Question for climate science deniers: Can you name any scientific organization that denies anthropogenic global warming?

I was just searching myself and was only able to come up with political organizations. Can any of you help me out here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

*Scientific organization

boards of FL wrote:I was just searching myself and was only able to come up with political organizations.  Can any of you help me out here?

Simple, they made up data to keep the massive grants coming.

As you know, Professor Phil Jones was the center of the Global Warming Scam at East Anglia University. Their program was considered the epitome of Global Warming Information. The disclosure of thousands of e-mails proving their efforts to conceal information discredit and even prevent opposing views from being published has wrecked the scam, hopefully forever. Data used by the United Nations IPCC findings came from EAU.

14th February, 2010

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing (it has now been disclosed that all the “raw data” was DUMPED!

There has been no global warming since 1995

Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes

Phil Jones admitted his record keeping is 'not as good as it should be.

WHAT????

[…]

Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

Phil Jones has said that he considered suicide for his part in this worldwide scam.

Let us also recall: The e-mails leaked in the fall of 2009 allow us to trace the machinations of a small but influential band of British and US climate scientists who played the lead role in the IPCC reports. It appears that this group, which controlled access to basic temperature data, was able to produce a "warming" by manipulating the analysis of the data, but refused to share information on the basic data or details of their analysis with independent scientists who requested them -- in violation of Freedom of Information laws. In fact, they went so far as to keep any dissenting views from being published -- by monopolizing the peer-review process, aided by ideologically cooperative editors of prestigious journals, like Science and Nature.

We learn from the e-mails that the ClimateGate gang was able to "hide the decline" [of global temperature] by applying what they termed as "tricks," and that they intimidated editors and forced out those judged to be "uncooperative." No doubt, thorough investigations, now in progress or planned, will disclose the full range of their nefarious activities. But it is clear that this small cabal was able to convince much of the world that climate disasters were impending -- unless drastic steps were taken. Not only were most of the media, public, and politicians misled, but so were many scientists, national academies of science, and professional organizations -- and even the Norwegian committee that awarded the 2007 Peace Prize to the IPCC and Al Gore, the chief apostle of climate alarmism.

Read more: http://tinyurl.com/yewj7xs

Look... I get it... it's "settled science" to you. Why bother contributing... your commitment to what you're told is without doubt. It's like me with religion... how often do you find me contributing? Much less trying to dominate the conversation?

It's hard to believe there has been nothing about this topic that has ever caused you to second think. Impressive really.

PkrBum wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Here's an interesting paragraph from your page...

As of August 2012, fewer than 10 of the statements in the references for this list are part of the peer-reviewed scientific literature. The rest are statements from other sources such as interviews, opinion pieces, online essays and presentations. Academic papers almost never reject the view that human impacts have contributed to climate change. In 2004, a review of published abstracts from 928 peer-reviewed papers addressing "global climate change" found that none of them disputed the IPCC's conclusion that "Earth's climate is being affected by human activities" and that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"[14] A 2013 survey of 3984 abstracts from peer-reviewed papers published between 1991 and 2011 that expressed an opinion on anthropogenic global warming found that 97.1% agreed that climate change is caused by human activity.[15] (see also Scientific opinion on climate change and Surveys of scientists' views on climate change).

According to markle, all those scientists have lied through their teeth and made up a bunch of stuff just so they can get grants.
If Markle is right about that, then that's an even bigger story than the climate change debate itself. That would mean that most all the scientists in the world have been bought off and are nothing but frauds and whores and we can kiss the whole idea of science goodbye.

PkrBum wrote:Look... I get it... it's "settled science" to you. Why bother contributing... your commitment to what you're told is without doubt. It's like me with religion... how often do you find me contributing? Much less trying to dominate the conversation?

It's hard to believe there has been nothing about this topic that has ever caused you to second think. Impressive really.

So you couldn't find one either? Not even one?

Markle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:I was just searching myself and was only able to come up with political organizations.  Can any of you help me out here?

Simple, they made up data to keep the massive grants coming.

As you know, Professor Phil Jones was the center of the Global Warming Scam at East Anglia University.  Their program was considered the epitome of Global Warming Information.  The disclosure of thousands of e-mails proving their efforts to conceal information discredit and even prevent opposing views from being published has wrecked the scam, hopefully forever.  Data used by the United Nations IPCC findings came from EAU.

