politics

Who are these 97% of scientists who agree that climate change is real and how was that consensus reached?
Well, let me enlighten the climate change lunatics. This consensus was reached from a badly mangled study done by one John Cook who had taken about 12,000 abstracts (not the studies) but their fuc@ing abstracts....send them out to his friends who had eliminated the ones that did not agree with John's predetermined conclusion. And about that exact same number were discarded....12,000 of these abstracts which had not agreed with his a priori beliefs and foregone conclusion were discarded. He only kept about 33 of the original 12,000 sample set....did some fancy math and had then falsely declared that 97% of scientists agreed that climate change was real.
Now! I am not a mathematician but 33 out of a 12,000 sample is NOT 97% but rather just 0.275%.*
Even some of those 33 authors had come out publicly after that non-study was published and had declared that they had neither said nor agreed with Cook's conclusion. Not only that but many of these so-called "scientist" field of expertise was not in climatology or the environment!
A subsequent recalculation of Cook's "study" showed that less than 2% of the papers cited actually believe mankind is mainly responsible for any global warming.
And exactly who was John Cook.....some great scientist.....a genius perhaps....No! John Cooke was just a blogger who believed that climate change was real....a common blogger who had previously NOT done one single research of his own when he had published that consensus in 2011. Before that he was just a darn cartoonist (yeah! the joke is on us) and a web developer. To be fair John did receive a PhD degree 5 years later....but get THIS! in COGNITIVE SCIENCE in 2016.
And on consensus! Consensus is NOT applicable in science....Consensus is however the hallmark of POLITICS. And this is what this climate change lunacy is all about......POLITICS!

ok, where's your source on all this? NASA perhaps? Like us the Green Party's source is?

What do you mean by source!....This is John Cook, the then Australian cartoonist that we are talking about. This is very well-known news/history....it is just that a huge portion of the media that is promulgating this hoax is not going to print this or make it well known. The media does not print anything that goes against the climate change hoax. And why would NASA talk about this hoax? NASA's was created to look out at the stars....unfortunately, recently it had begun to look back up its own ass.....meaning back at the earth....something that it is ill-fitted for.....

NASA has the best satellites money can buy. If Climate Change is a hoax, how come climatologists agree on it? Also where did you FIND this John Cook information?

The answer is money and grants for their projects.

And how tf can we put the waste into the sun?

Same way we put satellite in space

That's impossible to get close enough, we'd waste far too much.

which are good for us anyway, climate change or not.

The climate is ever-changing....and it has been for billions of years. I am not sure if that is a question or a plea!

Smog kills people anyway, shouldn't we try to prevent lung problems?

Yes! And the worse is probably in China, India, and the other very poor countries that the UN will allow continuing to use fossil fuels in its mandates.

To be clear: I don't "like" Nuclear, but if it'll get you lot to decrease emissions then it's a temporary solution.

See what I mean....The very energy that can eliminate CO2 emission that climate lunatics are screaming that will destroy the Earth.....lunatics do not like.....This tells yu that the lunatics are not serious and that this is a political movement.

Nuclear would be 100% clean if we the the waste into the sun.

China is actually implementing hydro power.

Sure....where it is appropriate and can work....BUT ABSOLUTELY NO ONE WILL DOUBT THAT THEIR MAIN ENERGY FOCUS IS COAL....AND THEN ON NUCLEAR!

Uh Nuclear is still 0 emissions.

Yes! I like Nuclear.....and I believe that that is where our focus should lie.....I was just pointing out that China's focus was NOT on solar or wind.....although it massive produce those in China for export. It will use such things as hydro where it is feasible or appropriate. Nuclear is not something that most people who are screaming for renewables want....or talk about!

See the problem with Nuclear is that it has NUCLEAR waste which is harmful in it's own way

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Electricity_production_in_China.svg

well of course, as soon as they develop we must force these upon them anyway

Force anything on China????? Good f**king luck with that. You must be like 12 years old! China is building the equivalent like 184 coal plants as we speak.....not only in China but around the world....
China will not stop and it will continue for as long as it pleases. While the West continue down their path of this nonsense into poverty.....China will continue to use fossil fuels.....IT DOES NOT BELIEVE IN THIS NONSENSE....nor does Russia.

