There is still no Global Warming science.
| There is still no Global Warming science.22-10-2014 21:16 | |
IBdaMann ★★★★★(14406) |
In order to have any Global Warming science there must be a falsifiable Global Warming model (that isn't false). Without one, Global Warming cannot rise above the level of "religion." If anyone believes s/he has Global Warming science, please post the falsifiable Global Warming model into this thread. I prefer the actual model be posted into this thread, not the link, because thus far every single person who has posted a link has posted a bogus link that did not lead to the falsifiable Global Warming model (that isn't false). |
| 08-11-2014 16:04 | |
| Anthony☆☆☆☆☆ (4) |
"There are an estimated 1.3 trillion barrels of proven oil reserve left in the world's major fields, which at present rates of consumption will be sufficient to last 40 years. By 2040, production levels may be down to 15 million barrels per day – around 20% of what we currently consume. It is likely by then that the world's population will be twice as large, and more of it industrialised (and therefore oil dependent)." (Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 2014) That's a direct quote from the Institute of Mechanical Engineers and here's the website http://www.imeche.org/knowledge/themes/energy/energy-supply/fossil-energy/when-will-oil-run-out. From this, do you disagree that regardless over who is right and who is wrong we will eventually end up doing the same thing, reverting to renewable energies because we will have none of our current energy sources left to consume.? The Climate Change activists argue for policies to implement renewable energy production and curb non-renewable energy source consumption, could you get behind the argument that we need to not because of climate change but because it is a finite resource? |
| 15-11-2014 04:32 | |
| Surface Detail★★★★☆ (1673) |
Global warming is easily falsifiable. According to the theory, most of the excess heat arising from the insulating effect of CO2 should go into the oceans. As the oceans warm, the sea level should rise due to thermal expansion. Hence global warming would be falsified by ocean levels that fail to rise over a period of time that smooths weather effects, say 10 years. If the sea level does not rise over a period of 10 years for no apparent reason, then global warming is falsified. Simples! |
| 15-11-2014 08:33 | |
| Anthony☆☆☆☆☆ (4) |
I'm sorry but that wasn't my argument at all. I've no idea how old you are but I'm going to assume that you plan to be alive by 2040. My argument is that the argument between whether Global Warming is real or not is not the uniting issue (uniting as in one we can all get behind). The uniting issue is that in my lifetime and probably yours we will have to find an alternate source of energy to those that pollute CO2, as these resources are in fact finite. While yes, the infinite sources of energy (wind, solar and ocean) are expensive to harness and research. But on the other hand, we will have to spend that money eventually as 2040 isn't actually THAT far off. Furthermore, the more we research and utilize these infinite resources the more inexpensive it will become. |
| 16-11-2014 14:46 | |
| Surface Detail★★★★☆ (1673) |
Anthony wrote: I know that wasn't your argument! I was contesting the OP's assertion that global warming is not a science because it is not falsifiable by pointing out that it is, in fact, falsifiable. There is no doubt that global warming is a scientifically based theory that is backed up with a large amount of evidence. I agree to a certain extent with your argument about the need to find alternative sources of energy due to declining availability of natural resources. However, I feel that the risk of inducing catastrophic climate change makes that need more urgent. From an environmental point of view, we cannot take the risk of using up all the fossil fuel that can be economically obtained; most of it has to stay in the ground. |
| 16-11-2014 15:09 | |
| Anthony☆☆☆☆☆ (4) |
I'm sorry I got confused and thought OP was just repeating his argument. Also I agree completely with you but I find that argument useful when people are a little defiant in the science and the data, even if it isn't perfect. Edited on 16-11-2014 15:11 |
| 22-11-2014 13:27 | |
Abraham3 ★★☆☆☆(256) |
There are a number of ways in which AGW could be falsified: 1) As stated, no sea level rise 2) Show that CO2 does not absorb infrared radiation that is not already absorbed by water vapor or any other GHG 3) Show that humans are not responsible for the 120 ppm of CO2 added to the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution 4) Show that greenhouse warming does not actually take place 5) Show that Planck's formula for the spectrum of blackbody radiation is in error 6) Show that Stefan Boltzman's formula for the power of black body radiation is in error There are many more. The claim that it is not falsifiable is a common denier meme and it's only basis is that it can be sold to people with little understanding of the actual science behind AGW or the scientific method. |
