Scientific Consensus
| Scientific Consensus15-02-2011 02:58 | |
Desertphile ☆☆☆☆☆(33) |
All of the scientists on the planet agree AGW happened and is happening: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686# http://www.post-carbon-living.com/TTHW/Documents/Climate_Change_Consensus.pdf http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/ http://aas.org/governance/resolutions.php%23climate#climate http://portal.acs.org/portal/fileFetch/C/WPCP_011538/pdf/WPCP_011538.pdf http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/positions/climate_change2008.shtml http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm http://www.australiancoralreefsociety.org/pdf/chadwick605a.pdf http://www.amos.org.au/publications/cid/3/t/publications http://www.csiro.com.au/resources/State-of-the-Climate.html http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/science/climate/position-statement.php http://cfcas.org/pressrelease1Dec05e.htm http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html http://epa.gov/climatechange/index.html http://www.eurogeologists.de/images/content/panels_of_experts/co2_geological_storage/CCS_position_paper.pdf http://www.egu.eu/fileadmin/files/egustatement.pdf http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:rXA5d27-secJ:academiaeuropaea.ift.uib.no/physics/EPS-2.pdf+European+Physical+Society+position+nuclear+option+papers&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari http://www.fas.org/press/statements/_docs/08grand_challenges.html http://www.fasts.org/images/policy-discussion/statement-climate-change.pdf http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm http://www.gsa.org.au/pdfdocuments/management/GreenhouseGasEmissions&ClimateChange_GSAPositionStatement_July2009.pdf http://www.inqua.tcd.ie/documents/iscc.pdf http://www.iugg.org/resolutions/perugia07.pdf http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html http://www.rmets.org/news/detail.php?ID=332 http://royalsociety.org/landing.asp?id=1278 http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/Site/news/media_releases/2008/clim0708.aspx http://www.aktualnosci.pan.pl/images/stories/pliki/stanowiska_opinie/2008/stanowisko_pan_131207.pdf http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/20100127_TemperatureFinal.pdf http://www.rmets.org/pdf/qjcallender38.pdf http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/climate/files/2009/10/broeckerglobalwarming75.pdf http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,937403,00.html |
| RE: Climate variation15-02-2011 18:34 | |
| Hayduke☆☆☆☆☆ (21) |
[quote]Desertphile wrote: All of the scientists on the planet agree AGW happened and is happening: This statement is absolutely and unequivocally false. Many climate scientists disagree that human produced CO2 is the cause of climate change. Anthropogenic Global Warming is a politically loaded, unscientific phrase that does not describe the complexity of global climate variation. |
| 15-02-2011 20:52 | |
| Desertphile☆☆☆☆☆ (33) |
Hayduke wrote: This statement is absolutely and unequivocally false. No. Over 550 science organizations in 85 countries, and they all agree humans have caused and are causing global warming. Hayduke wrote: Many climate scientists disagree that human produced CO2 is the cause of climate change. Name five. (This ought to be good for a laugh.) Hayduke wrote: Anthropogenic Global Warming is a politically loaded, unscientific phrase that does not describe the complexity of global climate variation. It is an observed fact, no less than evolution and gravity. If you insist upon seeing it as "politically loaded" and "unscientific," that's your own special emotional illness and you should probably talk to a mental health care professional about it. |
| RE: Persoanl attacks15-02-2011 23:17 | |
| Hayduke☆☆☆☆☆ (21) |
Name five. (This ought to be good for a laugh.) I do not respond to personal attacks. |
| 05-05-2014 11:28 | |
| Kano☆☆☆☆☆ (23) |
the concensus is CO2 a GHG gas does increasing CO2 cause warming Is man producing CO2 Well I am a skeptic but given those questions I would have to say yes, do I believe it would be dangerous warming NO do I believe it could be substantial warming NO do I believe it would be beneficial warming YES do I believe taxes can change the climate NO do I believe CO2 can alter weather NO |
| 10-05-2014 13:51 | |
| High Treason☆☆☆☆☆ (1) |
Nothing like loaded questions to gain a consensus. The often quote Doran-Zimmerman study with its famous 97% ...conclusion was cherrypicked down to a group of 79 respondents(who identified themselves as active climate researchers) and the result based on just 2 loaded questions-1) do you believe the world is warmer now than in 1850(well, hello, getting out of the mini ice age) and 2) do you believe human activity plays a significant role in global warming? (could be 5%, could be 90%.) If the general public knew how the so-called consensus was derived, they may get a bit suspicious. Humans like to feel they are part of the majority thought, so go with the flow. If the flow is manipulated by propaganda(frequently repeated lies), people will come to believe in the lie. "Make the lie big, repeat it often and people will come to believe it" - Adolf Hitler. I would have to agree with Kano's assessment, although man-made CO2 has a tiny effect on climate-possibly too small to be measured. We all need to get suspicious of all the hype. The cold, hard data simply do not support the alarmist claims on which the dire "measures" are predicated. On January 13 in an interview with the Guardian, IPCC chief, Christiana Figueres stated that Democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Chinese Communism is the best model. This is very revealing. It shows the UN condones the iron fist of totalitarianism to deal with the non-existent "problem" of catastrophic global warming. |
