|Harnessing the Power of "Collective Intelligence" to Change Beliefs about Global Warming13-03-2019 17:59|
|Tai Hai Chen★★★★☆
Nearly all climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming.
There is no such thing as a Climate scientist.
|Into the Night★★★★★
IBdaMann wrote:Nearly all climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming.
There's no definition for 'global warming' either.
So...some bunch of ??? agree that humans are causing...?
The Parrot Killer
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Scientific American has become anything but. While perhaps 59% of Americans do believe in man-made climate change it is because they are being continuously propagandized by the media to be so.
This is criticized as only (only???) 12% of these scientists etc. have degrees in sciences related to climatology.
Don't look now but that is FAR more than those who are pushing the idea of Climate Change.
One has to wonder why we can show definitely that NASA is producing fake climate charts and indeed they have never made one single prediction that is accurate nor even close to being so. What is worse - if you use the NASA models they cannot even demonstrate the past climate conditions that we have actual data on.
The Skeptics, on the other hand, with their models of far reduced climate sensitivity that also show very little feedback are fairly accurate at predicting conditions before they occur.
We have a question to put to Scientific American - if you are indeed "scientific" why are you supporting a failed model and denying one that is actually predictive?
Dr. Michael Mann who was famous for his Hockey Stick curve of global warming has lost several lawsuits now because his data is entirely inaccurate and there is even email between him and his cohorts saying, "Since the climate is matching the data we'll have to change the data." That he still has a university chair is a disgrace to science.
Do you really believe that "climatology" is a thing? Have you ever seen any Climate science?
Please note that you are unable to define "climate" in any falsifiable manner such that science can even apply to it. You can't have science of a religious myth ergo there aren't any scientists of a religious myth.
Wake wrote: One has to wonder why we can show definitely that NASA is producing fake climate charts and indeed they have never made one single prediction that is accurate nor even close to being so.
Did you ever bother to ask why there are such charts coming from NASA? Do you imagine that it is their job? NASA is not the Weather Channel. They oversee putting things into orbit. Before the internet, did NASA ever make "predictions"? Why would anyone imagine that NASA now somehow does?
There's no substantive difference between warmizombies and "skeptics" that I can tell. They are just different sects of the same Global Warming religion. They all believe in "Greenhouse Effect," "Greenhouse Gas," "Forcings," "Feedbacks," "Global Climate" and "Climate Sensitivity." None of these are real. They are all components of the Global Warming mythology.
Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.
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
|Climatology just plays with what ever numbers they can dig up, or create, and call it accurate data. There is a lot of natural variance, and a huge margin of error, which is magnified by the scope of their claims. It's a huge planet, and reliable data is only for a short time, and relatively few monitoring stations. The amount of CO2 is so small, and the temperature change very small, considering the large margin of error, it's really nothing to base any actual observation on. The conclusion was made first, and any 'science' was used to justify the claim. The only validation, could come from waiting it out, or remove CO2 from the environment. CO2 is a potential experiment, but would be detrimental to life on this planet, just to prove CO2 might have a role, in a insignificant amount of increase in temperature. It's not actually proven there is any significant warming, or that warming isn't natural. There conclusion, that it could only be man-made CO2, and from burning fossil fuels, was made, before any observations. The outcome of any research must confirm their belief, and the only research they can do, is on a computer, a video game.|
|California Historic Power Outage!||19||26-10-2019 17:58|
|The Power That Mitch has||2||01-10-2019 11:22|
|Wind power is the earliest way to generate power, but there's a reason it stopped being used.||12||26-04-2019 02:48|
|How can hippies beat CO2? CO2 is power of nature? Man is nothing compared to nature.||2||24-02-2019 22:55|
|Japan and Russia build coal power plants and White countries can't? How is this fair?||0||24-02-2019 21:43|