Well theres a difference between climate and weather. Climate is a gradual change if it changes at all. Like the climate of Arizona is usually warm. Weather is the atmospheric conditions on a particular day, over a few days, or even just over a few hours, like Seattle’s climate is usually very rainy, but they still have sunny days sometimes. The snowstorm in Texas was just a weather event. Climate change is very much real and if you dont trust me fine feel free to do your own research. I would suggest using sources that end with .gov or .edu as those are often the most reliable, and try to steal clear of random blogs!

Have a good day,
Neptune

NOTE: This bitter winter has been going on for over FIVE MONTHS now....so it is over the period that you would refer to as "weather"....which at its longest is just a few weeks. It is certainly not climate....but it is interesting to see what the rest of the year will look like and also next winter!

Let me clarify that a bit.....and as an aside, everybody knows this.
- Weather is short-term.....and can last from a day to a few weeks.
- Climate is long-term weather & viewed over a longer period of time: most people say over 30 years.
My post above was made (aside from the well-deserved mockery for the climate change lunatics) to point out that these fools have been claiming for decades that the Earth's temperature is getting hotter (true but then the earth has been warming up back since the Little Ice Age had ended (1300-1850) and there has been no abnormal temp rise recently. Some climate lunatics such as Gore have claied that there would be no ice on Antarctica by 2014....while others such as David Parker, of the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire (UK) stated that "ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes - or eventually “feel” virtual cold". Others had agreed...such as Dr. David Vinter (a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia: UK) a warming scientist from East Anglia, in 2000, went way out on a limb and said there would soon be no more snow in England.
They have been proven WRONG.....but people still up to this day continue to believe this nonsense.
This winter has been bitterly cold everywhere in the north, with more snow than normal. Even in places where it does not snow....it has either snowed or it was much colder than normal. Here is just a sample for just 29 May 2021.
- The historic station of Central Park observed a daytime high of just 51F (10.6C) on Saturday — a reading which ties the lowest-maximum temperature ever recorded so late in the season, set back in 1884.
- Washington logged a high of 59F (15C) the second coldest on record and the coldest high temperature this late in the spring since 1997 (solar minimum of cycle 22).
- Baltimore saw a high of 58F (14.4C) the city’s coldest May 29 on record.
- Philadelphia’s high of 54F (12.2C) was its coldest on record.
- Pittsburgh’s high of 51F (10.5C) was also its coldest on record.
- Albany registered a high of barely 50F (10C) Again! the coldest May 29 ever recorded.
Moreover, and as touched on above, the historic cold hasn’t just been confined to the Northeast. Many locations from Ohio and Kentucky, eastward to New England either broke or tied daily records for lowest high temperature on May 29, according to Accuweather

Let me clear that up for you....and as an aside....everybody knows that.....at least I hope so!
The weather is short-term....lasting from a day and can continue for a few weeks.
The climate is weather over a longer period of time....usually accepted as over 30 years.

The point being made above (aside from the mockery that is richly deserved) is that liberals (and it is only liberals who are making these claims....you are 100% liberal) have been saying for a very long time that the climate is getting hotter. Some like Gore (no scientist of course but just a profiteer rather than a prophet) have stated publicly that there would be no ice or snow on Antarctica by 2014. Real scientists have also publicly stated that by 2020 there would be no snow period anywhere to be seen....but just a fairy tale to be told to our children. That would be David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire (UK) who stated that ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes - or eventually “feel” virtual cold.
That being said this winter has been bitterly cold everywhere in the North...and where it does not snow....it has been snowing. Many records have been broken this winter period, some that have stood for over 100 years....and many have been broken also for shorer term as those over 20 years. Here is just a shortlist:

. The historic station of Central Park observed a daytime high of just 51F (10.6C) on Saturday — a reading which ties the low that was made in 1884.
- Washington logged a high of 59F (15C) — the second coldest on record and the coldest high temperature this late in the spring since 1997 (solar minimum of cycle 22).
- Baltimore saw a high of 58F (14.4C) — the city’s coldest May 29 on record.
- Philadelphia’s high of 54F (12.2C) was its coldest on record.
- Pittsburgh’s high of 51F (10.5C) was also its coldest on record.
- Albany registered a high of barely 50F (10C) — again, its coldest May 29 ever recorded.
- States from Arizona to New Brunswick have seen temperature departures some 30 degrees colder than normal during this winter.

