You just don't get it nor do you see the futility of your statements.
Of course you won't find a National Science Academy to dispute AGW. They are largely reliant directly or indirectly on their government's largesse to survive.
And furthermore just because such an organisation says AGW is a threat does not necessarily imply that all its members are in agreement. Indeed the opposite is true which is why many independent thinking scientists have given up their associations because they do not wish their names to be associated with AGW. It is far from a minority view amongst scientists that the current evidence for AGW is flawed (or creative or manipulated or misrepresented or selective etc) but the contrary view expressed by any scientist or body is immediately discounted, dismissed, disregarded but not for any scientific reason but simply because it does not fit with IPCC's agenda. A good scientist will go to extraordinary lengths to prove her/his theory, indeed they will do everything to disprove it knowing that if it survives it has some merit. This is not allowed to happen with the warmist lobby - well you have to ask why, then go do some research.
One example of the above happened when over 30,000 scientists petitioned the US government not to adopt Kyoto because they were not convinced of Agw. That was just the number who actually expressed their opposition, there would no doubt be countless thousands more who think the same way but cannot voice their feelings for fear of job or funding loss. Further that was just the US, when you take into consideration the rest of the world especially China, India, Brazil etc how many other world renowned scientists do not agree with the mantra trotted out by IPCC etc?
With regard to the science the AGW lobby is obsessed with CO2 especially that emitted by mankind. Well, go on then, give us all the benefit of your superior knowledge and explain to us how the reduction of mankind's co2 emissions are going to save the planet. While you are doing so perhaps you'd like to let us know the %age of mankind's emissions in relation to the global total.
Obviously if we eat less meat there would be a reduction in the amount of methane etc from the pastures, presumably you are then going to persuade all other forms of animal & sea life to slow/stop breeding or at least to stop farting, and then there are the volcanoes above and below sea level, the shifting plates, the rotting vegetation etc etc..
You might also want to share with us how exactly these manmade co2 levels actually cause the warming to the extent they purportedly do.
You are clearly of a very well informed scientific disposition so I await your next missive with a small amount of interest.
MAIDEN22
Couldn't help but notice the similarity between the knighted gentleman in your picture and that of none other than Dr Hansen, a big hero around these parts, well apparently! Great irony, well done.
Of course you won't find a National Science Academy to dispute AGW. They are largely reliant directly or indirectly on their government's largesse to survive.
And furthermore just because such an organisation says AGW is a threat does not necessarily imply that all its members are in agreement. Indeed the opposite is true which is why many independent thinking scientists have given up their associations because they do not wish their names to be associated with AGW. It is far from a minority view amongst scientists that the current evidence for AGW is flawed (or creative or manipulated or misrepresented or selective etc) but the contrary view expressed by any scientist or body is immediately discounted, dismissed, disregarded but not for any scientific reason but simply because it does not fit with IPCC's agenda. A good scientist will go to extraordinary lengths to prove her/his theory, indeed they will do everything to disprove it knowing that if it survives it has some merit. This is not allowed to happen with the warmist lobby - well you have to ask why, then go do some research.
One example of the above happened when over 30,000 scientists petitioned the US government not to adopt Kyoto because they were not convinced of Agw. That was just the number who actually expressed their opposition, there would no doubt be countless thousands more who think the same way but cannot voice their feelings for fear of job or funding loss. Further that was just the US, when you take into consideration the rest of the world especially China, India, Brazil etc how many other world renowned scientists do not agree with the mantra trotted out by IPCC etc?
With regard to the science the AGW lobby is obsessed with CO2 especially that emitted by mankind. Well, go on then, give us all the benefit of your superior knowledge and explain to us how the reduction of mankind's co2 emissions are going to save the planet. While you are doing so perhaps you'd like to let us know the %age of mankind's emissions in relation to the global total.
Obviously if we eat less meat there would be a reduction in the amount of methane etc from the pastures, presumably you are then going to persuade all other forms of animal & sea life to slow/stop breeding or at least to stop farting, and then there are the volcanoes above and below sea level, the shifting plates, the rotting vegetation etc etc..
You might also want to share with us how exactly these manmade co2 levels actually cause the warming to the extent they purportedly do.
You are clearly of a very well informed scientific disposition so I await your next missive with a small amount of interest.
MAIDEN22
Couldn't help but notice the similarity between the knighted gentleman in your picture and that of none other than Dr Hansen, a big hero around these parts, well apparently! Great irony, well done.
