Quote from: tvbcof on September 28, 2016, 04:50:35 PM

Quote from: dwma on September 27, 2016, 10:55:16 PM

...
Here is the abstract.

Quote

Science strives for coherence. For example, the findings from climate science form a highly coherent body of knowledge that is supported by many independent lines of evidence: greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from human economic activities are causing the global climate to warm and unless GHG emissions are drastically reduced in the near future, the risks from climate change will continue to grow and major adverse consequences will become unavoidable. People who oppose this scientific body of knowledge because the implications of cutting GHG emissionssuch as regulation or increased taxationthreaten their worldview or livelihood cannot provide an alternative view that is coherent by the standards of conventional scientific thinking. Instead, we suggest that people who reject the fact that the Earths climate is changing due to greenhouse gas emissions (or any other body of well-established scientific knowledge) oppose whatever inconvenient finding they are confronting in piece-meal fashion, rather than systematically, and without considering the implications of this rejection to the rest of the relevant scientific theory and findings. Hence, claims that the globe is cooling can coexist with claims that the observed warming is natural and that the human influence does not matter because warming is good for us. Coherence between these mutually contradictory opinions can only be achieved at a highly abstract level, namely that something must be wrong with the scientific evidence in order to justify a political position against climate change mitigation. This high-level coherence accompanied by contradictory subordinate propositions is a known attribute of conspiracist ideation, and conspiracism may be implicated when people reject well-established scientific propositions.

As framed, the 'consensus' on anthropogenic global climate change attributable to global greenhouse gasses is even worse than 'incoherent.' It is both logically and observably wrong.

The idea that a certain group of people have conceived of and implemented the scam in order to justify controlling the economic activity of the planet is both coherent and matches the evidence extraordinarily well.

Quote from: Christiana Figueres

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 - you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation."

http://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/29623-figueres-first-time-the-world-economy-is-transformed-intentionally

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/science/flooding-of-coast-caused-by-global-warming-has-already-begun.html

You're right, nothing happening. All made up. Just random fluctutations that have oddly been predicted for decades to CONTROL YOU.

Science sucks when it doesn't fit with our world belief. Really, it sucks that there isn't some nice solution that doesn't require regulations. This doesn't make reality not reality.