14th February, 2010

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing (it has now been disclosed that all the “raw data” was DUMPED!

There has been no global warming since 1995

Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes

Phil Jones admitted his record keeping is 'not as good as it should be.  

WHAT????

[…]

Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

Phil Jones has said that he considered suicide for his part in this worldwide scam.

Let us also recall: The e-mails leaked in the fall of 2009 allow us to trace the machinations of a small but influential band of British and US climate scientists who played the lead role in the IPCC reports.  It appears that this group, which controlled access to basic temperature data, was able to produce a "warming" by manipulating the analysis of the data, but refused to share information on the basic data or details of their analysis with independent scientists who requested them -- in violation of Freedom of Information laws.  In fact, they went so far as to keep any dissenting views from being published -- by monopolizing the peer-review process, aided by ideologically cooperative editors of prestigious journals, like Science and Nature.

We learn from the e-mails that the ClimateGate gang was able to "hide the decline" [of global temperature] by applying what they termed as "tricks," and that they intimidated editors and forced out those judged to be "uncooperative."  No doubt, thorough investigations, now in progress or planned, will disclose the full range of their nefarious activities.  But it is clear that this small cabal was able to convince much of the world that climate disasters were impending -- unless drastic steps were taken.  Not only were most of the media, public, and politicians misled, but so were many scientists, national academies of science, and professional organizations -- and even the Norwegian committee that awarded the 2007 Peace Prize to the IPCC and Al Gore, the chief apostle of climate alarmism.

Read more: http://tinyurl.com/yewj7xs

Oops! You appear to have provided the wrong copy and paste response, as it has nothing to do with the question at hand. Is there anything relevant in your bank of talking points?

boards of FL wrote:

Markle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:I was just searching myself and was only able to come up with political organizations.  Can any of you help me out here?

Simple, they made up data to keep the massive grants coming.

As you know, Professor Phil Jones was the center of the Global Warming Scam at East Anglia University.  Their program was considered the epitome of Global Warming Information.  The disclosure of thousands of e-mails proving their efforts to conceal information discredit and even prevent opposing views from being published has wrecked the scam, hopefully forever.  Data used by the United Nations IPCC findings came from EAU.

14th February, 2010

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing (it has now been disclosed that all the “raw data” was DUMPED!

There has been no global warming since 1995

Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes

Phil Jones admitted his record keeping is 'not as good as it should be.  

WHAT????

[…]

Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

Phil Jones has said that he considered suicide for his part in this worldwide scam.

Let us also recall: The e-mails leaked in the fall of 2009 allow us to trace the machinations of a small but influential band of British and US climate scientists who played the lead role in the IPCC reports.  It appears that this group, which controlled access to basic temperature data, was able to produce a "warming" by manipulating the analysis of the data, but refused to share information on the basic data or details of their analysis with independent scientists who requested them -- in violation of Freedom of Information laws.  In fact, they went so far as to keep any dissenting views from being published -- by monopolizing the peer-review process, aided by ideologically cooperative editors of prestigious journals, like Science and Nature.

We learn from the e-mails that the ClimateGate gang was able to "hide the decline" [of global temperature] by applying what they termed as "tricks," and that they intimidated editors and forced out those judged to be "uncooperative."  No doubt, thorough investigations, now in progress or planned, will disclose the full range of their nefarious activities.  But it is clear that this small cabal was able to convince much of the world that climate disasters were impending -- unless drastic steps were taken.  Not only were most of the media, public, and politicians misled, but so were many scientists, national academies of science, and professional organizations -- and even the Norwegian committee that awarded the 2007 Peace Prize to the IPCC and Al Gore, the chief apostle of climate alarmism.

Read more: http://tinyurl.com/yewj7xs

Oops!  You appear to have provided the wrong copy and paste response, as it has nothing to do with the question at hand.  Is there anything relevant in your bank of talking points?

Oops! You appear to not care about the facts.

Something we've grown accustomed to since the administration you worship is in total chaos.

boards of FL wrote:*Scientific organization

Splicing it pretty close aren't you homey?

So that's it? All I'm asking for is just one scientific organization that denies AGW. Just one.

