Global warming my ASS!!! LOL!! Anybody remember Joe Ligotti on Global warming?
- Thread starter Quarter Mile'r
- Start date
All of your questions have been refuted on that page by common rebuttals section.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Rebuttals
Including this:
"Rebuttal: Every counted paper on the list has been peer-viewed and each journal is checked that it follows a scholarly peer-review process. Critics have always been asked to provide evidence to support their allegations, yet repeatedly fail to do so. If a paper is shown to be listed in error it will be removed. The list also includes supplemental papers, which are not counted but listed as references in defense of various papers. These are proceeded by an asterisk ( * ) and italicized so they cannot be confused with the actual list of counted papers. There is no requirement for supplemental papers to be peer-reviewed, even though almost all of them have been."
You haven't disproven anything that was a claim. However, I do stand corrected - I meant that the list is a list of peer-reviewed articles, not that the list was peer reviewed. I was typing on a phone in bed.
The point of the list is to point out that there are peer-reviewed articles who were included in the Cook et Al and other publication that were not in support of Anthropotenic Climate Change. There is significant dissent in the scientific community that climate change is entirely man-made.
The point was not that climate change is not man-made.
Yet as I cited above, there are people on these lists that themselves state they've been misrepresented and requests for removal are ignored. These lists take a liberal view of "refute" and this opt-out mechanic of "I'm right (to say these papers refute the claim) unless you can prove me wrong" is exactly the opposite of how science is done. Typically credible compilations of the state of affairs are, themselves, submitted as a review paper in a peer-reviewed journal.
Also, at risk of opening another can of worms, some peer-reviewed journals have more credibility than others. Breitbart could start a peer-reviewed journal. It matters who the pool of reviewers is. They are selected at random from the pool, so a big enough pool of experts will average away bias better than a small one. Anomalies still get through, but have a better chance of being refuted or corrected. (Example: palladium-based cold fusion.) Doesn't stop people from citing discredited articles. And journals run by societies that accept all people in that discipline into their society will also average out the bias more than those who have more selective criteria.
Also, at risk of opening another can of worms, some peer-reviewed journals have more credibility than others. Breitbart could start a peer-reviewed journal. It matters who the pool of reviewers is. They are selected at random from the pool, so a big enough pool of experts will average away bias better than a small one. Anomalies still get through, but have a better chance of being refuted or corrected. (Example: palladium-based cold fusion.) Doesn't stop people from citing discredited articles. And journals run by societies that accept all people in that discipline into their society will also average out the bias more than those who have more selective criteria.
Categorically false. There is no current theory on climate change. Unless you are more correct than the IPCC on this admission of probabibility vs theory:
Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven
largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric
concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in
at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers,
have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been
the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {1.2, 1.3.1**
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf
Please note that the IPCC, the side on which you stand, disagrees with you about the current surety of a hypothesis vs theory.
A century ago, the US was huge into eugenics. Legitimate institutes financed studies to prove that Chinese were inferior to the Americans. That the immigrants were a lower class of people and inferior. Hell, Alexander Graham Bell, the guy who invented the telephone, openly supported this ridiculous theory>
And no one talks about this now. Why? Because six million Jews died.
Science is never definitive. It can't prove anything either - It's at best a "maybe". Empirical science is always about statistical probability rather than definitive proofs. If you think one side is always right and another side is always wrong, you've already defeated the nature of science by thinking it's supposed to solve all problems and lost the unbiased philosophy that is science, and not religion.
I didn't.
Last edited:
Incorrect.
In over seven years, only one "co-author" (Russell Dickerson) has ever contacted the editor with any such [demands]. Roger Pielke Jr. (the author) has never contacted the editor requesting any papers be removed and various papers he authored, mainly relating to incorrect attribution of natural disasters are included on the list.
The problem with the current state of climate science is that we assume it's entirely man-made. Or, on the opposite extreme, that it doesn't exist.
No one wants to admit it's a complex system that we don't understand.
No one wants to admit that they're dealing with possibilities rather than absolutes.
In 1890s, people believed Elk was becoming extinct in Yellowstone. So they started feeding and encouraging elk population until in 1915 or so, it had become a problem. They also introduced rainbow trout, which started crowding out other fish, which in turn increased bear, moose and bison numbers. Overgrazing by the elk meant that antelop and deer declined. Aspen and willows died. Instead, the park rangers started killing predators to stop the loss of animals, without public knowledge in an attempt at "scientific management". Wolf, Cougar, Coyote were killed in numbers. The elk numbers continued to grow and Aspen trees in Yellowstone died out (there are only very, very few left today). With no trees, the beavers died. Then meadows dried in the summer because there were no dams to divert water. The rodents died out.