| 21-12-2014 19:35 | |
| mywifesatan★☆☆☆☆ (59) |
1. sea level has been rising since the last ice age..that is in no way proof of agw..even an increase in rate doesn't prove agw 2.There is no evidence that the current amount of C02 in our atmosphere absorbs infared radiation and has an effect on global temperature 3.adding that amount of c02 to the atmosphere doesn't prove that it causes agw..that doesn't even make sense 4.greenhouse effect has always taken place...nobody here is questioning the greenhouse effect...this doesn't prove agw 5. ok ..show me the equation that proves agw as pertaining to the ration of c02 in our atmosphere 6th time asking now.. 6. ok..similar question..show me the formula for that as pertaining to our current atmospheric makeup sources http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/ seal level rise http://www.johnlocke.org/newsletters/research/2012-09-28-u630gukt7imao30uop3md4ug85-enviro-update.html will you now show me that study or admit it doesn't exist? probably not right? for some reason i think a part of you still wants to debate...albeit a little part |
| 22-12-2014 10:17 | |
| orogenicman★☆☆☆☆ (57) |
IBdaMann wrote: All scientific models are falsifiable, even global warming models. Next. 'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.' -- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens |
| 22-12-2014 12:35 | |
| mywifesatan★☆☆☆☆ (59) |
maybe just show real scientific evidence that current co2 emissons causes agw? that would have to be a study showing the amount of co2 in our atmosphere causing warming due to the greenhouse effect. that would give you causation. what is the evidence that agw exist? rising temperatures of any rate doesn't in any way prove that enough to make it a viable theory. Temperatures have been manipulated anyway but even the data of a .8 centigrade rise in 130 years..that wasn't a steady rise as agreed upon by the ipcc..that in itself isn't proof of agw..even if it rose 4 centigrade..that is still not a valid conclusion. To be a viable theory you would have to show causation in a respectable way, correct? You are saying the basis the theory was formalized was respectable or valid? Show me how... Show me that causation..show me that study...show me the formula.. |
| 22-12-2014 15:04 | |
| Abraham3★★☆☆☆ (256) |
mywifesatan wrote:    mywifesatan wrote: Studies that would have produced these data. mywifesatan wrote: Sure. mywifesatan wrote: That CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that CO2 levels have been rising, that by several means it can be shown that virtually every molecule of added CO2 since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution originated from the combustion of fossil fuel, that the calculable warming from the increased CO2 level matches the observed warming and that despite lengthy searches and the investigation of numerous candidates, no other cause of sufficient magnitude has been identified. mywifesatan wrote: For someone who has read the entire output of the IPCC, you seem remarkably unaware of the evidence behind, reasoning within or actual content of the theory. mywifesatan wrote: Adjustments to temperature records have - as was intended - made them more accurate. If you believe otherwise, let's see some evidence. But since not a single complaint about those adjustments has been raised by actual climate scientists - even folks like Judith Curry and Roy Spencer - you may have some difficulty locating actual science supporting such a view. mywifesatan wrote: "Agreed upon by the IPCC"?!?!? You've read all their reports. Show us where the IPCC ever stated such a thing. mywifesatan wrote: What I have been saying is that a very large majority of the world's active climate scientists say the theory is acceptable. It is that upon which I base my own acceptance. I am not a scientist and quite obviously neither are you. mywifesatan wrote: The formula? Would you like one with logarithms? You tell us you have read "the IPCC's report, yes all of it". Then you have seen the evidence of causation; you've read of the many, many studies and you have seen more than a few formulas. I'm sorry but your demand that I produce them is disingenuous. Edited on 22-12-2014 15:08 |
| 22-12-2014 15:10 | |
| Abraham3★★☆☆☆ (256) |
orogenicman wrote:IBdaMann wrote: IBDaMann isn't the first, but I find it interesting that he claims something is not falsifiable and yet he knows it to be false. |
| 22-12-2014 15:20 | |
| mywifesatan★☆☆☆☆ (59) |