Moreover, and as touched on above, the historic cold has not just been confined to the Northeast. Many locations from Ohio and Kentucky, eastward to New England either broke or tied daily records for lowest high temperature on May 29, according to AccuWeather.

I’m not sure if your on my side or not Bc Im still in middle school and don’t understand half of what you just said, but thank you? I think?

[image deleted] This is really what climate change is all about....to redistribute wealth and NOT a concern about the environment. It is just politics, politicians using the excuse of climate change to get what they want! This is right from the mouth of the UN!

Who are these 97% of scientists who agree that climate change is real and how was that consensus reached?
Well, let me enlighten the climate change lunatics. This consensus was reached from a badly mangled study done by one John Cook who had taken about 12,000 abstracts (not the studies) but their fuc@ing abstracts....send them out to his friends who had eliminated the ones that did not agree with John's predetermined conclusion. And about that exact same number were discarded....12,000 of these abstracts which had not agreed with his a priori beliefs and foregone conclusion were discarded. He only kept about 33 of the original 12,000 sample set....did some fancy math and had then falsely declared that 97% of scientists agreed that climate change was real.
Now! I am not a mathematician but 33 out of a 12,000 sample is NOT 97% but rather just 0.275%.*
Even some of those 33 authors had come out publicly after that non-study was published and had declared that they had neither said nor agreed with Cook's conclusion. Not only that but many of these so-called "scientist" field of expertise was not in climatology or the environment!
A subsequent recalculation of Cook's "study" showed that less than 2% of the papers cited actually believe mankind is mainly responsible for any global warming.
And exactly who was John Cook.....some great scientist.....a genius perhaps....No! John Cooke was just a blogger who believed that climate change was real....a common blogger who had previously NOT done one single research of his own when he had published that consensus in 2011. Before that he was just a darn cartoonist (yeah! the joke is on us) and a web developer. To be fair John did receive a PhD degree 5 years later....but get THIS! in COGNITIVE SCIENCE in 2016.
And on consensus! Consensus is NOT applicable in science....Consensus is however the hallmark of POLITICS. And this is what this climate change lunacy is all about......POLITICS!

OK boomer

I am in my early 20s....Is boomer supposed to be an insult or something?

[image deleted] No! I am not on your side because I believe that climate change is lunacy....it is liberals pretending to be scientists....taking what is a normal phenomenon in weather and climate patterns....and using it to gain their own political end. The climate always changes....that is the only constant with Mother Nature....she changes all of the time! I do not blame you but rather your liberal teachers and liberal media who are teaching you people this shit! It is wrong! 97% of scientists DO NOT! agree with climate change....that is a fallacy! I will post why this is wrong after this! Meanwhile, I will post a meme that is very important....remember it as a lesson or you will lose every argument that you get into in the future!

It's been renamed climate change for a reason. More severe weather as well as worse storms, not just warmer weather, weather is becoming increasingly unpredictable?