So the rangers started importing timberwolves from Canada. But they died before long. Why? No beavers and rodents to feed them. So the Park continued a PR campaign that disparaged any belief that it's the Elks that are responsibile for the problems in the park, and not the humans killing the predators. Sheep in the park then disappeared from overgrazing.
Now, in the 1970s, bear became a problem. At some point, they were considered fun loving animals. Here's a post card from the 30s and people encouraged their interaction with humans:
http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/...ement in the 21st Century_files/image051.jpg\
The park moved the bears to remote regions where food was lacking. Then the bears became endangered because they started starving. And then they had to let scientists in to study why they were going extinct. This goes on and on and on.
Guess who knew how to manage the park?
The aboriginals. And no one asked them. No one wants to hear the other side of the story. No one wants to know how to exercise any real control. They just want to take everything, blame it on someone, and try and get a result.
This idiocy where humans think we are better than nature continues this day. And it has to stop. We need to absolutely admit we have no idea what is going on with the climate and do things empirically rather than spew bullshit religiously.
We did this with horse shit - Literally. We banned horses because horse shit was making people sick in big cities, and we encouraged driving. And now "greenhouse gases" from cars is changing the climate. Now we're trying to solve the car issue by slapping carbon tax on everything, which taxes productivity and directly exports pollution to third world countries where poor people die from making our products because they are less regulated.
So you tell me. What's next in this ideal situation where we all believe we should do the best thing for the environment? In what scenario does blindly believing in climate change (or the lack thereof) does someone not pay dearly?
No one wants to admit it's a complex system that we don't understand.
No one wants to admit that they're dealing with possibilities rather than absolutes.
In 1890s, people believed Elk was becoming extinct in Yellowstone. So they started feeding and encouraging elk population until in 1915 or so, it had become a problem. They also introduced rainbow trout, which started crowding out other fish, which in turn increased bear, moose and bison numbers. Overgrazing by the elk meant that antelop and deer declined. Aspen and willows died. Instead, the park rangers started killing predators to stop the loss of animals, without public knowledge in an attempt at "scientific management". Wolf, Cougar, Coyote were killed in numbers. The elk numbers continued to grow and Aspen trees in Yellowstone died out (there are only very, very few left today). With no trees, the beavers died. Then meadows dried in the summer because there were no dams to divert water. The rodents died out.
So the rangers started importing timberwolves from Canada. But they died before long. Why? No beavers and rodents to feed them. So the Park continued a PR campaign that disparaged any belief that it's the Elks that are responsibile for the problems in the park, and not the humans killing the predators. Sheep in the park then disappeared from overgrazing.
Now, in the 1970s, bear became a problem. At some point, they were considered fun loving animals. Here's a post card from the 30s and people encouraged their interaction with humans:
http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/...ement in the 21st Century_files/image051.jpg\
The park moved the bears to remote regions where food was lacking. Then the bears became endangered because they started starving. And then they had to let scientists in to study why they were going extinct. This goes on and on and on.
Guess who knew how to manage the park?
The aboriginals. And no one asked them. No one wants to hear the other side of the story. No one wants to know how to exercise any real control. They just want to take everything, blame it on someone, and try and get a result.
This idiocy where humans think we are better than nature continues this day. And it has to stop. We need to absolutely admit we have no idea what is going on with the climate and do things empirically rather than spew bullshit religiously.
We did this with horse shit - Literally. We banned horses because horse shit was making people sick in big cities, and we encouraged driving. And now "greenhouse gases" from cars is changing the climate. Now we're trying to solve the car issue by slapping carbon tax on everything, which taxes productivity and directly exports pollution to third world countries where poor people die from making our products because they are less regulated.
So you tell me. What's next in this ideal situation where we all believe we should do the best thing for the environment? In what scenario does blindly believing in climate change (or the lack thereof) does someone not pay dearly?
That's the whole problem there is no fact other than just data which is debunkable in many ways.
Data taken of this and that only proves a movement in differences not absolutes.
As you said yourself above, even when accepted science is superceded it's rarely totally wrong. Just somewhat inaccurate.
That is the whole problem right there. To many inaccuracies and not being able to come up with solid evidence.