| 16-05-2014 00:19 | |
| zenblaster☆☆☆☆☆ (3) |
Hello, it's my first post to this site and I hope to add my own insight in a respectful manner. I will not respond to attacks that have nothing to do with advancing this very complicated issue. Our planet is 4b years old and our species has inhabited earth for about 40,000 years. Homo sapiens have had no measureable impact on climate to this point. The latest IPCC report #5 using advance "predictions" estimates that if events of the past 60 years continue unabated that sea levels will rise at a max rate of 8" per 1,000 years. If we can all agree with report #5 as "the best current guess" we can frame an intelligent conversation. If you consider climate change your religion and blindly believe what your church has preached please don't waste our time responding. |
| 17-05-2014 03:50 | |
| zenblaster☆☆☆☆☆ (3) |
Dear Desertphile - I would like to respond to your posts. I am a risk analyst so I only deal with verifiable measurements and will leave the editorializing to others. When you state that AGW is a fact I agree, when I turn on my stove I contribute to global warming. At this point AGW is so insignificant that is unable to be measured by any scientific or repeatable means making it a hypothesis. The burden then lays with hypothesizer to prove AGW is increasing and at what rate in order to measure it at a future point. Only then can we begin to have the discussion of future repercussions. My thoughts on Haydukes next point was the scientific study of "climate change" has been intentionally injected into the political process solely to support opinions. Very unscientific. And your coup de grace "It is an observed fact, no less than evolution and gravity". I agree with gravity, we can measure it with a great degree of certainty. Evolution is factual to a lesser degree but measurable and quantifiable. The burden now rests with you as to a verifiable measurement of AGW. Short of that you have what we call a hypothesis and not the all important scientific hypothesis, you have an opinion. |
| 18-05-2014 23:39 | |
| Davros☆☆☆☆☆ (2) |
I only know this CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we are thickening the blanket around the earth and the vast majority of our brightest and best have told us this will be bad for both us and those who come after us, so I'm off to seek a solution so my grandkids won't think to badly of me, I really can't be bothered with those who deny the science. |
| 19-05-2014 03:08 | |
| zenblaster☆☆☆☆☆ (3) |
Your grandkids will be more upset with the astronomic debt they will inherit or the 25 homicides per day by illegal aliens. They will be to busy dodging bullets to worry about the weather. Al Gore predicted their would be "50 million climate refugees by 2010" in his irrational alarmist docudrama, he was so wrong you don't hear a peep from him anymore. |
| RE: Gore not necessarily wrong19-05-2014 05:26 | |
| mhklein57☆☆☆☆☆ (1) |
zenblaster wrote: Gore may have been wrong in his timing, but that does not mean he will always be wrong. If global warming truly proves to be a disaster, we could have 50 million climate refugees by 2050. We don't know, but it remains a plausible possibility and one we need to think about. Michael Klein Edited on 19-05-2014 05:27 |
| 19-05-2014 23:11 | |
| patrick☆☆☆☆☆ (1) |
Where did all this CO2 come from in the first place? Fossil fuels. From dead organic matter. From plants performing photosynthesis. From CO2 in the atmosphere. Not some of it, or half, or most, but all of it. Every atom of carbon released as CO2 from burning fossil fuels came from....CO2 in the atmosphere. So essentially we're winding the clock back to a time when there was more CO2 in the atmosphere. (Creationists who have problems with timelines should leave the room for this part.) For around 800 million years plant life has been removing CO2. Now we've put enough back to take us back maybe 500,000 years per some estimates. To a time when life was thriving. And there were ice ages. So the argument for climate change needs to be very candid with these facts. Turning the CO2 clock back abruptly may very well cause climate change (see "long cycle CO2"). Maybe. But I'm probably a skeptic=doubter=denier. It does seem a bit arrogant to claim that degree of understanding of earth's weather cycles. Edited on 19-05-2014 23:23 |
| 31-05-2014 21:15 | |
| sculptor☆☆☆☆☆ (2) |
Davros wrote: What is it that made you think that those people were our brightest and best? I would point out that many anthropogenic global warming alarmist deny any science that doesn't fit into their preconceptions. |
| 10-09-2014 12:12 | |
| xiaoyouyou1hao☆☆☆☆☆ (2) |
Anthropogenic Global Warming is a politically loaded, unscientific phrase that does not describe the complexity of global climate variation.