Sure, It has been renamed climate change for a reason. But that reason is not what you had stated....it was renamed climate change because in the 90's they were screaming about Global Warming and when it had become very clear that the temperature of the Erath had not budged in over 15 years ......they had become a laughing stock and had then unashamedly changed it to Climate Change. At this time the temperature of the Earth has not changed in over 20-25 years. As I type this there are rumbles of changing the term Climate Change to Climate Disruption....or some bullshit like that.
And let me remind you of these climate lunatics' penchant for screaming global catastrophe and the sky is falling every 10 - to 20 years.
1895 - Geologists Think theWorld May Be Frozen Up Again – New York Times, February 1895
1902 - “Disappearing Glaciers…deteriorating slowly, with a persistency that means their final annihilation…scientific fact…surely disappearing.” – Los Angeles Times
1912 - Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age – New York Times, October 1912
1923 - “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada” – Professor Gregory of Yale University, American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress, – Chicago Tribune
1923 - “The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age” – Washington Post
1924 - MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age – New York Times, Sept 18, 1924
1929 - “Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will continue to get warmer” – Los Angeles Times, in Is another ice age coming?
1932 - “If these things be true, it is evident, therefore that we must be just teetering on an ice age” – The Atlantic magazine, This Cold, Cold World
1933 - America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise – New York Times, March 27th, 1933
1933 – “…wide-spread and persistent tendency toward warmer weather…Is our climate changing?” – Federal Weather Bureau “Monthly Weather Review.”
1938 - Global warming, caused by man heating the planet with carbon dioxide, “is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power.”– Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
1938 - “Experts puzzle over 20 year mercury rise…Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities thru the world which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward warmer

The earth's overall temperature is still warming much faster than normal. If you point to the medieval climate anomaly, that had cold temperatures in some parts and hot in others. Half the world was hotter and half colder. Nowadays, it's all been getting 1 degree hotter in the past 40 years ALONE. And it has been proven that carbon emissions create warming. Now wether it's warming now, that may be natural. But either way, renewables are cheaper and like you quoted: "We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing – in terms of economic policy and environmental policy” – Senator Timothy Wirth, so it makes economic sense to move to renewables. As well, the projections show that in the next 50 years we could warm 2 more degrees! Many animals could go extinct, we could be among them. I don't get what your saying, both economically and scientifically it makes sense to switch. I don't see why your so opposed to it, if we provide supports to those affected, it would make sense. Who's providing those supports? Oh yeah, the Democrats. You can't stop progress, and I'm sad to admit it but right now it's tyranny of the majority.
P.S: Good job with proper sourcing! :)

Name one of the scientists who came up with this?
That CO2 increases the temperature has NOT been proven....and will not until the skeptics and the alarmist sit down at a table and hash this out....with another impartial scientific body judging the results.
You mean the media and the UN have said that climate change is real. I have posted a meme also on what the UN has also said about the usefulness of creating a climate crisis....many politicians have!
You said, "in the next 50 years we COULD warm 2 more degrees!" You see that "COULD" that is the FUC@ING problem. An asteroid could hit us in the next 10 years and we all COULD die. There COULD be another glaciation period of the current Ice Age in the next 20 years and most of us COULD all die (we are in an interglacial period of an Ice Age right now and that is why it is warming up....and NO! The Ice Age did NOT end 11,000 years ago but rather"a" glaciation period of the current Ice Age....there are many glaciation periods within an Ice Age)! It is all nonsense not backed up by any science. It's a "COULD" world......a word that is used to create fear and has been used for more than 100 years on creating climate panic! A person could go mad just worrying about all of the "coulds" of this world that the climate lunatics have thrown at us over the past century! Another term that the climate lunatics use is "MAY".
So what if the planet warms up by 2 degrees....it has been warmer than that in the past and life had continued to do just as well, if not better. Man adapts and animals adapt....that is the nature of Mother Earth.....she is ever-changing....life adapts or dies out to be replaced by other life that is more suitable....This is evolution in action! That has been the story of Mother Earth for billions of years.
Politicians are using what are natural phenomena to implement changes that they desire and many very unscrupulous so-called "scientists" are going along with it....because they are, after all, making a very good living working off of this scam....involved in what is essentially a useless and nonproductive "science"! Tell me what people do you know who will deliberately sabotage their own way of making a living by admitting that what they are doing is bullshit. Nope! They are going to give you the bullshit that you want for as long as they can!

well, saying "climate lunatics" and "but only the UN and the media and mainstream scientists" is stupid. If the UN, the biggest co-operative, global-goodness body says it's real, why would you doubt them for Qanon and fringe groups?