Inside science theory in my mind is about as usefull as talking to the neighbours cat until a more intelligent
cat comes along. So until one does come along we are still stuck with speculation and non absolutes.
I hope man can come up with a better answer for this problem.
Secondly I know we're not in an ice age. You completely danced around my question about how it happened
that all the ice dissapeared causing the END of the last ice age. There wasn't any mass extinctions and
massive amounts of volcanic activity nor were there dinosaurs at that time either.
Yes as we were schooled in the dinosaur era the earth was way more volcanically active then but that
has nothing to do with the last ice age as was my point.
You must have missed my point. How was it possible in the last ice age for
all that ice that covered North America I believe almost or down too Texas disappear from what would have
been called global warming then? There certainly were not industrial cities all over the planet at that time.
Is there irrefutable evidence to show what caused the earths most massive global warming stage in history
when these massive ice sheets melted? That is what I would like to know.
One last question. By stating that we are at the top of the cyclic climate swing are you referring to what is
known more commonly as the farmers almanac which focuses on the cyclic 11 year cycle?
If not enlighten me please.
..........................QM'r
Both. Snopes has been around since 1994, at first as an place for urban legends, that mainly presented search results of user discussions. The site grew to encompass a wide range of subjects and became a resource to which Internet users began submitting pictures and stories of questionable veracity. They are an independent body like factcheck.org, and they are simply seeking to prevent the spread of misinformation that seems to be sole reason for the existence of the Internet now.
Are they bias? They have been accused of being every possible leaning (Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives, Liberals, etc) and a tool of some deeply secret corporate organizations
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/03/meme-falsely-claims-exposed-snopes-com/
https://www.snopes.com/eye-of-the-beholder/
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/25/...snopes-a-bigger-role-brings-more-attacks.html
So every time that one special uncle puts up a questionable post on Facebook, it's not a bad idea to do a quick check on Snopes.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/school-lemonade-laxatives/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-blackface-photo/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/was-robert-deniro-child-trafficking-ring/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/texas-man-prostitute-wife/
Last edited:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
It's important to note that when we are referring to Ice Age in terms of "climate change" we are not talking about the Huronian, Cryogenian, Andean-Saharan, Karoo Ice Age, and the current Quaternary Ice Age. These are large scale long term temperature drops that span millions of years in interval and duration. Glacial and interglacial periods are the cyclic temperature changes within the ice ages (or at least within the current one) that are the focus of concern. The cycle is about every 100,000 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperature.png
There are many factors for both the great Ice Ages and the shorter glacial periods. Changes in Earth's atmosphere, fluctuations in ocean currents, variations in Earth's orbit (Milankovitch cycles), volcanism, etc. A relatively recent article in Nature ties a bunch of these factors to together to create a model that matches closely the the 100,000 year glacial cycles that have been recorded.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130807134127.htm
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12374
The glacial cycle shows that yes Earth temperature rises, but the rate of rise since the Industrial age is much faster than it should be. Something that should take centuries, is occuring in a much shorter span of time, and on track to break "the usual" temperature heights established in previous cycles.
As a side note, let's pretend that climate change is a hoax. We know for a fact that biofuels like oil are a limited resource and on track to being completely depleted in a short period of time. Doesn't it makes sense to divert energies and monies to finding solutions in long term alternatives before it's too late?
L
LADY-VIA
people use face book still too ?
I know the history behind snopes, and I've followed and watched the drama & accusations over the years towards them, which has been interesting.
Ive seen some valuable information on snopes and Ive also seen some half truths, & points missing information, just like many other resources.
Im still trying to look up more information about the costal lines, in preparations for storms and rising sea levels, but I think more will come out over the next year. I feel really bad for all the people who've been affected by all the fires, and disasters, due to Climate Change and others. Climate Change appears to be quite a controversial subject, as I know people who don't believe in it, and those who do. I think its a complicated subject & that there is truth scattered all over the place. It will be interesting though watching the news going forward with the storms, considering The pentagons press release.
Nothing but good factual logic......you missed 1 point though....which is that Climate Change is now pretty much a new religion and those that follow the agenda are total zealots....it is embraced by Left wing Politicians who view it as a way to "TAX AND SPEND MORE" and it is pushed by the MEDIA with nothing but encouragement so as to get more influence.At the same time this crapulence doomsaying has been adopted into school curriculum to brain wash children from the early years in their lives.
SR
None of that precludes it from also being true.
If it was just about the money, why isn't the group with more money dominating the argument? Yes there are people capitalising on this, but they are opportunists taking something nonetheless legit and running with it for their own gain. Doesn't invalidate the source.
