Global Warming

[FreeinChrist]

The story there holds regardless of whether the owner is going through a divorce. Don't dodge the points made.

 

[createdtoworship]

The story there holds regardless of whether the owner is going through a divorce. Don't dodge the points made.

lol, looks like you need a new fact checking source. At least one with some morals. I mean how can you trust such a source?

 

[FreeinChrist]

Your article is really lacking and some of what is lacking was shown.

It was posted on a Word Press site owned by one of the authors - not a peer reviewed anything. The link sources are weak at best. Mostly they are word press sites - like notalotofpeopleknowthat.com.
That isn't scientific at all.

 

[SBC]

is there any hope for earth to reverse global warming and is this gods plan? Thanks.

First it was called "climate change" and then the issue took on a new name of "global warming". Regardless of the "name", it is the view of Scientists, pertaining to weather being impacted by humans. And of course the solution, should be based on Science, and the enforcement of the solution, should be compelled by governments, to exact $$$ from the people at large to keep the issue seemingly necessary and valid.

The earth belongs to God. period
The weather is controlled by God. period

One more Scientific brainstorm solution, does nothing to supersede God.
One more demanding tax dollar, does nothing to supersede God.

IF you are a believer, and worrying about the earths temperature.....Why?

John 14
[27] Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

Science, Governments, Money will not "FIX" the earth, that is slated to be:

2 Pet 3
[10] But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

God Bless,
SBC

 

[SBC]

I'm as conservative as you get. But I recognize that climate change and ozone layer depletion are very real events, both of which are caused by humans (mostly, I think), that are leading to the destruction of our planet. If things continue unabated, I worry about the future of sustainable life on our planet.

Why? God Himself teaches the complete opposite.

In my judgement, the UN should pressure nations

like USA, China, and Russia, the three biggest polluters of our planet, into adopting and researching green energy technologies. I worry that doing so could be ineffective, unfortunately. Energy lobbyists have too much power over governments.

In my judgement, I hate pressure. And aside from someone putting pressure ON me, I detest someone, meddling in what affects my Liberty, by deciding it is a good idea for another to put pressure on me.

Trust God and remember; His own plan is not about "saving" the earth.

2Pet.3

1. [13] Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

God Bless,
SBC

 

[createdtoworship]

Your article is really lacking and some of what is lacking was shown.

It was posted on a Word Press site owned by one of the authors - not a peer reviewed anything. The link sources are weak at best. Mostly they are word press sites - like notalotofpeopleknowthat.com.
That isn't scientific at all.

nope, try again. My peer review holds, despite the fact you have an agenda that goes against what it says.

 

[FreeinChrist]

That is your opinion. It would not hold in any university setting when critiqued, nor any editorial board for peer-reviewed journals.

 

[createdtoworship]

That is your opinion. It would not hold in any university setting when critiqued, nor any editorial board for peer-reviewed journals.

like I said journals are just for cataloguing. And the fact that they can be in book form proves it. so sorry, I guess your just going to have to read it and debate actual facts.

 

[FreeinChrist]

No, Journals are not just for cataloging. That statement shows ignorance of how peer review and research occurs.

It is not worth discussing it in that case.

 

[createdtoworship]

No, Journals are not just for cataloging. That statement shows ignorance of how peer review and research occurs.

It is not worth discussing it in that case.

ok then bye.

 

[createdtoworship]

peer review stating, that less than half of scientists agree man is responsible for climate change:

Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

 

[EpiscipalMe]

peer review stating, that less than half of scientists agree man is responsible for climate change:

Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

That is not what the article says. The abstract says that less than half of Americans believe in man made climate change.

However, if you read the article you find this:
Of all the scientists who responded to their survey, 90% believed in global warming, 82% believe "human activity is a significant contributing factor."
When they looked only at respondents who published >50% of their work on climate change, 96.2% believed in global warming and 97.4% believe humans are to blame.

The pdf of the full article is here:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/stor...qa&s=ae6de17defadae9668e7a297e6892cb80c022421

 

[createdtoworship]

point is that less than half, actually believe man is responsible for climate change, that is a far cry from the majority of scientists claiming it is. Believe what you want.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

point is that less than half, actually believe man is responsible for climate change, that is a far cry from the majority of scientists claiming it is. Believe what you want.

Less than half of all Anericans - including people who have no clue what they are talking about.

However, you claimed the article demonstrates that a minority of scientists were against man-made global warming when, in fact, the authors' data and conclusion were just the opposite. The vast majority of scientists, climate scientists in particular, believe in man made global warming.

You can believe what you want about global warming, but you cannot misrepresent what this peer-reviewed article shows.

 

[createdtoworship]

Again point Is that less than half agree? How is 48% a concensus? Get a clue.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

Again point I'd that led than half agree? How is 48% o concensus? Get a clue.

Everyone knows that there is no consensus among the general public on global warming. That is why we continue to have these debates about global warming. This is also not what I am saying.

You presented the article as showing lack of consensus among scientists. This is not what the article says. The article supports consensus on the existence of man-made global warming among scientists, particularly climate sciences among whom there is >95% agreement.

 

[createdtoworship]

Everyone knows that there is no consensus among the general public on global warming. That is why we continue to have these debates about global warming. This is also not what I am saying.

You presented the article as showing lack of consensus among scientists, which is not what it says:



You presented the article as showing lack of consensus among scientists. This is not what the article says. The article supports consensus on the existence of man-made global warming among scientists, particularly climate sciences among whom there is >95% agreement.

I repeat, people think that global warming via man is a scientific thing, and it isn't, if over half of scientists have no opinion or reject it outright.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

I repeat Again point Is that less than half agree? How is 48% a concensus? Get a clue.

48% is not a consensus, but that is also not what you wrote. You suggested it was 48% of scientists. Here is your post:

peer review stating, that less than half of scientists agree man is responsible for climate change:

Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

Read the article. It says 48% of the general public agrees with global warming. We all agree in this stat.

The article you posted also says that 90-95% of scientists agree with man-made global warming.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

I repeat, people think that global warming via man is a scientific thing, and it isn't, if over half of scientists have no opinion or reject it outright.

Except that is not what the article says.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

[Staff edit].

There is not consensus among Americans. There is consensus among scientists. This is what the article says.

Here is their chart on responses to the question as to whether humans contribute significantly to global warming. This chart is from the peer-reviewed article you posted.