This is what this climate change lunacy is all about....the redistribution of wealth from the developed countries to the less wealthy. Those less developed countries will not have to stop using fossil fuels....including India, China, and Africa.....which have not only the largest but also the fastest-growing populations....so right there you can see that this is a big f**king joke. ....because the use of fossil fuels will only dramatically increase. It is only the West who will have to eliminate their use of fossils fuels!

[image deleted] I have no idea who qanon is or the other fringe groups that you are talking about....I do only hard research.....going back to the original documents and sayings. And the UN is the biggest hypocrite in this....You will have to take that up with them. Here is what the chair of the UN's IPCC has to say about your climate change.

So getting rich people less power is bad?

No! But if the policy is to eliminate the use of fossil fuels because of the rising [email protected] then at the say time say that the largest and fastest-growing populations....including China....do not have to stop using fossil fuels....then that put the lie to their claim that CO2 is the cause of climate change.
And saying "So getting rich people less power is bad?"....is to believe that using energy is bad and your reason is probably that is causes a rise in CO2

Renewables are currently cheaper.

Give examples of these renewables that are cheaper then!

look it up.

No! absolutely NOT! And in about 15 years there are going to be about 200 MILLION used green batteries lying around that cannot be disposed of!

I work in the energy field, and renewables are NOT cheaper. Natural gas is twice the price of coal, solar 5 times, and wind 8 times as much. Only the taking of our tax dollars to subsidize these renewables make them cheap. Hydro doesn't count towards future production because environmentalists won't allow new dam construction.

Yeah they are. Cheaper to buy, cheaper to operate. I think you're getting your facts mixed up and showing your bias here.

Then maybe you would want to talk to MSN which is decidedly on the side of the climate change lunatics.
"Why Did Wind Turbines Freeze in Texas When They Work in ...
Search domain msn.comhttps://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/why-did-wind-turbines-freeze-in-texas-when-they-work-in-the-arctic/ar-BB1dNxnZ
Wind turbines in Texas have been targeted by state officials after a freezing winter storm knocked out power supplies to millions of homes. © Giles Clarke/Getty Images A wind turbine looms through..."
They might not have been the entire cause but a large portion of it when a lot of them froze over.

it's the Republicans underfunding infrastructure to give tax cuts to the rich that's the problem

I am NOT American but from what I have researched....the Republicans want the liberal fat cut out of the infrastructure bill that had nothing to do with actual infrastructure but rather with the democrats personal agendas and pet projects such as bailing out badly run democrat cities. I cannot see how the Republicans can "give tax cuts to the rich" when it is the democrats who control the senate which passes these bills.....and they have an equal number of votes in the Senate....with Harris having the deciding vote. You are not very bright are you? Or, are you so indoctrinated that you just cannot think for yourself?

STOP CALLING US LUNATICS. And what did that prove? Nothing.

That is the fact.....you are lunatics!

says a clear Trump-won believer.

[image deleted] Here is a better view

Politicians.

You said "says a clear Trump-won believer."
I am not American and I do not care a f**k about you guys f**ked-up politics....

and I'm not American either

No...You are Canadian...So stop acting like a f**king idiot

Yeah! The UN....who you had very admiring words for previously!

The UN is better than other politicians. They may be like a dog with 180 heads, but at least they agree on something beneficial. No, it's the individual countries.

Shrug! The UN is a bloated and useless money gobbling bureaucracy that had done very little in the last 20 years or so!

You said...."At least they help tell us what's important. The problem is implementation, not the idea." And I believe that they are just bullshit!

at least they help tell us what's important. The problem is implementation, not the idea.

Most were companies selling renewable energy. Look if renewables were cheaper they would have been using those in China on a more massive scale....China makes most of these renewables so that implementation would be very easy for them. As it is China is building more than 184 coal plants at the moment.....there is a reason for that and that is BECAUSE IT IS CHEAPER! There is a reason that the UN will be allowing the poorer countries to continue using fossil fuels....THEY ARE CHEAPER!

But I will just look at the first one that I came across here:
'Onshore wind and solar PV power are now, frequently, less expensive than any fossil-fuel option, without financial assistance.'
NOT TRUE! These are ONLY viable when they are heavily subsidized by the government! And they are NOT consistent and all of these have to be backed up by fossil fuel plants. Here is a recent news article...."Wind Farms Paid £136m To Switch Off Last Year | NOT A " and who can forget the Texas fiasco recently with the windmills freezing....and leaving millions without heat!

