Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If they find what they want they dont have to throw anything away.The climate models are also a problem and show how the Science is not set. Scientists for the warming find what they want and reject that which does not fit their theory.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/The%20Problem%20With%20Climate%20Models.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiWqf7-wP_RAhVY1mMKHW3YCykQFgglMAE&usg=AFQjCNGUzMW1EoDcDGKFjugfFdHM8zAcsw&sig2=yKau5IsVvKpkMi79XPZnuQ
1) Post 27 and though at times, I'd agree with you, don't assume that "non-response" means what you think it means (I would note, if you go back to my post #14, you will see how easy it is to predict behaviour). Non-engaging does not mean you are correct; it means you are unwilling to consider the possibility that you are not correct. Nor does it mean your argument is more valid or that your "evidence" is strong.Don't confuse non-response with non-argument. That is a common myopic, post hoc fallacy made on these forums - especially when exchanges are already borderline divergent.
Sometimes it is better to just stop - even when you think you are right, and especially if you perceive someone has missed your entire point.
Don't let it go to your head (that's for you, and anyone else who thinks similarly.) It isn't a concession. And, you might want to ease up on your own tone. Maybe that is why you get non-responses: you are too transparent.
I would even mention bible verses that explain precisely how often non-response is the best thing to do in certain situations of debate and argument - but then that would be "self-congratulating" and spiritually arrogant of me, now wouldn't it?
Climate models presenting a most likely scenario where scenario variables match actual recorded data are pretty much on the mark.The climate models are also a problem and show how the Science is not set.
If that were true then it would be easy for anyone to show where the thousands of published peer review climate research (97%) is wrong. The fact is, we only see unsupported opinions and false claims such as those express in the OPs link (Daily Mail). It is important to understand that the 97% consensus is not based on opinion. It is what 97% of the published research shows.Scientists for the warming find what they want and reject that which does not fit their theory.
It might and it might not. That's the problem. We don't really know.
Even those that may think it does do not have a clue as to how much it may go up. We don't know what kind of offsets that nature may have to mitigate a temperature increase. It's all guesswork.
The climate models are also a problem and show how the Science is not set. Scientists for the warming find what they want and reject that which does not fit their theory.
To be precise though, isn't it that CO2 would capture ENERGY and that would normally show itself as heat?We do know.
We do know that carbon dioxide absorbs IR radiation. We do know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. We do know that increasing the concentration of a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere will capture more heat. We do know that capturing more heat will raise global temperatures.
To be precise though, isn't it that CO2 would capture ENERGY and that would normally show itself as heat?
Well, tomato, tomato sauce.....
Yes, IR (infrared) is heat energy.To be precise though, isn't it that CO2 would capture ENERGY and that would normally show itself as heat?
Climate models presenting a most likely scenario where scenario variables match actual recorded data are pretty much on the mark.
If that were true then it would be easy for anyone to show where the thousands of published peer review climate research (97%) is wrong. The fact is, we only see unsupported opinions and false claims such as those express in the OPs link (Daily Mail). It is important to understand that the 97% consensus is not based on opinion. It is what 97% of the published research shows.
In scientific controversies of this kind where the evidence is obscure and complicated well beyond the understanding of most laymen, I find myself inclined to choose sides against whichever faction has the most obvious political agenda and the most lurid conspiracy theories.Why is that? It's because progressive philosophies have taken control of our governments and they want to control the people.
Actually are wrong here. The majority of models have been incorrect.
That is in correct: Some models have undercut; some have over. Some of them have been stastically significant in their precision. To be clear, NONE of them have predicted anything but warming though.Actually are wrong here. The majority of models have been incorrect. They have predicted temperatures higher than what has actually occurred. The alarmist idea is we have to do something now in order to prevent catastrophe. The point I am making is that it is NOT settled science no matter what you have been told. The models have been off, the predictions have been off.
Baseless accusations put forward by outside forces.And as far as peer reviewed papers a lot of it has been shown to be a serious problem with the peer review process. It is not accurate and a lot of it has been falsified.
There has been a TON of fabricating of evidence. Lying about things and flat out scare tactics that are inaccurate.
The last time there was a RAPID change in climate (for WHATEVER reason), how did human societies react to that?The earth's climate is changing. BUT SO WHAT?
A tiny subsection of people complain about the "peer review problem" but they certainly have no problem exploiting the benefits of scientific discoveries that have gone through the peer review process.The Peer Review Problem | Climate Change Dispatch
This thread is about this article. It has been exposed to be a libelous sham.World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data | Daily Mail Online
Because governments are a HUGE financier and innovator in science and provide funding for ALL kinds of research.The majority of funding from grants from the government goes to people who support climate change catastrophe. You have to ask yourself why?
To be clear: It's not that scientist "is not reliable" because of where their money comes from. A scientist becomes unreliable when their science is poor. Funding, in and of itself, is not a reason to dismiss scientific results.And the next question is to ask which is NEVER pointed out is who do the climate change supporters support with funding? It seems to be always pointed out that a scientist is not reliable because Exxon gave him money. Meanwhile no one says a scientist is not reliable because some environmental causes gave them money. In face money is withheld or removed from those that don't support the current thought.
No. That belief exists because people are willing to believe fantastic manipulators.Why is that? It's because progressive philosophies have taken control of our governments and they want to control the people.
I don't have time to speak to the legitimacy of these studies but I can say this:
There is evidence it is manmade. You simply don't accept it.Can you point other articles and findings that say different things than the ones I've linked to? Of course you can. But all that does is prove my point. There is no real evidence that it is catastrophic nor is there proof that it is man made.
You are not alone in how you came to your skepticism. Many people decide to "research for themselves" instead of listening to the media.I became a skeptic when I realized there was another side to this whole thing. I used to think like a lot of folks who didn't look into this. I just believed what I was told in the media. That all changed when I began to dig into this subject. I realized it is NOT as cut and dried as we are led to believe. In fact there is a lot wrong with the current science on this subject from the perpetrators of catastrophic man caused change.
I think you don't understand what models do. They run scenarios. What one has to look at is, did the model scenario match actual recorded data. Here a link to the IPCC Third Assessment, Work Group I.Actually are wrong here. The majority of models have been incorrect. They have predicted temperatures higher than what has actually occurred.
Out of respect, I would prefer that the word "alarmist" not be used in describing climate science research and the scientific community.The alarmist idea is we have to do something now in order to prevent catastrophe. The point I am making is that it is NOT settled science no matter what you have been told. The models have been off, the predictions have been off.
I disagree. What I have seen in attempts to rebut the mainstream climate research is nothing more than opinion and inaccurate media articles such as the one presented in the OP. In order to support the claim that the peer review process has a problem one needs to show specific examples where the published research is wrong. I have yet to see any. In reviewing the links provided I see no such validation.And as far as peer reviewed papers a lot of it has been shown to be a serious problem with the peer review process. It is not accurate and a lot of it has been falsified.
Would you mind citing a specific climate science paper that underwent the peer review process and was published in a mainstream scientific journal that has any fabricated evidence or scare tactics. I know of none.There has been a TON of fabricating of evidence. Lying about things and flat out scare tactics that are inaccurate.
And how many of those are published in mainstream peer review scientific journals?The earth's climate is changing. BUT SO WHAT? We went through a cooling period and have been warming ever since. That is no mystery. The trend is not as serious as it's made out to be and the man caused warming is so full of holes it's ridiculous. I've linked to sources for that in previous posts.
The government grants provided for climate research or any research in any discipline funds the research and only the research. It does not go into the pockets of scientists.The majority of funding from grants from the government goes to people who support climate change catastrophe. You have to ask yourself why? And the next question is to ask which is NEVER pointed out is who do the climate change supporters support with funding? It seems to be always pointed out that a scientist is not reliable because Exxon gave him money. Meanwhile no one says a scientist is not reliable because some environmental causes gave them money. In face money is withheld or removed from those that don't support the current thought.
No climate scientist says the CO2 is the only cause of climate change, but the majority of the current climate change is due to CO2 from fossil fuels. Here is a chart showing the radiative forcings that are currently being observed. Understand that these are actual observed measurements, not opinions or guessesCO2 is not necessarily the cause of climate change.
The fact remains that the majority of models have been wrong the vast majority of the time.
I have seen no such problems of peer review nor have, literally ANY EVER been provided here that I have seen. And in terms of "innacurate science", well, again, I very much doubt that the tens of thousands of papers that support AGW are all "inaccurate". And at the same time, we have taken the skeptics arguments and shown them to be any combination of dishonest misrepresentations to just plain incorrect.I've linked in the past plenty of examples where the science was innaccurate. I've also found examples of peer review problems.
I have never seen anything that calls into question the veracity of AGW that has withstood the rebuttal against it.And there is plenty of info out there about the fact that CO2 is not the serious problem as proclaimed. You do what everyone else does on your side. Just dismiss stuff that fly's in the face of what you believe. Science has a problem with that. Anything that does not fit the belief or what they expect to find is dismissed.
It's kind of hard to cherry pick when almost every single climate scientist agrees with AGW (catastrophic or not). You can complain that they get all the money, but when they almost all agree, it seems silly to thinkThat is why government funding goes to those who support the belief in catastrophic man caused warming and not to those who find something different.
That is a load of hogwollop though. Scientists don't receive money for their research AFTER the work is done; They receive it before. They need to pay for lab time, travel time etc...I work with people who live on the research funding. Yes the money does go to the scientists. Once they lose the funding they are out of a job and a livelihood until they find more funding. In climate science the funding is based on what you find.
I also choose to remain blind to the monsters my son says live in her closet.You can remain blind to the problems of the man caused global warming catastrophic science and it's unreliability and manipulation if you want.
Worldwide fossil fuel industry profits in 2013: 1.3 TRILLIONI for one will not let go of the fact it is a political grab at power and money.
The beautiful thing about the present debate, regardless of what you or I or any worldwide government says:The truth is the climate is changing. We would be far better served if the money and research went into finding ways to help us deal with inevitable change. Pour the money into irrigation and agriculture for food support. Put money into heating and cooling technology. Find ways to adapt to a changing water level if necessary.
Two things. First, I don't think you understand my last post describing models and the example I provided. Models run scenarios with variable criteria and conditions. They are what if situations. If these conditions occur, this is expected happen; if other conditions happen, other outcomes are expected. Please go back and look at the three graphs I provided under scenarios (a), (b) & (c). They demonstrate not only that the current warming trend is not entirely natural, they demonstrate that most of the warming is due to greenhouse gasses.The fact remains that the majority of models have been wrong the vast majority of the time. Wrong in the predictions of the seriousness of the warming. That's my point. The claim is the earth is warming and if we don't do something right now we're all going to die and destroy the planet and it will be our fault.
I disagree, the examples provided are opinions. What is needed to validate those claims is peer review rebuttals showing where and how the other peer review is incorrect and this is seen in scientific journals. However, I know of none that rebut any of the 97% consensus articles.I've also found examples of peer review problems.
If there was it would be published in the appropriate scientific journals. All I have seen supporting the idea that CO2 is not a problem come from social media.And there is plenty of info out there about the fact that CO2 is not the serious problem as proclaimed.
The only unreliability and manipulation I have seen is the article by the Daily Mail cited in the OP. Did you not review the article in the Guardian, written by an actual climate scientist I linked, showing step by step that every claim about NOAA scientists in that article was not true? As for suggesting I'm am blind, I fail to understand how relying only on the published science in the peer review journals and the major scientific organizations and academy of sciences world wide, rather than social media and blog opinions is being blind.You can remain blind to the problems of the man caused global warming catastrophic science and it's unreliability and manipulation if you want.
I have seen no such problems of peer review nor have, literally ANY EVER been provided here that I have seen. And in terms of "innacurate science", well, again, I very much doubt that the tens of thousands of papers that support AGW are all "inaccurate". And at the same time, we have taken the skeptics arguments and shown them to be any combination of dishonest misrepresentations to just plain incorrect.
I have never seen anything that calls into question the veracity of AGW that has withstood the rebuttal against it.
It's kind of hard to cherry pick when almost every single climate scientist agrees with AGW (catastrophic or not). You can complain that they get all the money, but when they almost all agree, it seems silly to think
That is a load of hogwollop though. Scientists don't receive money for their research AFTER the work is done; They receive it before. They need to pay for lab time, travel time etc...
How can the money be based on "what you find" if the results come in?
I also choose to remain blind to the monsters my son says live in her closet.
Don't believe that just because skeptics put up a very unconvincing argument that AGW proponents are remaining blind; you simply aren't convincing us with your evidence....like, at ALL.
Worldwide fossil fuel industry profits in 2013: 1.3 TRILLION
Green lobby in the US:
Lobbyists in the US spending the most:Lobbying Spending Database | OpenSecrets
(You'll see fossil fuels at #6 with $1,900,000,000 ) And automotive? 900 million if you'd want to include those.
US Oil lobby outspends green movement by factor of five | Climate Home - climate change news
You think the green lobby is some kind of huge nefarious force and all 180 governments around the world are in cahoots to create a socialist paradise all over the world? You think government officials REALLY care about global warming when they can get 5x as much money from oil and gas? Why would "the government" spend money on research that undercuts their 6th greatest personal revenue source?
The logic of your argument makes no sense.
The beautiful thing about the present debate, regardless of what you or I or any worldwide government says:
The scientific community is WAAAAAAAY past proving climate change. Academia is now studying EXACTLY what you are suggesting they study. So, in some sense, we are all on the same page.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?