To me, the 'climate change' thing, when viewed from a variety of angles and reasonably well studied, is one of the most obvious scams I've come across yet. It's also probably the most well funded so it is not surpriseing to see it persists. I have not qualms about calling out 'shit sources' in street lingo. My thesis is that 'climate change' is being used as a Swiss army knife for any project and any other scammers wish. All it takes is for some (not "97%") scientists to bend their ethics under the justification that it's "for a good cause." Upon this foundation the establishment media can build a spectacular looking stage show for the masses. And they have. For fun: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.htmlI love the idea of 'oooh spooky conspiracy'. I guess if you have cognitive issues that prevent from you agreeing with science, that has to be your only out? If one is to question this premise that it is a paid off conspiracy, you might start with.... Where do they get their funding? Is it all that money being provided so that those profitable solar companies can do better? Oh, the whole world is up in arms because a few guys with phds need a job? It is just nonsensical. This world is run by oil money. If there is money being put into anything, it is into the skeptic side. Global warming does not agree with oil company profits. You guys are so ass-backwards. |
|
|
|
I do not know how anyone, but in my country this year the cold winter. We had no anomalies in summer. It seems to me that the story about global warming is a fiction to fool people and earn money for studies.
In America, professors who study this stuff could typically get more money doing other things. If profs were after money they'd just go get a private industry job. This is such a rubbish angle to attempt to discredit global warming. BTW, nice pointless post to get free ad for whatever ark is. |
|
|
|
Just the number, please. 1900 on will do. Let's hear it. hmm... You can't click on a link? :/ And what numbers are you talking about? You want the correlation coefficient that's it? Sorry to say that but that's a bit a dumb question. I can give you one if you want but there will be one for each set of data and each period of time, that's why graphs are a better tool for this kind of analysis. Here is a link to someone who understood this very clearly, sadly it's not in English so I'm not sure most of you will have the use of it: http://cedric.ringenbach.com/2009/07/19/correlation-entre-co2-et-temperature/Here is a French study giving a correlation coefficient between CO2 and Temperature in Arctic of 0.75 http://lgge.osug.fr/IMG/fparrenin/courses/2008-2009/paleoclimats/Teiser-Gouttevin.pdfA Nasa study between temperature anomalies on general between 1959 and 2010, coefficient of 0.9 https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.global-warming/_NCNIKqOzZw%5B1-25%5D If you got any question I'll gladly answer it but try to be more precise please, asking for "numbers" is a bit too general ^^ Do you want the dataset? Spendolus lives in his own world. I once posted a paper that basically picked apart how all the skeptics have a huge anti-government cognitive bias. Well.... we're on a cryptocurrency forum, so you put 2+2 together. So the paper I put here.. Spendolus insisted up and down that it was behind a paywall. I checked it from multiple browsers and had no issue. He would rather go that route than even admit the paper exists. I don't remember the details, I can go look it back up .. but the "oh it is behind a paywall" is another variation on "the science is wrong" which is what these people use to maintain their delusions to themselves. |
|
|
|
I've asked those who claim "correlation" for, duh, the CORRELATION. Which they do claim is so astonishingly positive for those who are believers, at least. Now I've asked for the correlation. Those who made the claim need to support the claim. Otherwise you/them appear to be resisting showing the validity of the claim made. As if you have a weak or non existent case, and you've been caught in it. As if you've been caught in a lie. Stop the silliness please. I assume those who claimed the evidence of correlation will show the number that supports fully, partly, or not, their claim. Otherwise this last five to ten posts is yet another piece of evidence of the ducking, dodging and weaseling of politicalized climate science. In science and engineering, the way this works is very simple. Q. What is "A"? A. Oh, of course. "A" is 123.45%. Q. Thank you. That is <<on and on discussion>> Someone gave you links to show you the correlation. You just choose to ignore them from your trait that seems to be bordering on mental illness. If you want someone to calculate the correlation coefficients you need to give them the datasets. Otherwise you'll have infinite outs. Just like there is always something wrong with the data. (And to be fair, we should question the data.. but not in some weird way that just suits our own personalized biases) Almost all skeptic arguments are based around that. It makes denial cognitively easy, because this data is very complicated with lots of nuances and places for people to screw up. Wait, there isn't anything wrong with the data from the guy that all the skeptics cite just take him as the truth! The skeptics never question his motives or even his data. It is clearly you people just have huge cognitive biases. If you are willing to give me the dataset, pay for my time, I can calculate a coefficient. That means you have to agree on the input. You won't even take that step, let alone pay for my time. So so silly. |
