ArcticGranite
Well-Known Member
98%??? got links, references?
Man made carbon emission causes AGW?
- Thread starter ArcticGranite
- Start date
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you opined about climate change. i told you to publish it. you said not to make retarded replies.
i agree that the thought of a raging pedophile white supremacist like yourself publishing scientific papers on climate science is a retarded notion and i should not suggest it.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you won't believe them, they are not supplied by the koch brothers, exxonmobil, or christians who deny evolution.
ArcticGranite
Well-Known Member
Aww, but I might believe some of their conclusions! And anyone pandering numbers like that should be able to proudly back them up. Rarely is unanimity reached yet that is being inferred over and over again with no back up.
Let's have some terms too. An objective reasoning. How many climate scientists are there world wide? Ten thousand? How many support AGW? Five thousand? No one on this forum knows. Yet MSM touts an overwhelming majority and it's settled. OK.
canndo
Well-Known Member
You are still presuming that there is a roughly divided opinion on AGW and there is not. The point is not how many individuals believe but how many papers, peer reviewed and authentic show conclusions indicating that AGW exists and how many papers do not. This is not a preponderance of "opinion" but a preponderance of results, two entirely different things. You seem to be placing far too much weight on opinion. The overwhelming majorities of scientific papers on the subject indicate the most probable reality.
ArcticGranite
Well-Known Member
I don't mean to suggest scientific opinion is neatly divided nor should opinions be relied upon. I will suggest scientific conclusions, hypothesis, and theory's aren't proven true by majority, or consensus.
Lysenkoism is used metaphorically to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives.
1100 Peer reviewed papers supporting Skeptics arguments against ACC/AGW, 7/23/2012
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
But Lysenkoism was something quite different. It was one despot's (Stalin) bid to have the Lamarckian ideas of an academician become "official science' within the Soviet Union. it never gained traction where free discussion of the ideas occurred.
The AGW debate is happening in the open, where an inconvenient fact cannot be adjudicated Politically Degenerate by either side. cn
ArcticGranite
Well-Known Member
This is from wiki, seems fitting for AGW:
Lysenkoism is used metaphorically to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives.
Back in the "day", open disagreement with his "science", well, that wasn't looked upon favorably.
Mostly my post above was to present a sizable showing of peer reviewed papers supporting skeptics arguments. And I threw a dig in for good measure. i'm fair that way
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
The problem is twofold: Lysenkoism isn't being used well if that is the metaphor, and it was most certainly a recipient of open disagreement. Just not in the totalitarian host country.This is from wiki, seems fitting for AGW:
Lysenkoism is used metaphorically to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives.
Back in the "day", open disagreement with his "science", well, that wasn't looked upon favorably.
Mostly my post above was to present a sizable showing of peer reviewed skeptics. And I threw a dig in for good measure. i'm fair that way
Also, the list you provided is not a list of peer-reviewed skeptics, and the authors acknowledged this. They are papers that "can be used to support skeptics' arguments" which is a much broader criterion. Papers that actually espouse a an opposed position are much fewer. You said it right the first time but overstated it the second. cn
Ninjabowler
Well-Known Member
can i burn a hole in the ozone with a vegan diet?
Ninjabowler
Well-Known Member
ill have to dissagree lol my ny diesel was well marketed and those holes in the poles arent in your micro climate yet.....relax
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
i'd suggest you take some time to look over some of these "arguements against ACC/AGW" if i were you
just pullling 2 of them out at random brought me these
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01314829
the world is getting hotter due to CO2 but they think hurricanes wont be so bad
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982209011828
the world is getting warmer due to CO2 but they think extinctions wont be so bad
i'd also if i was you take a look at the standards of where some of these are published "cato journal" really??
http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/1999/5/cj19n1-6.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute
Doer
Well-Known Member
Pick and choose. The shouting is so bad no that any contrary claim is met with automatic derision. Derision is meant to stifle discussion. This is thin and useless. "some of these are published "cato journal" really??"
They are ripping off the carbon tax to to build the poiltical, "Done Deal." Yet, many of the Cloud Science types think we are going into a cooling phase. But, the AGW types shout it down. Global Cooling. Some will not like these charts and graphs and will immediately howl at me and worse. It's like I'm kicking a Scared Cow. Prove it! Morons. So, kick it yourself. Cowards.
Nobody can dispute that there has been some global cooling in this last decade. Even though the land temperature charts aren't reliable, because the number of weather stations keeps changing and the stations are all at major airports or in parking lots. If the IPCC had their way I'm sure they would measure the entire earth's temperature from one weather station at LAX, just like they measure the entire planet's CO2 level from one station on top of a volcano in Hawaii.
Even with all the incoming data being skewed to show warming, it still shows some cooling over the last decade while CO2 is increasing.
If you get away from the heat island effect of the major cities and like this weather station in Walker Minnesota, you see a cooling trend even during the summer months.
