Global Warming

[BobRyan]

Here's another chart for you to ignore. It shows relationships between CO2 and temperature going back for eons.

Well as much as that stuff before the ice age is a lot of 100's of thousands of years of "guessing up and down" - at the very least - it has been "warming" since the ice age and nobody denies it.

So now -- who you gonna blame for all that since-the-ice-age warming and do we "really" want to go back to the ice age?

 

[createdtoworship]

Well as much as that stuff before the ice age is a lot of 100's of thousands of years of "guessing up and down" - at the very least - it has been "warming" since the ice age and nobody denies it.

So now -- who you gonna blame for all that since-the-ice-age warming and do we "really" want to go back to the ice age?

the links are from political blogs and news sources, not very reliable. I posted a peer review proving the fraud of global warming, with no rebuttal so far.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

still waiting for a response to this peer review proving the fraud behind global warming:



Research Team Slams Global Warming Data In New Report: "Not Reality... Totally Inconsistent With Credible Temperature Data" | Zero Hedge

The link you provided is to a website. However, I did follow the link to the report.

Despite the claim of Zero Hedge, this is not peer-review. This is a buncih of peers who got together and wrote a report.

Peer-review means sending it to a journal where the research is reviewed by a number of experts in the field who are unaffiliated with the original work. There is no indication that this review process was followed in this study.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Well as much as that stuff before the ice age is a lot of 100's of thousands of years of "guessing up and down" - at the very least - it has been "warming" since the ice age and nobody denies it.

So now -- who you gonna blame for all that since-the-ice-age warming and do we "really" want to go back to the ice age?

Who does the Bible blame?

Rev 16:8-9 The fourth angel poured out his bowl upon the sun, and it was given to it to scorch men with fire. Men were scorched with fierce heat; and they blasphemed the name of God who has the power over these plagues, and they did not repent so as to give Him glory.
NASU

 

[mushroom]

Its a political football now instead of contest of evidence. Those who heed the evidence have tried to warn us of the coming problems; those who think in terms of what side can win politically are content to ignore the evidence.

it's been nothing but political from the start, the only way they get away with saying it's not political is because we don't get to vote for the scientists who want to push policies to run our lives, which is just so wonderful for liberals to have their lefty friends in the science community tell us that they have a good scientific reason to run our lives for us, how convenient! the whole premise is made up, not a single bit of it has any fact based evidence, repeating that your made up arguments have facts attached doesn't make it so, it is designed to scare the pants off people, designed to be unable to debated because the debate is all over the place, designed to be an emergency where only liberals have the answers and get rich in the process (convenient), they want to silence the 'deniers' and we all know nothing spells confidence in your beliefs like silencing dissent, and never forget that the solution is control of people and forcing them to do less, accept less, eat less, give up on comfort and know that our suffering is good for the earth and what will we have then? an elite group of liberals enjoying a life no one else is allowed to have. here's some Mark Steyn wonderbar stuff
The "Craziness" of the Climate Science Echo Chamber
Markey Mark
Climate of Corruption

 

[BobRyan]

Who does the Bible blame?

Rev 16:8-9 The fourth angel poured out his bowl upon the sun, and it was given to it to scorch men with fire. Men were scorched with fierce heat; and they blasphemed the name of God who has the power over these plagues, and they did not repent so as to give Him glory.
NASU

For the warming -- certainly God is the one in charge.

But for "destroying the earth" - by polluting and corrupting it - there is
Rev 11
“We give You thanks, O Lord God, the Almighty, who are and who were, because You have taken Your great power and have begun to reign. 18 And the nations were enraged, and Your wrath came, and the time came for the dead to be judged, and the time to reward Your bond-servants the prophets and the saints and those who fear Your name, the small and the great, and to destroy those who destroy the earth.”

 

[BobRyan]

it's been nothing but political from the start, the only way they get away with saying it's not political is because we don't get to vote for the scientists who want to push policies to run our lives, which is just so wonderful for liberals

I think the main motivator for scientists is 'research grants' and sought-after-papers. They follow the money so long as the science to be promoted is not more in the "fairy tale" column than evolutionism.

 

[createdtoworship]

The link you provided is to a website. However, I did follow the link to the report.

Despite the claim of Zero Hedge, this is not peer-review. This is a buncih of peers who got together and wrote a report.

Peer-review means sending it to a journal where the research is reviewed by a number of experts in the field who are unaffiliated with the original work. There is no indication that this review process was followed in this study.

a quote from the link:'According to the report, which has been peer reviewed by administrators, scientists and researchers from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.), and several of America’s leading universities, the data is completely bunk:"

so you would have to refute that evidence. Perhaps by interviewing each of the above to find out if it's false.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

a quote from the link:'According to the report, which has been peer reviewed by administrators, scientists and researchers from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.), and several of America’s leading universities, the data is completely bunk:"

so you would have to refute that evidence. Perhaps by interviewing each of the above to find out if it's false.

I addressed that very sentence. Zero Hedge doesn't know what peer review is. The article itself doesn't even claim to be peer reviewed.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I think the main motivator for scientists is 'research grants' and sought-after-papers. They follow the money so long as the science to be promoted is not more in the "fairy tale" column than evolutionism.

The main motivator for scientists is to find out and understand the wonders of the universe. Your dislike of some of what they find will not stop them.