|
|
|
.... Pffft. skepticalscience.com is a joke. Even their name. Typical carbon-tax scammers in all ways, and especially in their leaning on censorship to cover for their lack of 'science'. I find Murry Salby to be much more rigorous and credible. Skepsci is a propaganda operation, no more or less. I'm curious... Could you people please define what is a reliable source of information? Because when I read you I get that: Independent sites like skeptical science are a joke Private medias like "Le Monde Diplomatique" are a joke Popular medias like CNN are a joke Governmental or international institutes like NASA are a joke Where do you get your data from then? Since you ask... I spend a fair bit of time (because I have it) reading up on a pretty broad swath of topics (because I enjoy it.) Most of this stuff cannot be fully understood using a narrow focus since it has a lot of overlap. These topic run the gamut of politics, geo-politics, economics, sociology, science, history, etc, etc. In addition to reading/watching what others put out, I also in my own mind play around with all of the things I've taken in. Or as many as my mental ability allows at least. Pretty standard hypothesis testing produces theories which are strong because most or all of the pieces from the broad ranging exploration fall into place. There are some pretty basic tools from a well worn toolbox which can be applied to such efforts. Among them, 'null hypothesis testing', 'cui bono', 'means, motive, and opportunity'. So, to answer your question, I 'get my data' from a wide range of sources, but use my own mental library of observations and methods of thesis to discriminate it. That is a fancy way of dodging his answer. You come across as real smart too. You're pretty good with words, but it could be summed up as your "hunch". And your hunch is because of your extreme anti-government biases. Global warming can not be addressed through normal market incentives. There is a tragedy of the commons type issue solving global warming in a market approach. It will require government intervention. That sucks, but it doesn't invalidate the science. |
|
|
|
"The greatest rationale to become a Leftie is immunity from the rules they impose on the rest of us. The sanctioning of the double standards and hypocrisy."--Andrew Breitbart
How wonderful you would quote Breitbart.... Certainly, since you insist. The last three years may eventually come to be seen as the final death rattle of the global warming scare. Thanks what’s now recognised as an unusually strong El Nino, global temperatures were driven to sufficiently high levels to revive the alarmist narrative – after an unhelpful pause period of nearly 20 years – that the world had got hotter than ever before. It resulted in a slew of “Hottest Year Evah” stories from the usual suspects. As I patiently explained at the time – here, here, and here – this wasn’t science but propaganda. If you’re a reader of Breitbart or one of the sceptical websites this will hardly have come as news to you. But, of course, across much of the mainstream media – and, of course, on all the left-leaning websites – these “Hottest Year Evah” stories were relayed as fact. And, inevitably, were often cited by a host of experts on Twitter as proof that evil deniers are, like, anti-science and totally evil and really should be thrown in prison for sacrificing the future of the world’s children by promoting Big-Oil-funded denialism. This is why there is such an ideological divide regarding climate change between those on the left and those on the right. The lefties get their climate information from unreliable fake news sites like Buzzfeed. Just recently, I had to school my former Telegraph colleague Tom Chivers, now of Buzzfeed, with a piece titled Debunked: Another Buzzfeed ‘Hottest Year Evah’ Story. Perhaps I’m wrong: I don’t actually look at Buzzfeed, except when they’re doing something worthwhile like “Five Deadliest Killer Sharks” or “Ten Cutest Kitten Photos”. But I’ve a strong suspicion they haven’t yet covered this 1 degree C temperature fall because, well why would they? It just wouldn’t suit their alarmist narrative. http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/11/30/global-temperatures-plunge-icy-silence-climate-alarmists/Which has the main source as The Daily Mall ..... whatever that is. Lol. Breitbart panders to fear like no one else... Don't tell 'em I clued you in though. They like their sheep. |
|
|
|
...