not studies that would have produced this data. A controlled study using the the amount of c02 in our atmosphere. that is not much to ask...not a projection...not an assumption...not conjecture..not an idea... not a consensus.. Show me the studies to produce these graphs. show me the formula pertaining to the amount of c02 in our atmosphere.....they show nothing in addition to that they are not certain of the half life of these long lived greenhouse gases...you know what I am asking for..it does not exist..you can give me a million graphs..projections and conjecture is not enough to form a theory. |
| 22-12-2014 15:45 | |
| mywifesatan★☆☆☆☆ (59) |
That CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that CO2 levels have been rising, that by several means it can be shown that virtually every molecule of added CO2 since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution originated from the combustion of fossil fuel, that the calculable warming from the increased CO2 level matches the observed warming and that despite lengthy searches and the investigation of numerous candidates, no other cause of sufficient magnitude has been identified. what cacluable warming pertaing to co2..no other cause? really..you want to stick with that statement? For someone who has read the entire output of the IPCC, you seem remarkably unaware of the evidence behind, reasoning within or actual content of the theory. ok..enlighten me with all this evidence if not the rise is air or sea temperature..well sea temperature has been proven not to rise since 2003 What I have been saying is that a very large majority of the world's active climate scientists say the theory is acceptable. It is that upon which I base my own acceptance. I am not a scientist and quite obviously neither are you. ok there is major problems with what you say here...what encompasses this theory? that the earth climate is changing? that co2 from manmade sources have caused all of this supposed warming? that it is possible that co2 has contributed to some of the warming? that the projections made by the ipcc are considered scientifically valid by a consensus of scientists?..what is your point of view..and what is your opinion on what the majority of scientists think about this issue? which category are they in? If it is that climate is changing..well I agree..if it is that manmade c02 might contribute ..i will not refute that..if it is that c02 is the main reason for warming..i will not agree..if it is the ipcc projections have a real scientific basis..i will not agree.. now as far as these consensus reports that you like to throw around..where do you get this information and what was the question they were having a consensus on..really this has to be cleared up..i'm sure you would agree Edited on 22-12-2014 15:52 |
| 22-12-2014 15:58 | |
| Abraham3★★☆☆☆ (256) |
I find it is as pointless as ever to debate any of this with you. You are still a source of nothing but unsubstantiated assertions contrary to the holdings of mainstream science on a dozen different topics. For instance: link us to a study showing no ocean warming since 2003. |
| 22-12-2014 16:10 | |
| Abraham3★★☆☆☆ (256) |
Something like these:.png/400px-Ocean_Heat_Content_(2012).png)      But different. Edited on 22-12-2014 16:13 |
| 22-12-2014 16:12 | |
| mywifesatan★☆☆☆☆ (59) |
what are the holdings of mainstream science? and where is your evidence for that? same question again..now you are diverting 3 different major points ..the study you can't produce...the fact you deleted the first time i asked you that question and won't even admit to something like that..and now the very important issue of what exactly are we debating here in the first place? no ocean warming.. http://landscapesandcycles.net/cooling-deep-oceans.html they couldn't measure global ocean temperature prior 2003... Edited on 22-12-2014 16:14 |
| 22-12-2014 16:45 | |
| Abraham3★★☆☆☆ (256) |
Jim Steele (who has no training in oceanography or physics) has simply written an article about studies studies conducted by retired oceanographic geophysicist Carl Wunsch, although he seems to believe the studies authors were Ida and Cecil Green, the deceased funders behind a chair of geophysics at Stanford held by Dr Wunsch. Ida died in 1986 and Cecil in 2003. Dr Wunsch believes abyssal waters are cooling but still believes in AGW personally - on his personal website he links to an article extremely critical of "The Global Warming Swindle". In his study, quoted by Steele, he states ""Direct determination of changes in oceanic heat content over the last 20 years are not in conflict with estimates of the radiative forcing" Keep in mind that neither cooling in the abyss (which Wunsch admits is not supported by the findings of other researchers) nor cooling at the surface are sufficient to cause a reduction in total global ocean heat content, which is still rising. So, you've got nothing. Try again. Edited on 22-12-2014 16:59 |
| 22-12-2014 17:00 | |
| Abraham3★★☆☆☆ (256) |