Yeah the Texas fiasco wasn't because of renewables ok. If it was, Canada would be out of power almost daily in the winter.

You said on renewables "look it up." Surely a genius who can pull such a earth-shattering statement out of a hat like a magician....surely then you can point me to your facts....Because I have exhaustively scoured the internet in the recent past......and there is ZERO evidence of that.....Quite the opposite actually!

https://www.ecosia.org/search?q=are+renewable+energies+cheaper+than+non-renewables%3F&addon=opensearch
just look at all the sources on there.

that's because of who's implementing it.

1938 - “Experts puzzle over 20 year mercury rise…Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities thuout the world which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades” – Chicago Tribune
1939 - “Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer” – Washington Post
1952 - “…we have learned that the world has been getting warmer in the last half century” – New York Times, August 10th, 1962
1954 - “…winters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing” – U.S. News and World Report
1954 - Climate – the Heat May Be Off – Fortune Magazine
1959 - “Arctic Findings in Particular Support Theory of Rising Global Temperatures” – New York Times
1969 - “…the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two” – New York Times, February 20th, 1969
1969 – “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000″ — Paul Ehrlich (while he now predicts doom from global warming, this quote only gets honorable mention, as he was talking about his crazy fear of overpopulation)
1970 - “…get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters – the worst may be yet to come…there’s no relief in sight” – Washington Post
1974 - Global cooling for the past forty years – Time Magazine
1974 - “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age” –Washington Post
1974 - “As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed” – Fortune magazine, who won a Science Writing Award from the American Institute of Physics for its analysis of the danger
1974 - “…the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure…mass deaths by starvation, and probably anarchy and violence” – New York Times

1975 - Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable – New York Times, May 21st, 1975
1975 - “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind” Nigel Calder, editor, New Scientist magazine, in an article in International Wildlife Magazine
1976 - “Even U.S. farms may be hit by cooling trend” – U.S. News and World Report
1981 - Global Warming – “of an almost unprecedented magnitude” – New York Times
1988 - I would like to draw three main conclusions. Number one, the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements. Number two, the global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect. And number three, our computer climate simulations indicate that thegreenhouse effect is already large enough to begin to effect the probability of extreme events such as summer heat waves. – Jim Hansen, June 1988 testimony before Congress, see His later quote andHis superior’s objection for context
1989 -“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” – Stephen Schneider, lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,Discover magazine, October 1989
1990 - “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing – in terms of economic policy and environmental policy” – Senator Timothy Wirth
1993 - “Global climate change may alter t

2001 - “Scientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible.” – Time Magazine, Monday, Apr. 09, 2001
2003 - Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as “synfuels,” shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration” – Jim Hansen, NASA Global Warming activist, Can we defuse The Global Warming Time Bomb?, 2003
2006 - “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” — Al Gore, Grist magazine, May 2006
2006 – “It is not a debate over whether the earth has been warming over the past century. The earth is always warming or cooling, at least a few tenths of a degree…” —Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT
2006 – “What we have fundamentally forgotten is simple primary school science. Climate always changes. It is always…warming or cooling, it’s never stable. And if it were stable, it would actually be interesting scientifically because it would be the first time for four and a half billion years.” —Philip Stott, emeritus professor of bio-geography at the University of London
2006 - “Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930’s the media peddled a coming ice age. From the late 1920’s until the 1960’s they warned of global warming. From the 1950’s until the 1970’s they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate’s fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.” –Senator James Inhofe, Monday, September 25, 2006
2007- “I gave a talk recently (on fallacies of global warming) and three members of the Canadian government, the environmental cabinet, came up afterwards and said, ‘We agree with you, but it’s not worth our jobs to say anything.’ So what’s being created is a huge industry with billions of dollars of government money and people’s jobs dependent on it.” – Dr. Tim Ball, Coast-to-Coast, Feb 6, 2007
2008 – “Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate