Hottest Week on Record, Hottest June, Record hottest days, Record Low Antarctic sea ice

[rambot]

An easy marker to tell a person has not been paying attention is when they mention 97% of scientists like it's still a thing.

Yes.....That old chestnut.

99% of Climate Research now

To be fair, it isn't necessarily saying SCIENTISTS...it is saying that there have been 4 papers published that are skeptical of AGW...out of 3000.
So 99% of research indicators suggest global warming.

Out of curiousity: Would you expect 100% of research to support it?


Of course, to someone informed and abreast (circa 2004), that would be new news. This was published in 2021 if you're curious.

Sidebar:
I only was willing to dedicate a few minutes to watch the movie. She is talking politics in that minute and NOT science. If you give me some timestamps where she ACTUALLY addresses science, I'll take a watch.

 

[Pommer]

This is the best darned hoax I’ve ever seen!

 

[Nithavela]

Extreme heat sends 11 to hospital at Arizona Trump rally​

On Thursday - two weeks before summer even officially starts - the National Weather Service (NWS) forecast record-breaking temperatures in interior California, and parts of Nevada and Arizona.

Trump is next expected to hold a campaign event in Las Vegas on Sunday, where the campaign plans to double the number of EMS staff on site, provide more than 38,000 bottles of water and a cooling tent with air conditioning for supporters, CNN reported Friday.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Yes.....That old chestnut.

99% of Climate Research now

To be fair, it isn't necessarily saying SCIENTISTS...it is saying that there have been 4 papers published that are skeptical of AGW...out of 3000.
So 99% of research indicators suggest global warming.

Out of curiousity: Would you expect 100% of research to support it?


Of course, to someone informed and abreast (circa 2004), that would be new news. This was published in 2021 if you're curious.

Sidebar:
I only was willing to dedicate a few minutes to watch the movie. She is talking politics in that minute and NOT science. If you give me some timestamps where she ACTUALLY addresses science, I'll take a watch.

I'm surprised there were even four. Don't those authors value their careers?

 

[essentialsaltes]

He's got a rally in Vegas tomorrow. It's cooling off a tiny bit, but...

Las Vegas sees second straight day of record-breaking temperatures​

 

[Reasonably Sane]

This is the best darned hoax I’ve ever seen!

It's not that good. What is impressive is how well they've shut down anyone that disagrees with them. But even then, what is impressive is not that they did it, but where they did it. i.e. the "free world". I mean, it is/was common practice in places like North Korea, the USSR, China, Nazi Germany, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.

This is new.

They also did this with Covid and "transgenderism" (though with less success with the latter because it was simply too preposterous).

 

[rambot]

I'm surprised there were even four. Don't those authors value their careers?

It's actually just that there is almost no evidence to the contrary.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

It's actually just that there is almost no evidence to the contrary.

That is simply not true. It is simply squelched, just like they did with Covid information. The biden laptop, and on and on and on and on and on... This is the world we live in today.
This will get you started: Real Climate Science

And there are tons of youtube channels devoted to this that can clear it up very well. I've got an extensive list.

 

[Whyayeman]

That is simply not true. It is simply squelched, just like they did with Covid information. The biden laptop, and on and on and on and on and on... This is the world we live in today.
This will get you started: Real Climate Science

And there are tons of youtube channels devoted to this that can clear it up very well. I've got an extensive list.

Well, this is the first 'science' I have encountered that starts by asking for donations!

(I have already pointed out that you can find anything on YouTube. Perhaps people prefer daft theories to solid science.)

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Well, this is the first 'science' I have encountered that starts by asking for donations!

(I have already pointed out that you can find anything on YouTube. Perhaps people prefer daft theories to solid science.)

Regarding your first sentence, yep. Note the information on several sources regarding the squelching of funds to most of these "deniers" that are not supported by the "bad guys" (evil oil companies).

Regarding the second, that's just a back handed ad hominem attack. You can find anything in a library too. That doesn't mean that if you find something there it is, by definition, discredited. Every work must stand on its own merit.

Heck, the National Enquirer broke the Gary Hart story decades ago, and MSM sources have been caught being duped (The infamous dan rather "Killian documents")

 

[Whyayeman]

You can find anything in a library too.

True. There is no substitute for judgment. Simply posting a YouTube video which propounds a certain view is not science. It is not even argument.

More useful would be reference to peer-reviewed scientific papers.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

True. There is no substitute for judgment. Simply posting a YouTube video which propounds a certain view is not science. It is not even argument.

More useful would be reference to peer-reviewed scientific papers.