PS: The world's navies have been dropping XBTs to at least 2500 feet and often to 5 and 10 thousand feed, on a more than daily basis, from virtually every vessel they possess, since 1966. The oceanographic records contain MILLIONS of BT traces prior to 2003. |
| 22-12-2014 17:13 | |
| mywifesatan★☆☆☆☆ (59) |
dropping thermometers off vessels out at sea prior to 2003 did not give accurate sea temperature readings...look you are under the impression that all these projects to prove global warming have no bias to get a certain conclusion..you can refute any sources I give you..that is just your opinion...i can refute your sources as well..in fact your sources don't load..I know where you get them from anyway..so It doesn't matter..you can't just give me the temperature graphs for instance..which have been manipulated...you claim they have changed. it is just your opinion that changing global air temperature data or global sea temperature..was a valid adjustment..like you said..you are not a scientist and you aren't working on this study...your point of view is that there is no bias for any reason in these studies unless of course it is funded by big oil or republicans...I haven't even brought up the pause in warming since 1998...which i'm sure you have "mountains of evidence" to explain that too... you continue to divert from those three things...which you know what they are.. what is so hard about explaining this...it doesn't even threaten your point of view... ok there is major problems with what you say here...what encompasses this theory? that the earth climate is changing? that co2 from manmade sources have caused all of this supposed warming? that it is possible that co2 has contributed to some of the warming? that the projections made by the ipcc are considered scientifically valid by a consensus of scientists?..what is your point of view..and what is your opinion on what the majority of scientists think about this issue? which category are they in? If it is that climate is changing..well I agree..if it is that manmade c02 might contribute ..i will not refute that..if it is that c02 is the main reason for warming..i will not agree..if it is the ipcc projections have a real scientific basis..i will not agree.. now as far as these consensus reports that you like to throw around..where do you get this information and what was the question they were having a consensus on..really this has to be cleared up..i'm sure you would agree |
| 22-12-2014 20:38 | |
| orogenicman★☆☆☆☆ (57) |
mywifesatan wrote: For some unfathomable reason, you apparently believe that direct observations from nature are not valid data. CO2 IS a potent greenhouse gas - this has been demonstrated in the field and in the laboratory. There is no question there. Now, unless you have some miraculous evidence that it isn't that everyone else on the planet has missed (or that it somehow changes into something other than a greenhouse gas once it gets into the atmosphere), your argument is going to fall on deaf ears within the scientific community. Moreover, if the demonstrated anthropomorphic CO2 concentrations aren't a significant culprit in global climate change (mind you that you would also have to show what all that manmade CO2 IS doing while it is in the atmosphere if not warming the planet), what alternative causation do you propose? Got anything like that? 'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.' -- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens Edited on 22-12-2014 20:40 |
| 22-12-2014 22:59 | |
| mywifesatan★☆☆☆☆ (59) |
I'm sorry so what exactly is your causation? that co2 is a greenhouse gas as proven in controlled studies...i agree with that..but that is not causation to support agw...excuse me that co2 is a POTENT greenhouse gas that is the key scientific word isn't it..so that makes it valid then..i'm sorry..they based this whole theory on conjecture that the amount of c02 added to the atmosphere by man was warming the planet in the early 80's..they used temperature progression models based on how the temperature had risen since the last few years before the theory.. in accordance to the increased c02..their projections never proved correct..can we agree on that? the ipcc projection on temperature rise were never reasonably close to prediction. they have only gotten worse at predicting..yet they continue to make more aggressive assumptions on global temperature increase...not to mention seal level rise..and killer tornados and hurricanes...this has been proven an incorrect assumption even if the temperature rises and there is a slight increase in water vapor...that theory is not valid either...there simply has been no increase in weather disasters or the strength of them.....they have never had a study to prove the amount of c02 in the atmosphere to cause warming from the greenhouse effect...if you don't think that is important..they i don't know what to tell you.