Edited by branner on 10-09-2014 21:22 |
| 10-09-2014 17:28 | |
| GlobalPerspectiveSGL☆☆☆☆☆ (3) |
Hayduke wrote: I agree with you on your statement, there have not scientifically proven any realistic evidence that global warming is real, it is just " politically loaded ". |
| 10-09-2014 17:42 | |
| GP1JLS☆☆☆☆☆ (3) |
GlobalPerspectiveSGL wrote:Hayduke wrote: Unfortunately you can prove that GW is real, look at the massive hole in the Ozone layer above Antarctica. There are plenty of sources that can quote and show reasonable evidence proving that GW is real. Yes some of it is "Politically Loaded", but however most of it isn't false. Scientists can prove with enough factual evidence that GW is real. How else do you explain, the melting of polar ice caps, increase in flash floods, and other natural disasters that aren't natural anymore. |
| 10-09-2014 19:44 | |
| GlobalPerspectiveSGL☆☆☆☆☆ (3) |
GP1JLS wrote:GlobalPerspectiveSGL wrote:Hayduke wrote: The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth's orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives. Computer models help scientists to understand the Earth's climate, or long-term weather patterns. Models also allow scientists to make predictions about the future climate. Basically, models simulate how the atmosphere and oceans absorb energy from the sun and transport it around the globe. Factors that affect the amount of the sun's energy reaching Earth's surface are what drive the climate in these models, as in real life. These include things like greenhouse gases, particles in the atmosphere (such as from volcanoes), and changes in energy coming from the sun itself. Basically it is nature. Either way. It it nature. |
| 22-11-2014 23:52 | |
Abraham3 ★★☆☆☆(256) |
Hayduke wrote:Name five. (This ought to be good for a laugh.) I agree that there are respectable climatologists out there that do not accept AGW (which is a perfectly good term). But for every one you can name, I can find 97 that do accept it. If you have some information indicating that is not the case, I'd very much like to see it. |
| 10-12-2014 13:41 | |
| Abraham3★★☆☆☆ (256) |
The most recent surveys, involving reviews of the literature and polls of the authors indicate that the 97% is now much closer to (and may be in excess of) 99%. |
| 09-02-2015 19:44 | |
| campy☆☆☆☆☆ (8) |
[quote]Desertphile wrote: All of the scientists on the planet agree AGW happened and is happening: Without going through all that, can you tell me which one of those will tell me what the optimum temperature of the earth should be? |
| 10-02-2015 04:32 | |
| Abraham3★★☆☆☆ (256) |
Will you tell us what you believe the optimum temperature to be? Not what it's value might be in centigrade degrees, but what conditions it will produce on the Earth: why you believe it to be an optimum. And while you're writing, perhaps you could tell us why you choose to ignore the answer I've given you twice now.