First, science is not what a lot of people think it is. Simply put, science is the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained. It's not complicated. However, the physical world it is trying to figure out is complicated.

Second, regarding peer reviewed articles, they are not a panacea: Surge In Academic Retractions Should Put U.S. Scholars On Notice

Second, they are not always your best source: Why Climate Science Peer Review Is Worthless

Peer review is not worthless, but It is not really the gold standard when it comes to politicized science. And there is a lot of that around these days.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Peer review is not worthless, but It is not really the gold standard when it comes to politicized science.

Am I to gather that the real gold standard is YouTube videos and 'doing your own research'?

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Am I to gather that the real gold standard is YouTube videos and 'doing your own research'?

I'm saying there is no gold standard. Just because a paper is "peer reviewed" does not mean it was handed down from God. And just because it can't get a peer review doesn't mean it's wrong. We all have been gifted with human brains and I've found that sometimes even when I'm not an expert on an issue, I know BS when I see it. It's why the Peer Review article I linked to is so interesting.

But I notice that people that come down on one side or the other of an issue often choose the experts they want to bolster their opinion. I think we all do it to one degree or another. Heck, it's why I subscribe to CNN and MSNBC, but to be frank, MSNBC has become really just a comedy site for me. I see it as satire, kinda like The Onion or Babylon Bee, but not quite as funny.

 

[Whyayeman]

There is no higher scientific standard than peer review. Tony Heller, the author, is not a climate scientist. He has a BSc in geology, but so what?

Perhaps Heller has a YouTube video to show why peer review is worthless.

A December article in Nature highlighted an alarming new record: more than 10,000 academic papers were retracted in 2023 alone, largely stemming from manipulation of the peer review and publication processes. Over 8,000 of the retractions came from journals run by the Egyptian company Hindawi, a subsidiary of Wiley, and many were in special issues, which are collections of articles often overseen by guest editors that can have laxer standards than normal. From Forbes article cited in #272​

​

The alarm bell in this article refers particularly to lax standards by one publisher who was responsible for more than 80% of the retracted articles. I would say that peer review works well; how else could these texts be found to be faulty?

 

[Reasonably Sane]

There is no higher scientific standard than peer review. Tony Heller, the author, is not a climate scientist. He has a BSc in geology, but so what?

Perhaps Heller has a YouTube video to show why peer review is worthless.

A December article in Nature highlighted an alarming new record: more than 10,000 academic papers were retracted in 2023 alone, largely stemming from manipulation of the peer review and publication processes. Over 8,000 of the retractions came from journals run by the Egyptian company Hindawi, a subsidiary of Wiley, and many were in special issues, which are collections of articles often overseen by guest editors that can have laxer standards than normal. From Forbes article cited in #272​

​

The alarm bell in this article refers particularly to lax standards by one publisher who was responsible for more than 80% of the retracted articles. I would say that peer review works well; how else could these texts be found to be faulty?

First, your comment about Heller is ad-hominem, regarding a written article I posted yet you injected Youtube into the mix. Second, though you are right about the 8,000, let us look at the other 2000. Third, The Heller article I posted was not about Global warming, per-se. It was about how peer review is being exploited for a political agenda an offers tons of evidence to back up his claim. You only have to be a reasonable, thinking human being to do that. No "climate science degree" required - in a similar way you don't have to be a biologist to know what a woman is.

But if you need an actual climate scientist, I offer this since you seem to be infatuated with Youtube videos. But to be fair, this is a debate between actual "climate scientists", leaving out people like Bill Nye, Greta Thunberg and, sure, even Tony Heller.

 

[essentialsaltes]

He's got a rally in Vegas tomorrow. It's cooling off a tiny bit, but...

Las Vegas sees second straight day of record-breaking temperatures​

 

[Whyayeman]

But if you need an actual climate scientist, I offer this since you seem to be infatuated with Youtube videos.

It isn't me that is infatuated with YouTube videos. I never watch them.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

It isn't me that is infatuated with YouTube videos. I never watch them.

Interesting. FWIW, I dumped broadcast TV back in 1997 because I considered it a useless waste of time. I now compare Youtube Videos to that scene in The Matrix:

i.e. it is incredibly useful. I do all my own repairs on my car, I completely wired my shop building and even taught a local electrician about roberts screwdrivers. I researched the best clutch to replace my bad one on my zero turn mower, etc. I also learned a lot about ivermectin on Youtube, though most of the info I got was from written pages.

And don't even get me started on the animated WWII history videos. Both informative and interesting.

But, to each his own...

 

[Pommer]

Can there be “global warming” on a flat-Earth?