Besides, even if it didn't kill the planet and climate change was questionable, I'd still think those shots of Beijing smog would be enough motivation to curb emissions. Who wants to live like that? A friend of mine experienced that sort of pollution and made the mistake of removing his particle mask outside to see how bad it was. Never did that again.
OK so you wish to make a point about China.OK then how about some FACTS.China is the biggest polluter there is or maybe 2nd.Leading up to the last Olympic games the country hosted the country was bringing online a coal fired power plant per day and I doubt they have slowed down.Under the Paris Agreement China does not have to begin reducing emissions until 2030.None of that precludes it from also being true.
If it was just about the money, why isn't the group with more money dominating the argument? Yes there are people capitalising on this, but they are opportunists taking something nonetheless legit and running with it for their own gain. Doesn't invalidate the source.
Besides, even if it didn't kill the planet and climate change was questionable, I'd still think those shots of Beijing smog would be enough motivation to curb emissions. Who wants to live like that? A friend of mine experienced that sort of pollution and made the mistake of removing his particle mask outside to see how bad it was. Never did that again.
Facts about Canada....as a country with a PALTRY population of 36 MILLION people compared to China's BILLIONS and a land mass that DWARFS that of CHINA well Canada produces a mere 2% of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Canada's northern boreal forest which is responsibly harvested and replanted CLEANS up 50% of the ENTIRE Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the PLANET.I guess you would have to be an utter IDIOT not to both connect ALL of these FACTS and come to the realization that Canada as a country should be CHARGING other countries for the benefits our land mass gives back to the PLANET.....instead we are saddled with a "progressive" LIEBERAL government that just wants to TAX Canadians and then eventually BUY Carbon Credits to meet the obligations that as a country SHOULD not have to meet due to both what the country emits and our responsibly harvested/sustained enviroment cleans up.
The climate on this planet has changed for BILLIONS of years and it will continue to change.....the very idea that mankind can act as a thermostat for the planet is completely fucking idiotic and society has better priorities especially in Western Society where the issues of homelessness among our veterans get chucked under the bus.
SR
You're convoluting two ideas here. Yes China is the biggest polluter. So that's an argument that they should do better, not that we shouldn't. It's going to be harder to "shame" China into doing something if the rest of the world doesn't give a damn.
But you're talking about carbon tax again. If you were addressing me, please understand clearly that I also think carbon tax is fucked up, as it stands. Just because the "solution" is a sham doesn't mean there isn't a problem.
But on your refrain (variants of "the very idea that mankind can act as a thermostat for the planet is completely fucking idiotic") you have never once justified that statement. Please can you explain in objective terms that don't involve merely saying it's stupid, idiotic, insane, ridiculous, etc.? You seem quite certain of this opinion. I'd like to know why?
https://www.denverpost.com/2018/09/28/global-temperature-increases-environment/amp/
No less than the White House thinks that the Earth's average temp will increase by 4C by 2100. How bad is that? Well, just imagine having a fever of +4C and you get the idea.
But hey, at least we get some shareholder value. I'm going to be RICH!
====
[FONT="]The draft statement, issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), was written to justify President Donald Trump’s decision to freeze federal fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks built after 2020. While the proposal would increase greenhouse gas emissions, the impact statement says, that policy would add just a very small drop to a very big, hot bucket.[/FONT]
[FONT="]“The amazing thing they’re saying is human activities are going to lead to this rise of carbon dioxide that is disastrous for the environment and society. And then they’re saying they’re not going to do anything about it,” said Michael MacCracken, who served as a senior scientist at the U.S. Global Change Research Program from 1993 to 2002.[/FONT]
No less than the White House thinks that the Earth's average temp will increase by 4C by 2100. How bad is that? Well, just imagine having a fever of +4C and you get the idea.
But hey, at least we get some shareholder value. I'm going to be RICH!
====
[FONT="]The draft statement, issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), was written to justify President Donald Trump’s decision to freeze federal fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks built after 2020. While the proposal would increase greenhouse gas emissions, the impact statement says, that policy would add just a very small drop to a very big, hot bucket.[/FONT]
[FONT="]“The amazing thing they’re saying is human activities are going to lead to this rise of carbon dioxide that is disastrous for the environment and society. And then they’re saying they’re not going to do anything about it,” said Michael MacCracken, who served as a senior scientist at the U.S. Global Change Research Program from 1993 to 2002.[/FONT]