Edited on 10-02-2015 04:34 |
| 08-08-2015 09:46 | |
| arthur18☆☆☆☆☆ (42) |
It seems like the 97% consensus has been debunked. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/07/newsbytes-global-coal-boom-accelerating-despite-obamas-green-posturing/ Maybe the new term should be "Science of Climate Almost Mastered" or it can be used as an acronym. |
| 11-08-2015 11:26 | |
| climate scientist★★☆☆☆ (257) |
Hi arthur18 I have responded on WUWT, also copied here: Well.... I say, this is an absolutely terrific work of fiction, particularly regarding point 3 by JoNova. The way that the original data release has been re-written and mis-represented here is really quite astounding. If you refer to the original document, then it is clear that the results of the survey have been mis-reported here. In fact, Bart Verheggen, who happens to be the second author on the original document, has written a post on his blog, describing the actual results of the survey: https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2015/08/04/pbl-survey-shows-strong-scientific-consensus-that-global-warming-is-largely-driven-by-greenhouse-gases/ In Bart's words: "...our survey results show a strong scientific consensus that global warming is predominantly caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases". "This consensus strengthens with increased expertise, as defined by the number of self-reported articles in the peer-reviewed literature." And why on earth are the results of the survey, which was conducted in 2012, being compared to a statement from AR5, which was not published until 2013? JoNova is trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes and it would seem as though she is being quite successful. I encourage everyone to not read this article blindly, but to refer to the source document and draw your own conclusions from the data. |
| 12-08-2015 04:56 | |
| arthur18☆☆☆☆☆ (42) |
I have read Bart Verheggen's interpretation of the results and it seems like most people have trouble agreeing on the consensus, let alone the science. I think this statement by ThomasWFuller says it all "Having to infer that people who respond 'don't know' to one question and answer something else to another question are part of a consensus is really weak." |
| 12-08-2015 10:50 | |
| climate scientist★★☆☆☆ (257) |
Climate science is a very broad field. My field within climate science is on greenhouse gases and the carbon cycle. I know the basics of what the observed changes in sea level rise are, but if you asked me exactly how much sea level rise there will be in 2100, I would have to do a lot of reading and research to answer this question. Scientists are naturally skeptical people, and I would probably answer 'don't know' about a question on future sea level rise, simply because I do not have enough in depth knowledge or research topic on the background to be able to provide a more reasonable answer than ' based on trends in observed sea level rise, I think sea level in 2100 might be higher than today, but I'm not really sure'. However, I still agree with the IPCC position on climate change - that it is extremely likely that humans are causing climate change via greenhouse gas emissions - because I know that there are multiple lines of independent evidence that demonstrate this, including those from my own research specialism. Even if you disagree with Bart's interpretation of his results, it is completely inappropriate for WUWT to write an article stating explicitly that only 43% of climate scientists agree with the IPCC position on climate change. This is *not* what the results of the survey show. It is also inappropriate to compare the results of the survey to previous studies (e.g. Cook et al 2013), as these studies looked for papers that stated a position on climate change - there are only 3 outcomes: they supported climate change, they did not support climate change, or they did not state a view on climate change. The survey asked extremely specific questions about specific aspects of climate change. I'm sure that no one who answered the survey could possible be an expert on all the topics covered by the survey. I therefore disagree with Thomas Fuller's statement. If I had taken part in the survey, there are a few questions that I would have answered 'don't know' to, and yet I agree with the IPCC position on climate change. This is demonstrated in question 1b in the survey, which as about confidence that climate change is due to greenhouse gas emissions. Chapter 10 in AR5 considers it 'very likely' that this is the case. 1091 of the respondents to q1b also thought that the anthropogenic GHG contribution is the dominant cause of climate change (very likely or higher confidence). That is 76% of the total number of respondents to q1b. Conversely, only 7% of the respondents on q1b thought it 'very likely' (or higher confidence) that the anthropogenic GHG contribution was not the dominant cause. If we include the people who didn't respond, the results become 58% who very likely or higher agree >50% GHG contribution, 5% who very likely or higher agree < 50% GHG contribution, and 36% who did not respond to that question. Either way you look at it, it is either 76% vs 7%, or 58% vs 5%. What the results definitely do not show is 43% agreeing on GHG contribution, and 57% disagreeing, which is what WUWT has published in their article. |