They are ripping off the carbon tax to to build the poiltical, "Done Deal." Yet, many of the Cloud Science types think we are going into a cooling phase. But, the AGW types shout it down. Global Cooling. Some will not like these charts and graphs and will immediately howl at me and worse. It's like I'm kicking a Scared Cow. Prove it! Morons. So, kick it yourself. Cowards.
Nobody can dispute that there has been some global cooling in this last decade. Even though the land temperature charts aren't reliable, because the number of weather stations keeps changing and the stations are all at major airports or in parking lots. If the IPCC had their way I'm sure they would measure the entire earth's temperature from one weather station at LAX, just like they measure the entire planet's CO2 level from one station on top of a volcano in Hawaii.
Even with all the incoming data being skewed to show warming, it still shows some cooling over the last decade while CO2 is increasing.
If you get away from the heat island effect of the major cities and like this weather station in Walker Minnesota, you see a cooling trend even during the summer months.
Doer
Well-Known Member
And if we are just going to vote about it, like mob rule, we should see the other vote.
31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs. No evidence? Right. CO2 increase O2 production in plants.
And then some folks will wild goose me about peer review. (you know who you are) But, they don't provide any. And they claim I don't. Which is bs.
They are lazy.http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php
31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs. No evidence? Right. CO2 increase O2 production in plants.
They are lazy.http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php
ArcticGranite
Well-Known Member
The 100 year trend is that the earth has warmed 0.74 degrees. Source, IPCC http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms1.html
Graph plotted temperature change of global land ocean temperatures 1880-2010. Source, GISS NASA http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Graph plotted temperature change of global land ocean temperatures 1880-2010. Source, GISS NASA http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
for someone who's gone on about data sets being too small you certainly have no qualms about using a tiny cherry picked time period to cry aboutPick and choose. The shouting is so bad no that any contrary claim is met with automatic derision. Derision is meant to stifle discussion. This is thin and useless. "some of these are published "cato journal" really??"
They are ripping off the carbon tax to to build the poiltical, "Done Deal." Yet, many of the Cloud Science types think we are going into a cooling phase. But, the AGW types shout it down. Global Cooling. Some will not like these charts and graphs and will immediately howl at me and worse. It's like I'm kicking a Scared Cow. Prove it! Morons. So, kick it yourself. Cowards.
Nobody can dispute that there has been some global cooling in this last decade. Even though the land temperature charts aren't reliable, because the number of weather stations keeps changing and the stations are all at major airports or in parking lots. If the IPCC had their way I'm sure they would measure the entire earth's temperature from one weather station at LAX, just like they measure the entire planet's CO2 level from one station on top of a volcano in Hawaii.
and they do not measure the co2 from just one location on the planet
aww how cute a single weather station in minnesota is your evidence that the world isnt warmingEven with all the incoming data being skewed to show warming, it still shows some cooling over the last decade while CO2 is increasing.
If you get away from the heat island effect of the major cities and like this weather station in Walker Minnesota, you see a cooling trend even during the summer months.
ArcticGranite
Well-Known Member
Recent paper looking into AGW "forcing" finds:
http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/3/173/2012/esd-3-173-2012.pdf
"This means, however, that aswith all hypotheses, our rejection of AGW is not absolute;it might be a false positive, and we cannot rule out thepossibility that recent global warming has an anthropogenicfootprint. However, this possibility is very small, and is not
statistically significant at conventional levels."http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/3/173/2012/esd-3-173-2012.pdf
Doer
Well-Known Member
Ah, you can see how the guy argues. Pearls before swine. Pick and choose. Say nothing of the peer review. But, make a smarry picture.
It is to show that small airport data is not the same as big airport data. And, he knew that. But, he prefers to act doltish. And he could not find a peer reviewed article if I handed it to him as ass wipe paper.
It is to show that small airport data is not the same as big airport data. And, he knew that. But, he prefers to act doltish. And he could not find a peer reviewed article if I handed it to him as ass wipe paper.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
who exactly reviewed that paper?And if we are just going to vote about it, like mob rule, we should see the other vote.
31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs. No evidence? Right. CO2 increase O2 production in plants.
And then some folks will wild goose me about peer review. (you know who you are) But, they don't provide any. And they claim I don't. Which is bs.
They are lazy.http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php
i'd check carefully if i was you
i answered the previous post i was unaware of a time limit between answering other posts
i do have more in life to do than answer every crap bit of information you decide to pull out your arse
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine#Case_Study:_The_Oregon_Petition
carry on
canndo
Well-Known Member
The 100 year trend is that the earth has warmed 0.74 degrees. Source, IPCC http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms1.html
Graph plotted temperature change of global land ocean temperatures 1880-2010. Source, GISS NASA http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
There are serious problems with universal measurements of oceanic temperatures. Inversions, gradients, data collection and a very short history of measurements make ocean temperature conclusions next to meaningless.