quote:

ORIGINAL: markyugen

To suggest that all, or even a tiny fraction, of the 10,800+ peer-reviewed scientific papers supporting the idea of man-made global warming were written by incompetents, fraudsters, cultists, and/or politically/financially motivated liars, is laughable in the extreme. Even more laughable is comparing climate change denial to the brave accomplishments of Copernicus. Copernicus was not pitting science against science, he was presenting sound scientific evidence in opposition to a dogmatic religious orthodoxy, which would be comparable to Darwin opposing the religiously-driven creationists of today.

quote:

Summary: Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause). Their methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. Cook et al.’s author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with their abstract ratings.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: longwayhome

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: longwayhome
The internet is not always your friend.

right, all those links I posted of scientists and journalists studying, reporting on climate science & refuting the idea of "consensus" are what, a collection of people who have been themselves duped and just haven't gotten the news yet? or that I cannot tell legitimate content from the fallacious? or everyone at my citations are all clearly mistaken despite their expertise and credentials?

I can find pages on the internet that support creationism, assert the power of crystals, tell me that giant lizard-men rule the Earth, explain why dinosaur skeletons are hoaxes, say the moon landings were faked, say that global warming is a conspiracy, argue that the 9/11 was organised by shady forces in the US government and state that the British secret service spied on its own prime minister.

Oops sorry, the last one was true.

I just don't agree with you and my experts are bigger than your experts...

not only did you not really address what I just posted, you also obviously did not look at each one of the links I posted prior and actually critique their content to judge its credibility and veracity. you have absolutely no legitimate standing to compare people who interpret their research differently than what you might like, to faked moon landings or the power of crystals. I like to think you see that; if you don't, further conversation is hopeless.

really? which experts are on your "side" compared to the other "side?" who are they actually? what are their names?

as you list them, please explain exactly how it is they are "bigger?" what, all the doctorates, published authors and careers spent in the field exist only on one side right? a side by side table with all the "bigger" scientists and their credentials on one side, and all the "lesser" scientists and their credentials on the other would do the trick nicely.

edited to say: I see you posted to nnanji that "that last bit was a joke"---great, now youre just back to having to critique the content for all the links I posted, or believing what you want to believe despite evidence to the contrary.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: longwayhome

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: longwayhome
The internet is not always your friend.

right, all those links I posted of scientists and journalists studying, reporting on climate science & refuting the idea of "consensus" are what, a collection of people who have been themselves duped and just haven't gotten the news yet? or that I cannot tell legitimate content from the fallacious? or everyone at my citations are all clearly mistaken despite their expertise and credentials?

I can find pages on the internet that support creationism, assert the power of crystals, tell me that giant lizard-men rule the Earth, explain why dinosaur skeletons are hoaxes, say the moon landings were faked, say that global warming is a conspiracy, argue that the 9/11 was organised by shady forces in the US government and state that the British secret service spied on its own prime minister.

Oops sorry, the last one was true.

I just don't agree with you and my experts are bigger than your experts.

Interesting...so you're a proponent of scientific validity being a voting endeavor. Poor Copernicus.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

"We know gravity curves space-time, and we simply can prove that by swinging a bucket of water around our center. "

That proves nothing of the sort.

T^T

quote:

ORIGINAL: longwayhome

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: longwayhome

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: longwayhome
The internet is not always your friend.

right, all those links I posted of scientists and journalists studying, reporting on climate science & refuting the idea of "consensus" are what, a collection of people who have been themselves duped and just haven't gotten the news yet? or that I cannot tell legitimate content from the fallacious? or everyone at my citations are all clearly mistaken despite their expertise and credentials?

I can find pages on the internet that support creationism, assert the power of crystals, tell me that giant lizard-men rule the Earth, explain why dinosaur skeletons are hoaxes, say the moon landings were faked, say that global warming is a conspiracy, argue that the 9/11 was organised by shady forces in the US government and state that the British secret service spied on its own prime minister.

Oops sorry, the last one was true.

I just don't agree with you and my experts are bigger than your experts.

Interesting...so you're a proponent of scientific validity being a voting endeavor. Poor Copernicus.

No I don't.

Are you just misunderstanding me on purpose?

The point is that you can find any crackpot notion on the internet. Some of them go viral with no validity whatsoever.

I am not impressed by the mere fact that people have published alternatives to man-made global warming. End of story.

Completely inexplicably, I believe the work of the vast majority of scientists who are not paid by big business or have political ambitions. (Or want to blame the Chinese or make up extravagant conspiracy theories.)

The views I share are not controversial, except to a small minority of scientists, some business interests and conspiracy theorists. These guys do not have startling new tested hypotheses like general and specific relativity. If something arises that blows the whole global warming consensus out of the water, we will all listen.

It doesn't matter how much you try to undermine me and my scientific education, you are onto a loser.