Global warming/climate change, you'll never find doubter who also doesn't hate government. I also like to keep government to a minimum but that doesn't make me see reality different.
'Never' is a strong term. I'm probably typical in that I'm not especially or ever remotely 'anti-government'. I'm 'anti-corrupt-government'. The 'global climate change' thing is a hoax and a fraud, but it's not really spawned from any particular government level. It's the brain-child of a group of multi-nationals who have a huge amount of influence in a lot of governments and have made these governments highly corrupt. That includes my own here in the U.S.. More importantly for the purposes of this discussion, these global interests which have mind-boggling resources at their disposal have had the same impact on academia. Indeed, they have pretty much succeeded in turning 'science' into a new form of religion. Typical of religion, the notion of a 'fact' has a different meaning than it does in classical science. By controlling both academia and government, and by augmenting 'fact' with input injected from other entities which the globalists also control (media, NGO, etc) they have succeeded in ' controlling the narrative' with respect to 'climate change' to a significant degree. Not as much as they would like to have and need to have however. Look for this new 'fake news' invention to have an immediate and tangible impact on the climate change discussions. When I read this stuff about the conspiracies and shit I just start hearing a kookoo (sp?) clock. I've asked the clown men many a time to set a distinct threshold where they will admit being wrong. They never do. It would back the into a corner. They don't realize that they can still just fall back on the 'science is bad' which is one of the few consistencies you see in these threads by the deniers. It is really the only path out for the brain while maintaining a cohesion in this discussion. |
|
|
|
"The greatest rationale to become a Leftie is immunity from the rules they impose on the rest of us. The sanctioning of the double standards and hypocrisy."--Andrew Breitbart
How wonderful you would quote Breitbart in this thing. Read the link below for some real lolz involving Mr Breitbart. https://weather.com/news/news/breitbart-misleads-americans-climate-change?cm_ven=T_WX_CD_120616_2
Here is a quote if you don't wish to click. " Note to Breitbart: Earth Is Not Cooling, Climate Change Is Real and Please Stop Using Our Video to Mislead Americans" Quite ironic when I see Mr Breitbart playing the victim card. A favorite of the right. Global warming/climate change, you'll never find doubter who also doesn't hate government. I also like to keep government to a minimum but that doesn't make me see reality different. |
|
|
|
....
Why would I discuss something irrelevant that I said I know almost nothing about? You only have passing discussions about someone's schizo obsessions, you don't spend a lot of time delving into it with them, yanno?
This debate happened between 2 individuals decades ago. ....