| RE: All Scientists Agree with GW?30-08-2015 17:52 | |
| FriendOfOrion☆☆☆☆☆ (9) |
All scientists support CO2 caused G. Warming? There are 31,487 scientists that don't agree with CO2 caused GW theory. See www.petitionproject.org to see the names. |
| 30-08-2015 18:14 | |
| climate scientist★★☆☆☆ (257) |
Hi FriendOfOrion I already wrote about the Global Warming Petition Project on another thread a few weeks ago. I've copied the text again here: No, I do not think the the Global Warming Petition Project is genuine. And here are my reasons why: The petition is based around a single publication from 2007, in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. This in itself raises alarm bells with me. Why is the publication 8 years old, and why it is not published in a climate science journal? I looked into the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons into a bit more detail and this is what I found. It is the journal published by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, which is a politically motivated organisation with the brief of "fighting government take-over of medicine". The association is extremist conservative, and promotes ideas such as HIV does not cause AIDS, that being gay reduces life expectancy, that there are links between abortion and breast cancer. The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is not listed in any academic database, such as Web of Science, and has been criticised by numerous medical professionals and institutions. The authors have published the article in the style of a PNAS article, to try and make it look more official, which prompted the National Academy of Sciences to make a statement saying that it had never been submitted to PNAS and that they did not agree with the way the science had been presented. If the science underpinning the petition was credible, then they would have had no problems publishing it in a credible climate science journal that is also used by the academic community. On the website, it states that the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons was chosen because the Journal agreed to waive copyright. This is a pretty poor excuse and in this day and age, with the amount of open access climate journals around, really shouldn't be the deciding factor in where you choose to publish. In addition, the way in which the authors have mis-cited published scientific work throughout the paper is quite shocking. If you were to go through all of the publications that they have cited, I am sure that almost all of them state that climate change is happening and that humans are the main contributor. The authors have picked specific sentences from each publication to cite, and re-written the science into a work of fiction. They have made all of the figures themselves, rather than using figures that already exist in the papers that they have cited - this strikes me as odd, as it is not uncommon to use figures from other publications with permission, rather than to replicate them just for the sake of it. The authors are not climate scientists - Arthur Robinson is a biochemist and also happens to have a political career as a Republican. Willie Soon is a physicist who is known to have received a lot of money from the oil industry. I believe that he had to have a paper retracted from the journal Climate Research after it caused an outrage, and it was found that the peer-review process had been compromised. The second thing that is extremely suspicious is that fact that the qualifications of the 'scientific experts' who have signed the petition are not given. All that is given is a list of how many have PhDs, BScs, etc, and what fields they are experts in. It doesn't say what universities or affiliations each person is associated with, so we don't even know if they are still working in science. My brother has a masters in science - he is an electronics engineer, he works for a company making audio equipment and he doesn't know much about climate change. But by the petition's standards, he would qualify as one of the 'scientists' who have signed the petition. There are 320 million people in the US. If only 0.5% of them have either PhDs or undergraduate degrees in a science field, that makes 1.6 million people. The petition has about 31000 signatures, which is about 2% of the total number of people in the US who have a science qualification. If you add up the number of people listed in each specialised field on the webpage, you can only account for about half of the 31000 signatories. This is because half either left this part of the form blank, or filled in a specialisation that was not science related. Most of the 'experts' listed are not climate scientists, but are physicists. Only 0.5% of the signatories have expertise in climatology and atmospheric science. |
| 03-09-2015 04:51 | |
| DRKTS★★☆☆☆ (305) |
FriendOfOrion wrote: I did a video on the Petition Project on YouTube entitled "31,000 Scientists Can't All Be Wrong, Can They?": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8NVsmgeFmo You will find it quite educational |
| 26-09-2015 01:20 | |
IBdaMann ★★★★★(14413) |
