Hundreds of studies challenge scientific "consensus" on climate change

Someone checked out 400 scientific papers (really?) and concluded that challenge the scientific "consensus" that climate change (no longer called global warming) is fueled my manmade CO2 emissions.

If you can plow through all this science, please let me know. I admit that 400 papers  is a lot more than I can handle. I make no claim about their accuracy.

No doubt, global warming proponents will claim that the work is misrepresented,  doesn't reach that conclusion, is methodologically deficient and so forth. As they should, just as scientists have an obligation to fly speck any so-called scientific consensus. Save me the responses that try to discredit the findings by discrediting the sources. If that's fair game, then the studies funded by the "green" government also should be challenged.

But please don't pull that "consensus" baloney again.


Leave a comment
  • Basically you worded this in such a manner as to make no point, and try to make that lack of point irrefutable.

    But to get back to a point I made the last time, the cost of off the budget appropriations for natural disasters this season is now up to $75 billion and growing. Someone who brought up an alt-right saw that a hurricane hadn't hit the mainland in 12 years before that, forgot that however Sandy was classified, it caused comparable damage. You can't both (in good faith) be a denier and complain about the deficit. As Sen. Dirksen once said, eventually we are talking about real money.

    In the meantime, I see that you went off on something else without answering the questions posed one hour ago. Again that speaks of what kind of person you are.

  • Your source is "someone" and you make no claim about the accuracy of the 400 papers.

    That should settle things.

  • The source is scientific studies. I make no claim about the accuracy because reading them all and understanding them all is--I humbly say--beyond my ability. I wish the global warming non-science (i.e. political, media) alarmists would admit to the same thing when they say that we all must accept a ginned-up consensus. What this settles is that there is a alternative view that can claim legitimacy.

  • In reply to Dennis Byrne:

    Without an actual source, no. In short, you copied some pap from a neocon source, won't even vouch for it, and despite confessing your lack of scientific knowledge, say that anyone who is not a doubter or denier is not scientific. Pathetic!

  • So, you've read the referenced studies and can honestly say that you can explain why they're wrong? Again, you attack the messenger and not the substance. Pathetic!

  • In reply to Dennis Byrne:

    To whom are you responding? Don't know how to use the reply button?

    If me, I've explained that you have posted a strawman,. If you can't vouch for the scientific accuracy of what you copied, why should anyone waste time doing what you say, especially when you just posted about some things not meriting a reply?

    Hypocrisy, your name is ....

Leave a comment

  • Advertisement:
  • Advertisement:
  • ChicagoNow is full of win

    Welcome to ChicagoNow.

    Meet our bloggers,
    post comments, or
    pitch your blog idea.

  • Visit my new website

    I'm a freelance writer, editor and author. I can help you with a wide variety of projects. Check out my new website at

  • Subscribe to The Barbershop

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

  • Dennis Byrne’s Facebook Fan Page

  • Like me on Facebook

  • Our National Debt

  • Twitter

  • Tags

  • Recent Comments

  • /Users/dennisby/Desktop/trailer.mp4
  • Advertisement: