Please provide a link to the paper of your choice. Then point out what they are presenting that is being ignored by main stream climatologists.
Upvote
0
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.
Please provide a link to the paper of your choice. Then point out what they are presenting that is being ignored by main stream climatologists.What's wrong with showing you research done by someone who has considered what the 97% may have ignored? Are you not open to new research? If that's the case, then the future will be stuck with only what is known at the current time. It's an indication of an unwillingness to learn.
Please provide a link to the paper of your choice. Then point out what they are presenting that is being ignored by main stream climatologists.
The only thing I have rejected is opinions from sources (blogs & media) who have no background in science, especially climate science. Also, I asked for two things. (1) Cite one of the 97% consensus papers and show where the science is wrong in it. (2) Show what science is being ignored by the 97%.Already did that. Apparently, it doesn't go along with the 97%, so it was automatically rejected.
History is not necessary, what is necessary is the science.History will clearly show the 97% figure was hook, line, and sinker disinformation.
No one is demonizing CO2, it just happens that CO2 is the major radiative forcing being observed.And CO2 should have never been demonized.
It's like the law. The law is the law, but how it's applied depends on what lawyer or judge you go to.Right. The ones where the scientist needs to either agree with his peers, or be excluded and labeled as a "climate denier" or whatever label is in vogue these days.
What you want is one-sided "science".
No need for me to question what God did or didn't do. Jesus referred to it, and was there when it happened, being omnipresent and all. Good enough for me.You do that, but in the meantime you might want to make the obvious inference.
A lot of them are actual scientists, even climate scientists. What you mean to say is you're not interested in opinions that don't support yours.Once again, look at the science published in peer review literature, and show where that science is wrong. I am not interested in opinions from blogs and the media, especially when they don't even come from actual scientists, much less climate scientists.
Right. The ones where the scientist needs to either agree with his peers, or be excluded and labeled as a "climate denier" or whatever label is in vogue these days.
Oh come now. Why would people believe actual studies when they can cite a denier blog?Indeed, and through the fields of geophysics and geochemistry we can see what those causes were. For the most part, prior to the mid Cenozoic (Neogene) it had to do with continental configuration and positions, topography, and ocean circulations.
The sun's activity was less in the geologic past not higher. As for CO2 lags temperature increases, no, it does not, though it was thought to have at one time. But now, with improved techniques and technology Antarctic ice cores show that CO2 and temperature rise were synchronous, and global warming was preceded by increasing carbon dioxide during the last deglaciation. Here are two studies demonstrating this, one in the Journal Science and one in the Journal Nature.
Synchronous Change of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature During the Last Deglacial Warming | Science
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html
Maybe they should look at HOW they study, and what methods they're using. If your instruments and they way you use them are faulty, then expect faulty data:
Distorted data? Feds close 600 weather stations amid criticism they're situated to report warming
Study Shows Global Warming Data Skewed by Bad Monitoring
And yet here you are appealing to conspiracy theory.Right. The ones where the scientist needs to either agree with his peers, or be excluded and labeled as a "climate denier" or whatever label is in vogue these days.
What you want is one-sided "science".
No they aren't. There are a handful of earth scientists who are deniers or contrarians, but the vast majority of them are not even scientists.A lot of them are actual scientists, even climate scientists. What you mean to say is you're not interested in opinions that don't support yours.
No. Science is empirical. Either the data support the claim or it doesn't.It's like the law. The law is the law, but how it's applied depends on what lawyer or judge you go to.
The 97% consensus is wrong. And peer review has serious problems and is unreliable. It's actually closer to 65% consensus. Many of the scientists were not happy about their inclusion because they didn't agree with the findings.I suggest citing a peer review paper from the 97% consensus and show where the science is wrong.
With all due respect, that does not address what was quoted. Once again:A lot of them are actual scientists, even climate scientists.
No, what I am not interested in is opinions from non professional sources, nor professionals whose profession is not climatology. My opinions are based on what actual practicing climatologists have published from their research, in the appropriate professional literature. It is also based on my academic background and professional experience which allows me to review that literature from a professional point of view and understanding.What you mean to say is you're not interested in opinions that don't support yours.
Any evidence to support your assertions?The 97% consensus is wrong. And peer review has serious problems and is unreliable. It's actually closer to 65% consensus. Many of the scientists were not happy about their inclusion because they didn't agree with the findings.
I have already posted links to several published peer review papers which have evaluated the relevant literature showing that the 97% consensus is correct. I have also asked for anyone to point out any information in any of those papers where they can show their findings incorrect.The 97% consensus is wrong.
I have seen the article relating to the "medical sciences". I know of none relating to the "earth sciences".And peer review has serious problems and is unreliable.
Well that's interesting, I wonder which scientists made such a statement? From the (Cook 2013) paper:It's actually closer to 65% consensus. Many of the scientists were not happy about their inclusion because they didn't agree with the findings.
The funny thing about Watts' station positioning claim is that regardless of how close to a heat source they are, they wouldn't show a warming trend unless it was actually warming.
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?