Edited on 22-12-2014 23:01 |
| 22-12-2014 23:22 | |
| mywifesatan★☆☆☆☆ (59) |
the manmade co2 in the atmosphere is minuscule..it accounts for 4% of all the co2..you sure like to exaggerate..so you ask what is all this horrendous amounts of extra c02 doing to the atmosphere?..nobody knows that..it could be doing absolutely nothing to temperature though and the evidence has been really pointing towards that. as far as there being no other factors that could explain this warming which is mostly fabricated..that is absurd. there are so many possible factors..there are also so many possible factors that you and I and all the scientists don't even know about..this is a complex system..saying we know how climate works would be like saying we know how the brain works...we simply do not..not you ..not me..not any scientist. |
| 23-12-2014 00:09 | |
| orogenicman★☆☆☆☆ (57) |
I'll repeat my post for those who are apparently slow to comprehend the English language. Let me help you a little. If you are having trouble understanding my words, try to say them aloud, being sure to pronunciate each syllable. If it is a word you don't not understand, there are online dictionaries available for your assistance. Again: [quote=me]For some unfathomable reason, you apparently believe that direct observations from nature are not valid data. CO2 IS a potent greenhouse gas - this has been demonstrated in the field and in the laboratory. There is no question there. Now, unless you have some miraculous evidence that it isn't that everyone else on the planet has missed (or that it somehow changes into something other than a greenhouse gas once it gets into the atmosphere), your argument is going to fall on deaf ears within the scientific community. Moreover, if the demonstrated anthropomorphic CO2 concentrations aren't a significant culprit in global climate change (mind you that you would also have to show what all that manmade CO2 IS doing while it is in the atmosphere if not warming the planet), what alternative causation do you propose? Got anything like that?[/quote] |
| 23-12-2014 00:19 | |
| mywifesatan★☆☆☆☆ (59) |
i understand your post...there was nothing hard to understand about it..i answered you..you have no causation..nothing you don't even have anything to say about what i answered you with...you are completely out of ideas...my argument doesn't fall on deaf ears on the scientific community...you don't know the scientific community.or.what they think of this issue..you think almost all scientists believe co2 has caused all this supposed warming?..that is a lie..i have never seen evidence of that..but i have seen interviews and papers from many highly educated and acclaimed scientists that totally refute this theory..some of these scientists have been on the ipcc and have worked on projects funded to come to a agw conclusion....the consensus propaganda is a lie.. |
| 23-12-2014 04:13 | |
| Abraham3★★☆☆☆ (256) |
Who do you believe is telling the lie? |
| 23-12-2014 11:38 | |
| mywifesatan★☆☆☆☆ (59) |
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136 http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html http://www.petitionproject.org/ you can get the full wsj article if you google it without subscription |
| 23-12-2014 12:57 | |
| orogenicman★☆☆☆☆ (57) |
mywifesatan wrote: See, the problem here is that you keep making these extraordinary claims and don't provide even an ounce of evidence to support it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence in their support. You've been repeatedly asked to support your claims, and you refuse. I can only conclude, therefor, that you are a troll, and aren't actually interested in having a reasoned discussion. If I am wrong, then prove me wrong. 'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.' -- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens |
| 23-12-2014 13:30 | |
| mywifesatan★☆☆☆☆ (59) |
you don't have any original ideas on the topic..furthermore you don't even form your own arguments..you piggy back off other posters...there are no extraordinary claims..that is your opinion..which is based on misinformation and most likely a tribal mentality with no chance of free thought whatsoever..you started your first post with me as a personal insult..you continue to run personal insults that prove to me on top on everything else you have no sense of humor whatsoever....you have nothing..you never did. all you have is anger on an issue that should have nothing to do with emotions..ideology or tribalism...you will be ignored by me for now on because you don't bring anything to this debate at all besides your ignorance and anger |
| 23-12-2014 14:16 | |
| Abraham3★★☆☆☆ (256) |