Desertphile wrote: Consensus has no role in science. Consensus is a tool of religions and politics. Global Warming is a good example of a religion that plays on the idea of "consensus." The Bolshevik revolution is a political event based on that concept. Science doesn't consider the subjective opinions of anyone. If you hear/read the word "consensus" then you know you've got religious preaching coming your way. |
| 26-09-2015 04:20 | |
| DRKTS★★☆☆☆ (305) |
IBdaMann wrote:Desertphile wrote: Actually it is the other way round, there is such a consensus because the scientific evidence for AGW is overwhelming and no other theory can explain why all the aspects of the climate are changing in the direction it is (warming), by how much, how fast, and where. So the consensus exists because the theory fits the observations and there is no viable alternative. It is hard for a true scientist to deny that the theory is valid in face of that. |
| 26-09-2015 05:07 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14413) |
DRKTS wrote: Actually it is the other way round, there is such a consensus because the scientific evidence for AGW is overwhelming and no other theory can explain why all the aspects of the climate are changing in the direction it is (warming), by how much, how fast, and where. You are a perfect example of the kind of devout religious dupe to which I was referring to Surface Detail. You think consensus has some kind of role in science. You think "evidence" has some kind of role in proving something is true in science. You are exactly the kind of completely scientifically illiterate moron who would be attracted to the Global Warming faith. All you have is unfasifiable dogma that you call "The Science" and it confuses you. I feel sorry for you. Did you EVER go to school? If you did, did you regularly play hooky? I'll let you in on a little secret. All RELIGIONS claim that their faith is supported by overwhelming "evidence." It's a basic requirement of all religions to make this claim. Science doesn't care about "evidence" or about subjective consensus of opinions. Think about that. DRKTS wrote: It is hard for a true scientist to deny that the theory is valid in face of that. Words have not been created to describe someone this stupid, yet here you are. 1. Have you heard of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy? No, of course you haven't. You aren't, by any means, the determinant of what constitutes a "true scientist." 2. You have this need to use the word "deny". You don't realize that when you do, you lose on the grounds of having attempted to shift your burden of proof. YOU bear the full responsibility to prove your assertion true. No one else is required to prove it false. Until you prove your assertion true, your claims are not "denied," they are summarily dismissed. You have not proven ANYTHING about Global Warming to be anything other than religious fantasy. Your WACKY dogma is summarily dismissed. 3. There is no scientific Global Warming theory just as there is no scientific Christianity theory. You have a religious dogma...a WACKY, fanatical religious dogma that calls itself "The Science" (and that confuses the dickens out the low-intellect congregation). 4. We humans collectively have no way to ascertain the average temperature of the planet within any sort of usable margin of error, ergo we cannot ascertain whether earth's average atmospheric temperature is changing within any sort of usable margin of error. If you believe those reports that are issued on the internet because "you read it on the internet" then you are one of those stupid, gullible dupes who is being bent over and reamed by people you trust. You definitely have problems. I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 26-09-2015 06:14 | |
| DRKTS★★☆☆☆ (305) |
IBdaMann wrote:Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate Odd how many scientists support it! IBdaMann wrote:Science doesn't care about "evidence" Now who is being scientifically illiterate? There are tens of thousands of scientific papers providing supporting evidence for AGW, there are no scientific papers disproving it (otherwise the theory would have been abandoned). You make a bunch of shrill unsupported assertions and then try to shift the burden of having to provide supporting evidence to those you are criticizing. That is the hallmark of someone who has no data to fall back on. |
| 26-09-2015 06:42 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14413) |
DRKTS wrote:Odd how many scientists support it! I'm sorry, but you are under this irrelevant impression because you are gulible. Secondly, no, there aren't ANY scientists who believe in violations of the laws of physics. Thirdly, it does not matter how many believers a church has. No amount of consensus of belief equates to science. DRKTS wrote: Now who is being scientifically illiterate? You are a dupe! Please let me be your banker. A paper does not constitute science. You apparently believe whatever your church orders you to believe. You definitely belong in the Global Warming congregation. DRKTS wrote: You make a bunch of shrill unsupported assertions and then try to shift the burden of having to provide supporting evidence to those you are criticizing. That is the hallmark of someone who has no data to fall back on. Apparently "1" is as high as you can count. I made one assertion which you have not refuted. That assertion is that there is no Global Warming science. Now I don't expect you to be able to refute it because you cannot even discern the difference between religion and science. You wouldn't understand what is required to have science. You worship a religion you believe is science. You worship an unfalsifiable dogma you call "The Science" and it confuses you. G . . U . . L . . L . . I . . B . . L . . E Hey, when you go to a Global Warming church service, does it close with the words "when I snap my fingers you will awaken and remember nothing"? I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 26-09-2015 12:23 | |