I disagree with you, as do many other people. On the basis of the information I have I believe that you are wrong. It doesn't make me stupid or gullible.

Time for me to withdraw gracefully, still believing in global warming. Good luck in persuading other posters that it's all bad science and a conspiracy.

Have a good one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: markyugen

The above quoted summary attacking the consensus numbers has been refuted and thus is merely an obfuscation of the truth.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm

"What the science says...
The 97% consensus has been independently confirmed by a number of different approaches and lines of evidence.
...
"Overall, the critiques of Cook et al. (2013) have all exhibited the characteristics of scientific denialism. Given the long history of consensus denial campaigns by fossil fuel interests and climate contrarians, continued resistance to the consensus is an expected result. Nevertheless, the 97% consensus is a robust result from several different studies taking a variety of approaches, including two independent methods used by Cook et al. (abstract ratings and author self-ratings). The criticisms of the paper have all exhibited the same few logical flaws, some more extreme than others, but all erroneous."

quote:

Secretary of State John Kerry, President Obama and others frequently claim that climate change will have “crippling consequences,” and that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree that climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” In reality, the assertion is science fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and exercises in counting abstracts from scientific papers – all of which have been contradicted by more reliable research...

Another widely cited source for the consensus view is an article in Eos: Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists, and claimed “97 percent of climate scientists agree.” Most scientists who are skeptical of man-made catastrophic global warming would nevertheless answer “yes” to both questions. However, the survey was silent on whether the human impact – or the rise in temperature – is large enough to constitute a problem. It also failed to include scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.

There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.

quote:

I get soooo tired of hearing about how 97 percent of all climate scientists believe humans are responsible for global warming due to their insatiable addiction to fossil fuels as well as other anthropogenic sources of carbon dioxide generation. My friend Jim Lakely, of the Heartland Institute, has probably put together the best summary to bust this myth, so I’ll let him do the talking:

One of the most commonly cited studies of the “97 percent” was conducted by a University of Illinois professor and a graduate student who asked the following questions to 10,257 Earth scientists working for universities and government research agencies:

Q1. When compared with pre‐1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

Q2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

They received responses from 3,146 people, of which only 5 percent self‐identified as climate scientists. To get to the magic 97 percent in the affirmative to both questions — in the answers to questions even many skeptics would answer “yes” — the study’s authors had to whittle down the survey to a paltry 79 “climate scientists,” defined as those who also have “published more than 50 percent of their recent peer‐reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” The National Academy of Sciences survey is similarly skewed.

So, bottom line: A handful of “qualified” scientists asserting “fact” is not what it seems. Yet the enviro-left still clings to this fraudulent “argument by authority” nonsense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44


http://www.theclimategatebook.com/busting-the-97-myth/

and that’s just a very small sampling…the internet is awash with that figure being debunked.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/22/4-new-papers-link-solar-activity-natural-ocean-cycles-to-climate-and-find-warmer-temps-during-1700s-1800s/#sthash.noIOk83z.w0sV465R.dpbs

4 New Papers Link Solar Activity, Natural Ocean Cycles To Climate – And Find Warmer Temps During 1700s, 1800s - See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/22/4-new-papers-link-solar-activity-natural-ocean-cycles-to-climate-and-find-warmer-temps-during-1700s-1800s


The latest papers linking solar activity as well as ocean oscillations to climate changes are listed below. Not only do these papers describe solar activity and ocean oscillations as the dominant mechanisms of climate change, they provide evidence that the modern, post-1950 period does not contain the highest temperatures of the last few hundred years. In fact, these papers each document that temperatures during some periods of the 1700s and/or 1800s were just as warm or warmer than present temperatures.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/22/4-new-papers-link-solar-activity-natural-ocean-cycles-to-climate-and-find-warmer-temps-during-1700s-1800s/#sthash.noIOk83z.w0sV465R.dpbs
4 New Papers Link Solar Activity, Natural Ocean Cycles To Climate – And Find Warmer Temps During 1700s, 1800s - See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/22/4-new-papers-link-solar-activity-natural-ocean-cycles-to-climate-and-find-warmer-temps-during-1700s-1800s
The latest papers linking solar activity as well as ocean oscillations to climate changes are listed below. Not only do these papers describe solar activity and ocean oscillations as the dominant mechanisms of climate change, they provide evidence that the modern, post-1950 period does not contain the highest temperatures of the last few hundred years. In fact, these papers each document that temperatures during some periods of the 1700s and/or 1800s were just as warm or warmer than present temperatures.

Here's the fucking deal:
It's getting warmer.
There's a lot of shit that could make it warmer.
Could be cars.....could be cow poop (scientists say that's 80%....methane)....hamburgers are a wonderful thing....me love hamburgers....BUT....
We gotta do better....simple enough!
Done.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)