mywifesatan wrote: 1) The link you provided will not allow me to open the WSJ article without subscribing or logging in. Perhaps you weren't aware of this, but for several years now the WSJ has been owned by Rupert Murdoch, the owner of Fox News and is exactly as reliable a source on global warming issues. 2) Note that the article claiming Cook, Nuccitelli et al had misclassified papers was able to find three authors making that complaint. The Cook study looked at 11,944 papers from 29,083 authors. Of papers expressing an opinion, 97.1% were found to support the consensus opinion (the Earth is getting warmer and human activity is the primary cause). In a follow-on study, 8,547 authors were asked to rate their own papers and responses were received from 1,200 of them. They excluded all papers that "were not peer-reviewed, not climate-related or had no abstract" and ended up with the opinions of 1,189 authors about 2,142 papers they had written. The paper's authors judged a smaller number of their papers to express no opinion than had Cook's team examining abstracts. Of those expressing an opinion, 97.2% supported the consensus opinion. Do you really think all that can be refuted by the opinions of three authors? And you might want to look up the history of the good Dr Tol before you mention him again. 3) If you would like an example of a "study" which falsely classifies individuals and which accepts the opinions of individuals in fields for which they hold no qualification, there can be no better than "The Petition Project". You are forced to use low-value sources like these because the vast majority of active climate scientists DO accept anthropogenic global warming. The world is getting warmer and that warming is going to have drastic effects, costly both in dollars and human suffering. That warming is primarily the result of human activity. Failing to act quickly and decisively to mitigate this threat will be an incredibly irresponsible choice. Edited on 23-12-2014 14:37 |
| 23-12-2014 14:54 | |
| mywifesatan★☆☆☆☆ (59) |
i told you to google the article..to get it in full i can give you countless sources....you can refute them all...they are not low value please site your evidence of any consensus that you have claimed. your point of view is that the vast majority of climate scientists accept as the primary cause of warming. show your evidence. i can keep producing evidence on the fraud of consensus...it has been investigated numerous times your refuting of sources is based on your ideology..that somehow only liberals or environmentalists would be ethical on this issue. the fact is there is astronomical amounts of money and power riding on this issue..mostly to be gained by those who benefit from sustaining the agw theory....independent journalist have investigated this issue of consensus. I'm sure you will tell me somehow they are linked to big oil or those horrible republicans... you have no basis to refute my sources other then your own bias...you have no proof that wall street journal investigation is invalid..not to mention you have the burden of proof to prove any credible consensus..i would be proving a negative |
| 23-12-2014 18:04 | |
| Abraham3★★☆☆☆ (256) |
I gave you the links clearly demonstrating an overwhelming consensus long ago. You rejected them, apparently without reading them, because they came from Wikipedia. Then I posted the EXTENSIVE references to the Wikipedia article. You ignored that. An overwhelming consensus exists among active climate scientists that AGW is a valid description of our climate's current behavior. There is a great deal more private money on the side of those attempting to deny AGW than on those who accept it, your ridiculous claims notwithstanding. Your record so far on providing references for your own extraordinary claims does not justify your refusal to provide any more. The truth of the matter is that your positions are not supported by scientists or science. |
| 23-12-2014 19:16 | |
| mywifesatan★☆☆☆☆ (59) |
you gave me a wikapedia page..which is a joke within itself...nobody debating anything will accept a wikapedia page as a credible reference..all the sited sources are from studies funded by environmental groups or liberals..I refute them based on their bias..see how easy that is..and yes they have deep bias and conflict of interest running up the wazoo every study to prove agw has been funded in the interest to prove the theory and to be used to implement power over people and how the use energy sources...this is on a global scale..that is a enormous amount of power...if you think the little money used to fund studies by oil companies or by your republican friends is more than the research being done by environmental groups..liberal governments..liberal elites.. not to mention almost the whole ipcc..you are living some sort of bizarro world with no logic. I know they teach you in college liberals are always right and conservatives are always wrong. I have been to college. somehow you haven't grown out of that separate reality. there is no mentality short of a complete hard line liberal religious ideolog that would come to such a conclusion that the right wing and big oil are running or controlling this debate any way..you truly believe all this funded research by non republicans or oil companies is completely innocent and ethical in every way...that is delusion..neither side are ethical..believe me..i am not a republican..i have no skin in this fight. i can smell a load of horsecrap a mile away though. In reality there is no reliable research on this topic...but through your own research you can practice common sense separate of your personal political team. you will find out this issue stinks..it is not kosher..and that it is completely political in every way Edited on 23-12-2014 19:19 |
