or no credibility. In one case, a top scientist told me that, to his knowledge, no respected scientist in his field accepts the IPCC position."
*****Brick by brick the MCGW Cult is being being exposed for their false claims.

PROOF that MCGW is false:
That nitwit Bush43 is now giving MCGW credibility.
If this does not convince you....then I don't know what else will. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[phantomlimb]

They might not be right, but it is nearly impossible to prove they are wrong, so this thread is kinda pointless.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
They might not be right, but it is nearly impossible to prove they are wrong, so this thread is kinda pointless.

[/ QUOTE ]
The burden of proof is on the MCGW Cult to prove their outrageous claims.
It is ILLOGICAL, IRRATIONAL, and IMPOSSIBLE to prove a negative (eg You can't prove man does NOT cause gobal warming). Per freshman logic 101, these men have nothing to prove.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

They CAN attack the methodology and the lack of evidence the MCGW Cult has. They can attack their ridiculous conclusions. The science behind MCGW is on par with astrology.... More and more scientists are growing some balls and speaking their minds... They are taking a risk because MCGW politicians reward the MCGW Cult with research grants and punishes those who say MCGW is a bunch of bull****.

[pokerbobo]

Don't you know that Algore is the top scientist in this field?

anyone who questions his statements is wrong.

I am so glad because without Algore, we would be boiling in our own oceans within years, and oh yeah, I love the internet, that's probably his greatest invention. (followed by the pencil, the paperclip, and sliced bread)

[MelchyBeau]

You are absolutely correct in the fact that the government is rewarding the 'cult'

See the rewards here

[TomCollins]

I don't know why you are so hung up on the debate if man causes global warming or not. There really are only three useful questions to ask-

1) Is it happening?
2) If it is, what are the problems that will be caused?
3) If there will be problems, is it possible/what is the cost of fixing it?

If a giant volcano was responsible for it, we would still want to have the same cost benefit analysis. If we were able to counteract some disaster, even if it is not man made, it might be worthwhile to do so.

[Dan.]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know why you are so hung up on the debate if man causes global warming or not. There really are only three useful questions to ask-

1) Is it happening?
2) If it is, what are the problems that will be caused?
3) If there will be problems, is it possible/what is the cost of fixing it?

If a giant volcano was responsible for it, we would still want to have the same cost benefit analysis. If we were able to counteract some disaster, even if it is not man made, it might be worthwhile to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

nh. Very succinct.

[iron81]

Felix's argument is important for #3. If we need to fix it, we'll want to know if cutting fossil fuels is a way to do it. The best data we have on that is what is going on right now.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
Felix's argument is important for #3. If we need to fix it, we'll want to know if cutting fossil fuels is a way to do it. The best data we have on that is what is going on right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's somewhat important, but there could be many ways to stop it besides cutting fossil fuels.

[Jorge10]

I dont get the point of this article and thread. Are you saying nothing is going on and there is no climate change or anything? Because that is not what the article says. The article says that most scientists believe something is going on, but most dont agree with Gore or his doomsday sceneario.

If most agree something is going on, then whats the point of this thread? To prove that Al Gore is exaggerating?