
Why Scientists Disagree on Global Warming - foobarbecue
http://www.whyscientistsdisagreeaboutglobalwarming.com/
======
burntrelish1273
Arguing with unreasonable, irrational people fixated on percentages is
bikeshedding, a red herring talking-point and itself unreasonable. Breaking
through the cognitive dissonance essentially requires taking them to Greenland
and showing them how fast the ice is retreating.

------
carsongross
As I have said before, if the goal is to convince people who are skeptical of
any aspects of the anthropogenic global warming narrative, sites like this are
not effective.

------
candiodari
.

~~~
majewsky
> I would also like to point out that the vast majority of money in academia,
> of course, is pro anthropogenic global warming.

So? The vast majority of money in academia is also pro quantum theory, and pro
relativity theory, and pro evolution. What's your point?

> What the press implies - anthropogenic runaway global warming - aside from
> not even being consistent - is absolutely not a 97% opinion amongst serious
> mathematicians.

It surprises me that you're picking out mathematicians here. I would expect
most scientists working on climate issues to be physicists, geologists, or
meteorologists.

~~~
polotics
Hey punk. This is where the real money is: timestamp 55:26
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IbyiOoVgnQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IbyiOoVgnQ)
Cheers

~~~
burntrelish1273
Yup. _Merchants of Doubt (2014)_ is another great documentary to peel back the
veil of PR propaganda consultants whom peddle sentiment influence (ie MSM,
social media, etc.) to the highest bidder.

~~~
candiodari
Please show me where to get some of that money then. Since obviously you're
implying I'm already seeing it. If you're a university student, however, it's
usually not too hard to go to the university sponsorships and funding
structures and see that the university is indeed funded with pro-global-
warming funding.

The situation in practice is, of course, reversed. I know plenty of people who
get money because they're climate "activists" (not researchers, that's not to
be used anymore as a name).

Because if I want money from the UN, state or federal government to research
climate change, I know where to go. Seriously, some research budgets are 50%
climate change and funding such gems as "the social impact of climate change
on Chicago black persons". I mean, I get it, not all research must be useful.
I have no problem with that. But note that while I can't find numbers all of
this research spending seems to be going everywhere ... except to climate
modeling. It doesn't go to exact sciences much at all.

I wonder how that video of yours was funded. Let's see:

[http://www.carbonneutraluniversity.org/-notable-
supporters.h...](http://www.carbonneutraluniversity.org/-notable-
supporters.html)

Heh. Okay. That's of course, very very different from ExxonMobil sponsorship
... very different ... And I'm sure you're about to claim that if this group
was found to not help climate activism that funding wouldn't change ...

