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.
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.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?
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
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?
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.
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
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
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:"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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
"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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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?