| 23-12-2014 19:44 | |
| mywifesatan★☆☆☆☆ (59) |
In all fairness you don't know the elite scientific community..there are not that many true "climate scientists" there is not really a qaulifying criteria for that anyway...very few scientists study this...you never gave me proof of a consensus..saying something vague like 97% of scientists..what does that mean?.every scientist in the world was polled? There are so many ways to run this scam. there never was any poll ever to support your claim..you have no source..you just believe what is being reported by liberal news outlets...that would be every news station besides fox news on tv..I know..how dare fox news exist! If this is what you base your assertion on that agw is a fact and we all are doomed.....and you might want to rethink your standpoint Edited on 23-12-2014 19:48 |
| 24-12-2014 06:15 | |
| orogenicman★☆☆☆☆ (57) |
mywifesatan wrote: And yet you don't, even after two people repeatedly call you on the fact that you don't. Where's the beef, bubba? As for your earlier response to my post, I rest my case. 'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.' -- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens |
| 24-12-2014 06:18 | |
| orogenicman★☆☆☆☆ (57) |
mywifesatan wrote: Yeah, yeah, it's all a big conspiracy. We've heard this before, mostly from people with serious psychological problems. Poor dear. 'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.' -- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens |
| 01-02-2015 22:08 | |
| update☆☆☆☆☆ (3) |
All gases have different atomic weights and molecular sizes. |
| 02-02-2015 00:03 | |
| orogenicman★☆☆☆☆ (57) |
Thank you for that observation, Mr. Obvious. |
| 30-04-2015 13:22 | |
| climate scientist★★☆☆☆ (257) |
mywifesatan wrote: In all fairness you don't know the elite scientific community..there are not that many true "climate scientists" there is not really a qaulifying criteria for that anyway...very few scientists study this...you never gave me proof of a consensus..saying something vague like 97% of scientists..what does that mean?.every scientist in the world was polled? There are so many ways to run this scam. there never was any poll ever to support your claim..you have no source..you just believe what is being reported by liberal news outlets...that would be every news station besides fox news on tv..I know..how dare fox news exist! If this is what you base your assertion on that agw is a fact and we all are doomed.....and you might want to rethink your standpoint Hi everyone. I am a climate scientist. I work in a department with at least 50 other people that would identify themselves as climate scientists. There are at least 10 other such departments in the country I live in alone. I would estimate that there are thousands of people world-wide who identify themselves as climate scientists and who publish research on climate science in peer reviewed journals. The Cook et al. (2013) paper referring to 97% of agreement between climate scientists about AGW examined abstracts from peer reviewed climate research papers, and found that out of those that stated a view on climate change, 97.1% endorsed AGW. If you were serious in finding 'the truth' about climate change, I would recommend that instead of debating your opinion on this forum and reading about the 'climate change conspiracy' on the internet, that you should arrange a meeting with some real climate scientists at a university or institution close to where you live, and ask if you can meet with them to discuss your concerns about the link between atmospheric CO2 and AGW and see what they have to say and show you. This would be a more evidence based way of finding out more about climate change, rather than relying on non-expert opinions on the internet, and I am sure that most climate scientists would be happy to talk to you about their research and work. |
| 23-07-2015 12:07 | |
| arthur18☆☆☆☆☆ (42) |
Dear climate scientist. If you say that most climate scientists would be happy to talk, then why have all these climate scientists refused a public debate on the issue?? |
Join the debate There is still no Global Warming science.:
Related content
| Threads | Replies | Last post |
| The History of Science | 10 | 22-04-2024 16:30 |
| A Science Test | 18 | 09-12-2023 00:53 |
| Magic or Science | 7 | 06-12-2023 00:29 |
| Science and Atmospheric Chemistry | 6 | 25-11-2023 20:55 |
| The SCIENCE of the "Greenhouse Effect" | 291 | 05-11-2023 22:46 |