Because Erlich was a major, popular writer. Book for example, The Population Bomb. He was yesterday's alarmist,just as you are one of today's alarmists. And he was wrong in everything he said. As you could well be. He was a single author. He is but 1 person. This consensus amongst scientists is far far beyond that. (Apparently not "solar scientists" - apparently) Anyway, it is a huge logical fallacy to equate one guy who wrote a book (however popular) one with global warming because he was an alarmist. I did google the book a bit. I'm not sure how he calculated we'd be out of food in the 70s or 80s. We can take on a ton of population by just switching to vegetarian based diets. The level of knowledge in that area 50 years ago must have been horrendous. btw - Not only could I be wrong, I actively hope to be wrong. I just look and never see evidence or arguments that strike me as compelling. Wrong again. Paul's wife Anne (also of Stanford) co-wrote the Population Bomb. I know because I've read it (and the sequels). The first time I read TPB I was a child and taken in by their catastrophism. Later as a young adult aware of Julian Simon I reread it and found their "ZOMG TEH END OF TEH WORLD IS COMING SOOOON!!1!!!1" panic inducement to be quite hilarious. The Ehrlichs and Simon are emblematic of the neomalthusian vs extropian conflict. Their famous Bet is famous because it served as a microcosm of the widespread intellectual disagreement. I love your sour grapes excuses for why Ehrlich lost and Simon won. Such a sore loser you are. Typical, but 20 years too late.  You are trying to tell people who have studied and debated both sides of these issues for decades that your N00B ignorance makes your opinion superior. Sorry my precious dear millennial snowflake, but that's not how it works.  That does not even touch upon the underlying scientific and philosophical debate which the Bet embodies. Are resources limited, scarce? Or nearly unlimited? Is the planet fragile or robust? Simons presented clear, convincing arguments as to why resources were nearly unlimited. Erlich argued that resources were limited, and that this would result in massive near term starvation. We know who was right, of course. It's also true that many of Erlich's arguments are being repackaged in the form of Global Warming Hysteria. The guy who won the bet would have lost it in many other timeframes. He basically got lucky. It happens. Welcome to gambling. Limited or scarce? What does that mean? Fragile or robust? Something can be robust against decades of abuse, but not centuries worth etc. You need to quantify this with context for it to have *any* meaning. Anyway, again you guys are just biased by your overriding hatred of government. Picking one bet between a couple of people proves little. It is nonsensical. BTW, http://www.sciencealert.com/the-north-pole-is-36-degrees-hotter-than-it-should-be-right-now^^ Lol the other idiot above you called me a millennial. This is always what you guys do. People who argue with you are too young, unemployed, marxists, or some other shit. The reality is they are simply right. Making up fantasies to belittle your opponent's view may help you feel smug, but you've accomplished nothing else. Let us be clear. |
|
|
|
....
Why would I discuss something irrelevant that I said I know almost nothing about? You only have passing discussions about someone's schizo obsessions, you don't spend a lot of time delving into it with them, yanno?
This debate happened between 2 individuals decades ago. ....
Because Erlich was a major, popular writer. Book for example, The Population Bomb. He was yesterday's alarmist,just as you are one of today's alarmists. And he was wrong in everything he said. As you could well be. He was a single author. He is but 1 person. This consensus amongst scientists is far far beyond that. (Apparently not "solar scientists" - apparently) Anyway, it is a huge logical fallacy to equate one guy who wrote a book (however popular) one with global warming because he was an alarmist. I did google the book a bit. I'm not sure how he calculated we'd be out of food in the 70s or 80s. We can take on a ton of population by just switching to vegetarian based diets. The level of knowledge in that area 50 years ago must have been horrendous. btw - Not only could I be wrong, I actively hope to be wrong. I just look and never see evidence or arguments that strike me as compelling. |
|
|
|
I do not advocate bans of something especially in science. Must be able to convince their opponents. If you can't convince someone, then not the fact that your theory is correct.
You think this until you come across mental illness and or severe addictions. Then you realize convincing etc doesn't work. They are people who are no longer rational. You let those people do what they wish but also minimize their damage by keeping them away from your life. This holds true for forums too. Luckily this forum is a bastion for free speech, but Reddit never claimed to be that. |
|
|
|
....I know nothing about Prof Julian Simon or Prof Ehrlich because they have no relevance to anything we are discussing? Thats great that you know this bit of trivia.
I just googled it. They really have even less relevance than I was guessing.
You are but another greasy fucking cockroach...
