My bet is the silent majority stays voluntarily out of the fray. We remain in the background processing data, protecting ourselves, and providing for our families. We have germane issues on which to expend our valuable energy.

Pretty nebulous…Are there unstated connections or Is there something more that you wanted say?

I can identify with the need to protect yourselves and your families. The problem with the silent majority staying out of the fray is that the agenda driven alarmists are having their way. Bolstered by media coverage and activism, governments are caving to the mantras and targeting/penalizing – even criminalizing hard working citizenry. The carbon taxes we are being charged is only the beginning of our monetary contributions to this farce.

Certainly not ALL NASA people. But many realized which side their bread was buttered on. Note the vast difference in results from the Calizuela offices, and the Alabama offices.

97% is where you exposed your ignorance man . . . . that was a fraud !

Just like NOAA being CAUGHT twice altering Historical Data to Warm the Present.
For decades CRU East Anglia controlled the debate . . . and who was to be given access to “Peer Review” . . . it was ALL a scam.
Even Hookey Schtick fraudster Prof Mann just lost a Court Case because he could not provide his data for his Fake Graph to the Judge. Even the IPCC no longer uses his nonsense.

Why Real Scientists Mistrust ‘Climate Science’
Published on May 10, 2017 Written by John O’Sullivan
The biggest mistake made by supporters of the ‘consensus’ for man-made climate alarm is believing that government climate science has standing in the wider scientific community. It doesn’t. Below we explain why.

First, most people do not realize that the history of climate science – as taught in schools and universities and spoken about in a quiescent press – is less science, more propaganda. The narrative sold is that climate research is a long-established, prestige discipline which is composed of elite experts espousing long-accepted scientific proofs on how our climate works. This myth is not only laughable but is readily exposed when the diligent reader performs their own research.

Second, the public has been lied to about the very basis of such science. The Big Lie is about the ‘heat trapping’ properties of that ‘deadly gas’ carbon dioxide (CO2). This benign trace gas is actually plant food; it is pumped into greenhouses to boost plant yield – hardly a poison then. But to the climate crazy gang it is the control knob in the ‘settled science’ of greenhouse gas theory.

Climate Study is an Infant Science

In 2010, checking around the world’s top centers of learning, we saw there were NO science graduates with a first degree in the field of climatology. Even in Britain, the birthplace of climate research and one of the top nations for investment in climate studies, there are very scant pickings if you want to become a student of climate science.

The University of East Anglia (UEA), the UK’s most prestigious university for Environmental Sciences – a position it has held for the last 30 years – did not open its doors to student applications for a degree in climatology until September 2010. This is the very institution long relied upon by the UN to be a key repository of the worlds’ official temperature records. Meanwhile, the only other UK academic institution to advertise courses in climate study was Bangor University which offered merely a ‘part time evening course’ in climatology that has a duration of only ’10 weeks.’

Criminal Destruction of Data by Academics

But the UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) is discredited as a bastion of reliable, solid science. It has earned infamy and scorn for betraying its role as a trusted international repository of records of global temperatures. We know its chief scientist, Professor Phil Jones admitted wrongdoing in that regard. At the height of the Climategate scandal (2009) Jones was exposed in the national press over the loss and destruction of important records that proved global cooling. It seems Jones wanted to ‘hide the decline’ in global warming so he simply got rid of swathes of inconvenient data – an unforgivable loss to all science. Amazingly, Jones kept his job. But then his employers were always happy with his cherry-picking methods. His politicized brand of alternative facts feeds a trillion dollar multi-national fraud with the ‘evidence’ it needs to tax the world into energy poverty.

Jones literally is as subjective and fanatical in his beliefs as any one those crazed climate activists who ‘march for science’ demanding governments cut ‘carbon emissions’ to save the planet. In 2009 Jones only escaped criminal prosecution because the short six-month statute of limitations had already expired before his crimes were exposed. Is that the kind of scientist ordinary taxpayers want running a key United Nations center for climate study?

97% is where you exposed your ignorance man . . . . that was a fraud !

And your source for this “insight” is …? Lemme guess, you read it on the Internet?

Let’s see … I could trust you, or I could trust NASA. Gee, which one?

Bravo! You been reading actual scientific sources…

Marine-

Then how can you recommend a course of action with any certainty?

We understand the major underlying processes and we know the overall direction. Regarding the basic underlying processes, we have a good understanding- so much better than, say, 50 years ago. If the build up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere proceeds to too far, it will be a calamity for our species and the biosphere that some of us cherish.

We do not have a good handle on the speed with which global warming will unfold. Lacking certainty about the rate of change, we should take the matter with utmost seriousness and err on the side of caution. To do otherwise is irresponsible of people living today- it is very wrong for us to leave our descendants a world ravished by the effects of a significantly warmed planet when it is within our power to avoid it.

why are global warming proponents claiming 12 years to live? That’s why
hard to take any of this seriously and why people have tuned out.

I am almost certain that no responsible scientist makes this claim. There are, unfortunately, idiots on both (or all) sides of this issue.

150 years of temperature data is not enough time to come to any conclusions either seeing or planet has survived for over 4.5 BILLION years

I guess I should have known better than to interact with one so free with personal insults – such as these are not inclined to truth or authentic debate. The climate alarmist agenda propagates on their derision of dissenters.