| DRKTS★★☆☆☆ (305) |
IBdaMann wrote:DRKTS wrote:Odd how many scientists support it! Well, that is the dumbest post I have seen on this forum to date. Congrtats on achieving a new low. |
| 26-09-2015 19:42 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14413) |
DRKTS wrote:Well, that is the dumbest post I have seen on this forum to date. Congrtats on achieving a new low. ...and your king is tipped. It was fun, though. Short, but fun. If you ever wish to play again, just let me know, or just post something else about how "all the evidence" proves your religion to be real and active in our lives or how all the scientists agree that your religion is the truth, the light and the way. I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 05-10-2015 03:27 | |
| Ceist★★★☆☆ (592) |
FriendOfOrion wrote: Who knew Ginger Spice was a physicist and that Charles Darwin is still alive? Let's have a look at that "Petition" Seattle Times article about people adding fake names to the "Petition" Business | Jokers Add Fake Names To Warming Petition | Seattle Times Newspaper The National Academy of Sciences: STATEMENT BY THE COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES REGARDING GLOBAL CHANGE PETITION National-Academies.org Scientific American: http://web.archive.org/web/20060823125025/http://www.sciam.com/page.cfm?section=sidebar&articleID=0004F43C-DC1A-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21 University of Wisconsin A Global Warming Counterfeit The Sceptics Society: Skeptic » eSkeptic » Wed., November 12th, 2008 32,000 scientists - Climate Denial Crock of the Week https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py2XVILHUjQ even Wikipedia Oregon Petition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Edited on 05-10-2015 03:35 |
| 05-10-2015 03:54 | |
| Ceist★★★☆☆ (592) |
IBdaMann wrote:DRKTS wrote:Odd how many scientists support it! When even pseudoscience conspiracy bloggers tell Sky Dragon Slayers* like you to go away because your embarrassingly ignorant crackpot claims make them look bad, it must get very lonely for you. *"Sky Dragon Slayers" reject the long established basic physics of the 'greenhouse' effect. The main reason seems to be their fundamentally flawed understanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics and atmospheric radiative heat transfer. Their views are not found in any physics textbooks or peer-reviewed Journals, only in self-published books like their "bible": "Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory". Edited on 05-10-2015 04:47 |
| 05-10-2015 19:18 | |
| drm★☆☆☆☆ (67) |
Kano wrote: I find this common meme to be odd. Humans and their civilization have evolved at a relatively cold period in the earth's recent history on a geological scale. We didn't come around 55 million years ago when it was much warmer. Similarly humans seem to thrive the most not in the hottest climates, not in the coldest, but in temperate zones. Not too hot, not too cold. We seem to do best with things about as they are now. |
| 17-07-2017 21:23 | |
| StarMan★☆☆☆☆ (88) |
Desertphile wrote: Richard Lindzen S. Fred Singer Murray Salby Don Easterbrook John Christy, IPCC Author Here are more should you care to retract your "laugh". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeC_J6Pk_1w
Should you be able to name "five scientists" who are skeptical of gravity, we can conflate the two. But you cannot, because your rhetoric is utterly meaningless. It is unintelligent and anti-scientific. There are many thousands of scientists and biologists who refute your claim of evolution being "an observed fact" as well, but you are trying to derail the subject of the thread. Very bad form, as usual. |
| RE: Nope17-07-2017 23:13 | |
| drm★☆☆☆☆ (67) |
These 5 people do not all disagree with the statement that manmade CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming. They may disagree with other aspects of the consensus, especially the magnitude of the impacts. But most of them agree that manmade CO2 causes global warming. |
Join the debate Scientific Consensus:
Related content
| Threads | Replies | Last post |
| Where the 97% consensus among scientists comes from | 38 | 16-06-2023 11:07 |
| There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N2 | 533 | 30-01-2023 07:22 |
| Scientific method in medicine | 8 | 20-02-2022 22:09 |
| SCIENTIFIC HONESTY AND QUANTUM COMPUTING'S LATEST THEORETICAL HURDLE | 1 | 11-11-2021 20:49 |
| Green Hydrogen Survey for scientific research | 6 | 02-12-2020 18:37 |