Wow, what a great answer about science. Wait, no...it's not. Wow, what an intelligent reply in a debate. Um, wait. No, it's not. The Erlich/Simons debate is 100% relevant. Many of the arguments of today's environmentalists are foreshadowed in those issues. Also, All of Erlich's prophesies were proven wrong. All of them. He, just like you, was just plain wrong. But that's no reason to insult people. Simon only won the bet because of the timeframe. Had it been on a different timeframe he would have won. So a guy made a bad bet.. and somehow that disproves manmade global warming? Or something... Read the fucking wiki posted. This is almost as bad your demonstrating papers are invalid because you can't use a webbrowser and can't seem to understand your spell checker fails on an advanced HS vocab. Literally.. guy makes a bet. Loses. Wow! Manmade global warming is a sham! WTF. Lets just assume that it is relevant. (I would agree there is a little bit of relevance..) The point I am making is that these occurrences are next to nothing compared to the work and investigation put into global warming. They do not begin to compare in magnitude. I would be willing to back this up with a wager but I'll give you the guys the excuse for your cop out because I'm fair. It would be very difficult to measure such things empirically given changes in media/tech over these years, so I don't expect anyone to take me up on the bet. If you wish to do it, start proposing methodology and escrow. Please note my comment. Also, All of Erlich's prophesies were proven wrong. All of them. Care to discuss them? It might be enlightening. Why would I discuss something irrelevant that I said I know almost nothing about? You only have passing discussions about someone's schizo obsessions, you don't spend a lot of time delving into it with them, yanno? This debate happened between 2 individuals decades ago. I really don't care what the guy said. You guys hold up this bet as some big deal and it was just random variance. I get that, you need all the bullshit evidence you can muster. One guy chose the wrong time and the economics of the time failed him. He could have just as well won and it would have been little evidence for his case. (See that I did? Thats being truthful and logically consistent) Lets talk about how you guys love to go on about how proponents of climate change gain so much from their beliefs. THen you hold up the lone contrarian but never go to mention how he is treated as a real important guy by Republicans of the same ideological bend. Without looking into this, I could not think of one person who is more famous over the subject than Cristy. Plucked out of obscure academia and onto the stage because he refuses to fix his data. Of course logical inconsistencies don't bother you guys. You just dismiss them one at a time outside of any sort of context. |
|
|
|
....I know nothing about Prof Julian Simon or Prof Ehrlich because they have no relevance to anything we are discussing? Thats great that you know this bit of trivia.
I just googled it. They really have even less relevance than I was guessing.
You are but another greasy fucking cockroach...
Wow, what a great answer about science. Wait, no...it's not. Wow, what an intelligent reply in a debate. Um, wait. No, it's not. The Erlich/Simons debate is 100% relevant. Many of the arguments of today's environmentalists are foreshadowed in those issues. Also, All of Erlich's prophesies were proven wrong. All of them. He, just like you, was just plain wrong. But that's no reason to insult people. Simon only won the bet because of the timeframe. Had it been on a different timeframe he would have won. So a guy made a bad bet.. and somehow that disproves manmade global warming? Or something... Read the fucking wiki posted. This is almost as bad your demonstrating papers are invalid because you can't use a webbrowser and can't seem to understand your spell checker fails on an advanced HS vocab. Literally.. guy makes a bet. Loses. Wow! Manmade global warming is a sham! WTF. Lets just assume that it is relevant. (I would agree there is a little bit of relevance..) The point I am making is that these occurrences are next to nothing compared to the work and investigation put into global warming. They do not begin to compare in magnitude. I would be willing to back this up with a wager but I'll give you the guys the excuse for your cop out because I'm fair. It would be very difficult to measure such things empirically given changes in media/tech over these years, so I don't expect anyone to take me up on the bet. If you wish to do it, start proposing methodology and escrow. As far as insulting.. You're #1 on the list. See "climate preacher boy" because you didn't know that your spell checker fails due to simple education + observation. You have yet to explain yourself. You also lied about not being able to read a paper I posted when it is plainly available to anyone who tries. Keep trying to paint a different view of reality.. I'm sure some other fellow lunatics will buy into it. |
|
|
|