 

[createdtoworship]

I addressed that very sentence. Zero Hedge doesn't know what peer review is. The article itself doesn't even claim to be peer reviewed.

Name one peer review that actually states it's peer review in its text. again peer review is very simple. yet none of your sources even claim to be peer reviewed.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

Name one peer review that actually states it's peer review in its text. again peer review is very simple. yet none of your sources even claim to be peer reviewed.

"Peer review" is the process by which articles get published in journals. This was not from a journal. Hence, it does not appear to be peer reviewed.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

Name one peer review that actually states it's peer review in its text. again peer review is very simple. yet none of your sources even claim to be peer reviewed.

These are peer-reviewed:
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

C(α) Expressions for Split Gaussian Frequency Trend with Illustration to Check Global Warming | Shanmugam | International Journal of Ecological Economics and Statistics™

Relative impacts of increased greenhouse gas concentrations and land cover change on the surface climate in arid and semi-arid regions of China

1200‐Year Composite Ice Core Record of Aleutian Low Intensification

Global warming and 21st century drying

Forcing, feedback and internal variability in global temperature trends : Nature : Nature Research

Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus | Science

 

[mushroom]

The main motivator for scientists is to find out and understand the wonders of the universe. Your dislike of some of what they find will not stop them.

then maybe should stick to discovering, and facts and evidence and stop fortune-telling, they have no proof that we are causing or can stop their wild predictions, that said, I believe in freedom, free will and human ingenuity, and I believe in the good will of people doing right by their neighbors, when we are spending millions of dollars on things that we know are inefficient and essentially useless, on maybe solutions to maybe problems, we are not spending any of that money helping real people with real problems right here and now, when problems arise free people in free competition will always come up with the best solutions, bankrupt people who have to choose between food and heat don't have the energy to spend on producing more for themselves or others, government solutions are never good for people other than elites, there is no good reason to support the tyranny this movement requires of itself

 

[createdtoworship]

"Peer review" is the process by which articles get published in journals. This was not from a journal. Hence, it does not appear to be peer reviewed.

journals are just for cataloging purposes. So I am sorry but you will, unless you have evidence otherwise, take it as peer review. But again you can call all those organizations that peer reviewed it and ask them if you wish.

 

[createdtoworship]

These are peer-reviewed:
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

C(α) Expressions for Split Gaussian Frequency Trend with Illustration to Check Global Warming | Shanmugam | International Journal of Ecological Economics and Statistics™

Relative impacts of increased greenhouse gas concentrations and land cover change on the surface climate in arid and semi-arid regions of China

1200‐Year Composite Ice Core Record of Aleutian Low Intensification

Global warming and 21st century drying

Forcing, feedback and internal variability in global temperature trends : Nature : Nature Research

Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus | Science

the first one says only 30% of people agreed that there was global warming. the second one was authored by a health professional: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Os1F-W8AAAAJ&hl=en. The third, 4th and 5th ones are just on green house gases, not on man made global warming. the sixth one is revealing mismatches in global warming predictions.

the first one does not signify what the qualifications are of the authors.


the last one is outdates as to my peer review that was peer reviewed by the same organizations that peer reviewed your last one. Mine is just more up to date.

 

[CrystalDragon]

When has there ever been a catastrophe that killed and destroyed
everything I listed in that post?
When has there ever been instant communication around the globe?

You failed to explain away Matthew 24:22

What about it? It says "the days shall be shortened", indicating how the end times were near and upon them. Never happened.

And like I said, there is no catastrophe and was never meant to be because Revelation is symbolic.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

journals are just for cataloging purposes. So I am sorry but you will, unless you have evidence otherwise, take it as peer review. But again you can call all those organizations that peer reviewed it and ask them if you wish.

No I won't take it as peer review. Other than the claim of Zero Hedge, there is no evidence of it being peer review.

And, you misunderstand the purpose of journals.

the first one says only 30% of people agreed that there was global warming. the second one was authored by a health professional: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Os1F-W8AAAAJ&hl=en. The third, 4th and 5th ones are just on green house gases, not on man made global warming. the sixth one is revealing mismatches in global warming predictions.

the first one does not signify what the qualifications are of the authors.


the last one is outdates as to my peer review that was peer reviewed by the same organizations that peer reviewed your last one. Mine is just more up to date.

By your metric, authors' qualifications do not matter - they are all peer review.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

then maybe should stick to discovering, and facts and evidence and stop fortune-telling, they have no proof that we are causing or can stop their wild predictions, that said, I believe in freedom, free will and human ingenuity, and I believe in the good will of people doing right by their neighbors, when we are spending millions of dollars on things that we know are inefficient and essentially useless, on maybe solutions to maybe problems, we are not spending any of that money helping real people with real problems right here and now, when problems arise free people in free competition will always come up with the best solutions, bankrupt people who have to choose between food and heat don't have the energy to spend on producing more for themselves or others, government solutions are never good for people other than elites, there is no good reason to support the tyranny this movement requires of itself

And you know all this is true because . . . ?

 

[createdtoworship]

No I won't take it as peer review. Other than the claim of Zero Hedge, there is no evidence of it being peer review.

And, you misunderstand the purpose of journals.



By your metric, authors' qualifications do not matter - they are all peer review.

I don't care what you think, your not a scientist. So my peer review stays.