If you aren't able to come up with even one scientific organization that denies AGW, what does that leave you with? On my side, I can point to every single scientific organization on the planet. On your side, you can point to.....what, exactly? Rush Limbaugh? A super PAC funded by the fossil fuel industry? An FWD email? Which side of this is politicized? Think on that for a few minutes before replying.

Markle wrote:Oops!  You appear to not care about the facts.  

Something we've grown accustomed to since the administration you worship is in total chaos.

I do care about facts, actually. I also care about staying on point and directly responding to the subject at hand; hence why I pointed out the fact that your copy-and-paste response is canned for an entirely different discussion. This is obvious to anyone who is literate.

One more time for Markle. The question is "Can you name any scientific organization that denies anthropogenic global warming?"

Read the above question as many times as you need before it sinks in. Also note that a copy-and-paste talking point about hacked emails is irrelevant here. That I have to even explain this to you is pretty sad.

By a show of hands, who here thinks Markle's next response will be a copy and paste job about Bengahzi?

Climate change influenced by humans? How could human activities NOT influence the environment? Climate science is complex and must consider normal (natural) cycles occurring since before humans crawled around the earth and also human induced environmental changes. The millions of tons of pollutants being pumped into the atmosphere, millions of tons of chemicals and waste being dumped or leeched into waterways can only result in modification of the natural order of things. In short, exacerbating natures own pollutants like volcanic gas, etc. Approximately 3% of "climate scientists" disagree with the human influence theory, they are obviously outgunned.

Bump.

boards of FL wrote:Bump.

Crickets

Going once...

gatorfan wrote:Climate change influenced by humans? How could human activities NOT influence the environment? Climate science is complex and must consider normal (natural) cycles occurring since before humans crawled around the earth and also human induced environmental changes. The millions of tons of pollutants being pumped into the atmosphere, millions of tons of chemicals and waste being dumped or leeched into waterways can only result in modification of the natural order of things. In short, exacerbating natures own pollutants like volcanic gas, etc. Approximately 3% of "climate scientists" disagree with the human influence theory, they are obviously outgunned.

Your 3% figure, as you know is false. Your chart uses figures from nasa which were obtained from East Anglia University, see the facts above about the massive corruption at East Anglia.

Here are figures showing the lack of global warming.

Going twice....

Come one, guys. All I'm asking for here is one - just one - scientific organization that denies AGW. Just one. Uno. Just one.

Or, are you all willing to concede that there is no science on your side?


Going twice...

Golly, even Herr Markle wasn't able to provide a SINGLE scientific organizaton that claimed man-caused global warming wasn't real.

C'mon my good Nazi friend, surely you could make-up some scientific organization that disputes the claim. And you could claim the folks at the Creationist Museum in Kentucky know the truth ...

Well, we understand.  What with Cantor losing and that T-party candidate in Mississippi being electorally trounced, your emotions are disturbed ...

Sold!

There is no scientific organization on the planet that denies AGW. Keep this in mind while reading posts from PkrBum, Markle, Ti, Damaged, and the rest of our forum members who have for whatever reason decided to listen to super PACs and AM radio for their "science", while ignoring the work of actual scientists.

I make my own arguments boi.

Someone should have stopped those pesky humans that caused the Ice Age...

I had already gave him one, but he chose to ignore it. We had like 4 threads on this same topic.

http://www.thegwpf.org/who-we-are/

We have developed a distinct set of principles that set us apart from most other stakeholders in the climate debates:
◾The GWPF does not have an official or shared view about the science of global warming – although we are of course aware that this issue is not yet settled.
◾On climate science, our members and supporters cover a broad range of different views, from the IPCC position through agnosticism to outright scepticism.
◾Our main focus is to analyse global warming policies and their economic and other implications. Our aim is to provide the most robust and reliable economic analysis and advice.
◾We regard observational evidence and understanding the present as more important and more reliable than computer modelling or predicting the distant future.

Above all we seek to inform the media, politicians and the public, in a newsworthy way, on the subject in general and on the misinformation to which they are all too frequently being subjected at the present time

PkrBum wrote:I make my own arguments boi.

But are you at least willing to acknowledge the fact that your beliefs are extremely fringe ideas that have absolutely zero scientific backing? At least concede the fact that you are going against modern science.