I came to change my mind on both climate change and population dynamics, based on the evidence and the fact Simon won the bet. Did you somehow miss the Climategate fiasco? That, if nothing else, shows "the consensus is wrong" (and validated numerous critics of the system which produced it). Here's a couple of great places to begin your remedial lessons on debunking the quasi-religious popsci "ZOMG Teh End Is Nigh" Cassandra complex of doom-mongering. Simon–Ehrlich wager https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%E2%80%93Ehrlich_wagerClimategate: Why it matters The scandal we see and the scandal we don't http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/ROFL. Lets figure out a way to find the size of text from those things in history vs what has been put out about manmade global warming. Lets see if your claim actually holds up. It doesn't. It is the epitome of false equivalence. I am willing to bet on this with the appropriate escrow agent. Just go find a good way to measure it but I don't think we can fairly do that. LOL, of course you had to say "false equivalence." Everybody take a drink, then spin around waving your hands.  And you personalize the debate to avoid acknowledging Prof. Julian Simon (IE NOT iCEBREAKER) won the wager against Prof. Ehrlich. The claims from the Register article certainly hold up; they are based on a whistleblower's exquisitely curated leak of the perverted science behind the ManBearPig-Industrial Complex. Of course you can't read code, so the otherwise damning phrase "fudge factor" as applied to an innocent data array means nothing to you. Your parents and education have failed you so badly and completely you don't even realize how stupid and ignorant you are. That's why you "can't even" why Climategate matters, despite a well-written non-technical article explaining the issues in plain English. That is insanity. I know nothing about Prof Julian Simon or Prof Ehrlich because they have no relevance to anything we are discussing? Thats great that you know this bit of trivia. I just googled it. They really have even less relevance than I was guessing. You are but another greasy fucking cockroach of a man who won't put his money where his mouth is. Always weaseling your way out of it with some bullshit. I'm not the one "hand waving". Epic that you somehow bring up programming. You guys are always throwing out random guesses. "You don't understand variance." "You don't understand the big picture." and now "of course you can't read code". J |
|
|
|
In my relatively short lifetime the scares have already been through a 'coming ice-age' to 'catastrophic warming' to 'climate change' cycle. The latter being a good catch-all I suppose.
This is more logical fallacies. Just because some very small percentage of scientists talked about global cooling doesn't discount the overwhelming current consensus going on now. So you are a solar cycle denier? How retrograde.  "Very small percentage" = appeal to popularity (a logical fallacy) You are obviously too young to remember the long procession of hobgoblins used to justify destroying freedom, from the neo-Malthusian population bomb and ice age panics of the 70s, and the catastrophic warming and nuclear winter of the 80s, to the climate change of the 90s. You are scared witless of whatever fashionable new bogeyman the Fabians and Frankfort School throw out this decade. You may relax, dear child, because none of those instances of catastrophism (which are merely secular versions of eschatology) have come to pass. If we get wiped out, it will be by sudden planetary (think supervolcanic) or astrological (giant meteor of doom) factors beyond our control. So spare us the hubris, and especially the accusations that doing nothing = violence. Don't press that specious nonsense in my face or you'll get cut. You compare these things that were little more than a few pop (popsci) entries into a magazine with something that has grown in consensus over the past 20-30 years. (Those are your dates, you called climate change a 90's thing.. )We're in 2016 now and nothing really seems to show that the consensus is wrong. I said very small percentage because there I don't have a real number or anything to cite. Feel free to disagree. You will be wrong. Foolish child, you know so very little about these vast, interdisciplinary topics and gain from your smugness only intellectual closure. EG, the Population Wars were not just popsci proto-clickbait but rather fought between two professors, Paul Ehrlich of Stanford and Julian Simon of UM. I spent high school and college diving deep into scholarly journals only found in university libraries researching this stuff, and arguing both sides in debate tournaments. I came to change my mind on both climate change and population dynamics, based on the evidence and the fact Simon won the bet. Did you somehow miss the Climategate fiasco? That, if nothing else, shows "the consensus is wrong" (and validated numerous critics of the system which produced it). Here's a couple of great places to begin your remedial lessons on debunking the quasi-religious popsci "ZOMG Teh End Is Nigh" Cassandra complex of doom-mongering. Simon–Ehrlich wager https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%E2%80%93Ehrlich_wagerClimategate: Why it matters The scandal we see and the scandal we don't http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/ROFL. Lets figure out a way to find the size of text from those things in history vs what has been put out about manmade global warming. Lets see if your claim actually holds up. It doesn't. It is the epitome of false equivalence. I am willing to bet on this with the appropriate escrow agent. Just go find a good way to measure it but I don't think we can fairly do that. |
|
|
|
.... John Cristy's graph .....John Cristy ....
