Do scientists realize what they are doing?

Probably. Never forget that global warming is only a ruse to funnel billions of dollars into corporations. This is the largest corporate welfare program ever created.

National Academy of Sciences is a big supporter of "global warming", as they were a big supporter of Eugenics. These scientist used proof that people of color would cause damage to the population if they were allowed to breed with white people. Because of their actions, laws were passed to prevent mixed marriages and forced sterilizations were preformed on people.

We look at these actions as barbaric today, but this is what happens when we depend on the word of subjective science where a 'consensus' decides what's the truth over objective facts.

Scientists don't realize what they are doing and that is why the arguments on global warming. Our visible spectrum can't see temperature until it is glowing hot so we accommodate for that by using calculators for temperature considerations.

Hard to imagine Universities and science being blind to climate change but it is the fact, everything we develop on the surface of the planet is designed with temperature in a calculator and signed off as compliant after construction.

Due to the fact we can't really validate building or development energy use or emissions so it makes for an opinion to argue. Courts and the legal system want proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

I participated in a several year project of using the most advanced thermography applications in the world to see building function through several seasons. My background is architecture/building engineering/construction/electrical and I have that extensive background considering temperature in a calculator with great accuracy. Seeing the actual temperatures contradicted my own education in the calculator.

Go to http://www.thermoguy.com/globalwarming-heatgain.ht... and see what scientists, meteorologists and academia is missing in the calculator. Scientists are talking about C02 trapping heat atmospherically while we are unknowingly generating heat close to boiling temperature with each new building finished. We are reacting to the symptoms with air conditioning and it is the air conditioning electrical load knocking California off the electrical grid.

Air conditioning is a good name, it is in fact refrigeration(the same as you have at your home) We are trying to ban refrigerants because they deplete the ozone and there is more UV. The electrical load requires generating massive GHG emissions including mercury to treat a heat symptom.

The real bad part not being discussed by Al Gore or the UN is the 100% toxicity ratio in newborns. How does a baby that has never taken a breath have banned pesticides, mercury, incinerated garbage, fire retardents, etc inside them? Go to http://www.thermoguy.com/ and scroll down to the picture of the fetus where there is a link to the study on polluted newborns.

100% toxicity ratio in babies without an immune system to protect themselves and reproductive problems. What happens when a species can't reproduce anymore?

We need to smarten up

The damage is already happening. A recent study performed by researchers at Texas A&M, and published in the journal Risk Analysis, indicated that the more educated and informed on climate change a person is, the more likely that person is to not care what the scientists are trying to say.

Of course the reseachers thought the opposite would be true. This is basically a wake up call to the profession. We as consumers of scientific products would prefer something a little less etherial, and when professional give themselves a margin of error of 75%, and call their work sound, we tend to not pay that much attention to that work.

Meanwhile, the orthodoxy will continue. Will confidence continue to erode, I predict so.

Actually scientists don't realize what they are doing. Their 'mind sets' have been carefully cultivated in so called institutions of higher learning. Which in turn are supported by Big Pharmaceutical Corporations.

The gross failure began about 150 years ago with the popularization of the 'Germ Theory' by the lier and plagiarist Louis Pasteur. In the early 1900s the myth was perpetuated to enable Pharmaceutical Companies great profits by feeding us Toxins called Drugs. They will never find true cures because they ignore our quantum/solar connections.

The history of the “father of global warming” - James Hansen, a bought and paid for leftist idealist.

http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunderg/ponde...

I noticed this started appearing in your posts "Global warming is the historical mark when science came up for sale". Scientists began to gather data about the chemical composition of the atmosphere in the 1820's. They considered Anthropogenic Global Warming "proven" (in the sense skeptics and deniers use the word) by 1900. Since WWII there has been rising concern about the danger it poses to the human race, and other life. Here we are now, almost 70 years later.

You call all that a "point"?

You wrote: "obviously going to be rendered a total lie and scam"

Clearly, the only people that's "obvious" too are those without any significant knowledge of climate science. Your question itself, acknowledges that scientists believe it's real. So on what basis do you (with whatever education and experience you do or do not have) merely assert all those scientists are wrong? Are you psychic?

Heretic - it's not necessary (or useful, as they'll simply be ignored) to provide links to science in response to Cindy's questions. She doesn't provide any science to dispute, so all that's necessary is to point out her own flaws in logic.

I have a couple of points which I think are valid to answering your question completely.

While I agree with you totally that (IF) these were scientists making these lunatic claims that it would damage the reputation of the scientific community once all of the science has a a chance to be shown.

You are actually giving the lunatics far more credit that they deserve!

They are neither scientists, nor do they have any more knowledge than the ability to spout theory and BS.

I just hope that people will be able to differentiate between scientists and 'Bull*****ers' who have no real concept of basic science!

If it gives you any comfort, just realize that you understand science, and that you are young enough, hopefully, to say "I told you so!" in a few years.

The damage will have already been done by then and everyone will be blaming it on someone else!

However, I suspect that in ten years time that nobody will admit to their flawed thinking!

"They are going to lose so much integrity that we will be set back 1000 years."

Don't you think that statement is a bit extreme? Personally, I don't know how people can bury their heads in the sand like they do and deny the obvious fact that the world is going through climate change and that people are the cause of it.

If science was "up for sale" scientists would be saying that global warming was a myth since big businesses are the ones who would benefit most from this lie. The only scientists "up for sale" are the ones denying climate change because they're in the pockets of big business.

Cindy, if I were you, I would think about getting a refund on the tuition for your EFL courses.

Not all science will be set back 1000 years, only the bad pseudoscience. You should be applauding the climate scientists for weeding themselves out of the scientific gene pool, so to speak. Think of it, afterwards, we will be left with such visionaries and free-thinkers as McKittrick, Lindzen, Ball, Patterson, Gray^2, and that dead guy from New Zealand. It will stimulate a new golden age for mankind, where science is no longer fettered by objectivity and empiricism, existing only to serve what gives you a good feeling about your lifestyle. Stossel will come to you, as in a dream, and lift you on wings of rapture to levels of ecstasy you have not dreamed of, nor could even imagine existed, in reward for your visionary foresight. Oh brave new world!

Either that or the plate in your skull has come loose. Again.

Cindy - I do feel you are being a bit harsh with your sentiments. I don't feel when they are proven wrong that we will be set back 1000 years. What I believe is that we are looking at the wrong things, when it comes to change. We actually need to look at where the world is overpopulated and figure out a viable solution to correct it. But we can't look at that, we have to make Americans change what kind of light bulb they use, even if it does give a lot of them headaches.