the chart posted here and made by John Cristy of U of Alabama.
Sez who? IPCC graph, another by gibbering Warmer Tamino.... Cristy has been criticized for over a decade now for his nonsensical cherrypicking. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/et-tu-lt/ Is a good place to start. It took me some time to start finding stuff that isn't overtly political. It can be hard. So basically Cristy cherry-picked data and has continued doing so. He still is the one invited to US government proceedings by Republicans who like his message. It must be fun for him? No surprise here. Facts will never get in the way ... -- edit See what I did here. You guys presented a chart. It didn't agree with the stuff I had seen so I looked further into it. It took me a bit to find the source, but it wasn't too hard. After reading a few things that were political I finally found stuff that seems legitimate. Christy cherrypicks and has done so for some time. His data set is questionable and he refuses to correct it. In fact, it is cited often by those who wish to deny man made global warming. There is no surprise that a guy like this exists... heck he even gets to go straight to the Senate to give a talk. Must be exciting for him. Wonder why he isn't part of some larger non-political study ? Hmmm.. I wonder |
|
|
|
In my relatively short lifetime the scares have already been through a 'coming ice-age' to 'catastrophic warming' to 'climate change' cycle. The latter being a good catch-all I suppose.
This is more logical fallacies. Just because some very small percentage of scientists talked about global cooling doesn't discount the overwhelming current consensus going on now. ... Small percentage? Nope. Listen to the solar scientists on their area of expertise. The opinion of a guy working glaciers or bugs or dirt science is irrelevant on this subject. Lol Spendalus. Hows your spell checker treating you? So where would I find a list of "solar scientists" and further inspect your claim? Google is your friend. Lol oook. Google has tons of biases in itself. I'll just assume I'm right and there isn't more contrarians than one would expect. Maybe there is like 2-3 guys who call themselves solar scientists?? hehe I was googling up other climate change models vs observed stuff and this is the first article I found. I would like to see more stuff like John Cristy's graph but I assume the work cited on theguardian was actually peer reviewed. Now I understand you guys don't buy into that system so much and it is a valid belief, but I suspect John Cristy did something wrong. This is a real basic thing that we should be able to find an answer for. I'll keep at it, but I'm limited in the time I have available. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/oct/01/ipcc-global-warming-projections-accuratevs the chart posted here and made by John Cristy of U of Alabama. |
|
|
|
In my relatively short lifetime the scares have already been through a 'coming ice-age' to 'catastrophic warming' to 'climate change' cycle. The latter being a good catch-all I suppose.
This is more logical fallacies. Just because some very small percentage of scientists talked about global cooling doesn't discount the overwhelming current consensus going on now. ... Small percentage? Nope. Listen to the solar scientists on their area of expertise. The opinion of a guy working glaciers or bugs or dirt science is irrelevant on this subject. Lol Spendalus. Hows your spell checker treating you? So where would I find a list of "solar scientists" and further inspect your claim? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
