Page 1 of 9 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 850

Thread: The TRUTH about climate change

  1. #1

    Default The TRUTH about climate change

    It is time Albertans learned the TRUTH about climate change. I'm going to lay down some irrefutable facts about it. The media is awash with exaggerations, confusion, and misnomers. All you get is hyperbole sound bites. If you want to REALLY LEARN THE FACTS watch for my posts, ask questions, and join the discussion. Hard science doesn't support CO2 will cause drastic warming. So let's bypass the media bites, the raging hyperbole, and learn some real, hard science facts about "climate change".

    Lets start with this little known fact:
    "Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m) would result in 1 °C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed"
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity

    HARD PHYSICS SAYS IF CO2 WENT TO 800 PPM WE'D ONLY GET 1(ONE) DEGREE OF WARMING!!!!
    How do they get 4, or 5, or 6, degrees of warming???????

    Here's how....... they pretend all the other things that affect climate (which accounts for >90% of the heat budget) will stay perfectly stable and CO2 will "tip" the whole "unstable" schmozzle into an exaggerated amount of warming.

    If this doesn't make sense to you (the tail wagging the dog), you're not alone.

    There's a LOT more to come. Stay tuned. Join the discussion.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 19-01-2018 at 08:44 PM. Reason: Clarity
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  2. #2

    Default

    MrOilers, is that you?
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  3. #3

    Default

    Uh, Captain Conspiracy I think your tinfoil hat is on too tight. It's ~3 degrees for doubled CO2 (because you can't actually remove CO2 in the atmosphere from the feedbacks that are explicitly excluded in the sentence you quoted).

    The other new study this week, from Peter Cox and Mark Williamson of the University of Exeter and Chris Huntingford of the UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, tries a variation on the theme of analyzing the historical temperature record. Instead of comparing greenhouse gas changes to the recorded warming trend, they decided to focus on how variable year-to-year global temperatures have been. Instead of teasing out the signal, they studied the noise.
    The idea is that climate models that are more sensitive to (comparatively) gradual changes in CO2 should also be more sensitive to short-term fluctuations in the balance of incoming and outgoing energy. In the 16 climate models they examined, there is a reasonable correlation between sensitivity and short-term variability.

    With that correlation worked out, the researchers repeated their short-term variability calculation for the actual record of global temperatures going back to 1880. Match up the real-world variability to the model correlation, and you can estimate the matching climate sensitivity.


    This estimate lines up well with the consensus best estimate of 3 degrees Celsius for doubled CO2, but it spans a narrower range than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports have settled on. While the IPCC has long given a range of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius, this new study estimates 2.2 to 3.4 degrees Celsius (with an average of 2.8 degrees Celsius).
    https://arstechnica.com/science/2018...o-co%E2%82%82/

    But no, we should listen to the rantings of someone who's already displayed a deficit in reading comprehension & critical thinking?

    Yeah, no. Take your claptrap elsewhere.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  4. #4

    Default

    OP Twisting the facts and then claims that he has the real facts.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  5. #5
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,481

    Default

    ^^^^

    sounds an awful lot like the arguments that were used to counter the chlorofluorocarbon/hole the ozone layer discussions before - and after - the montreal protocol was adopted.

    pseudoscience that is continuing to be proven wrong based on the hard evidence continuing to be generated every day.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  6. #6

    Default

    This troll-thread is going to make me want to plead to Admin to update VBulletin to whatever latest version offers thread-Ignore.

    6 posts by MrCombust since joining 3 days ago, all of them climate squawking.
    Last edited by Spudly; 19-01-2018 at 01:16 PM.
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Uh, Captain Conspiracy I think your tinfoil hat is on too tight. It's ~3 degrees for doubled CO2 (because you can't actually remove CO2 in the atmosphere from the feedbacks that are explicitly excluded in the sentence you quoted).

    The other new study this week, from Peter Cox and Mark Williamson of the University of Exeter and Chris Huntingford of the UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, tries a variation on the theme of analyzing the historical temperature record. Instead of comparing greenhouse gas changes to the recorded warming trend, they decided to focus on how variable year-to-year global temperatures have been. Instead of teasing out the signal, they studied the noise.
    The idea is that climate models that are more sensitive to (comparatively) gradual changes in CO2 should also be more sensitive to short-term fluctuations in the balance of incoming and outgoing energy. In the 16 climate models they examined, there is a reasonable correlation between sensitivity and short-term variability.

    With that correlation worked out, the researchers repeated their short-term variability calculation for the actual record of global temperatures going back to 1880. Match up the real-world variability to the model correlation, and you can estimate the matching climate sensitivity.


    This estimate lines up well with the consensus best estimate of 3 degrees Celsius for doubled CO2, but it spans a narrower range than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports have settled on. While the IPCC has long given a range of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius, this new study estimates 2.2 to 3.4 degrees Celsius (with an average of 2.8 degrees Celsius).
    https://arstechnica.com/science/2018...o-co%E2%82%82/

    But no, we should listen to the rantings of someone who's already displayed a deficit in reading comprehension & critical thinking?

    Yeah, no. Take your claptrap elsewhere.
    First of all the feedbacks are unknown variables. Scientists that pretend to know what the feedback value of clouds will be 50 years from now are astrologists.
    Secondly, for CO2 to "control" the temperature, ALL the other variables have to be controlled by CO2. Does Canada control the US economy? No.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    This troll-thread is going to make me want to plead to Admin to update VBulletin to whatever latest version offers thread-Ignore.

    6 posts by MrCombust since joining 3 days ago, all of them climate squawking.
    Get comfortable. I'm just gettin' started.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  9. #9

    Default

    Nope, rant on with your tinfoil hat conspiracy theories.

    I for one, am not biting.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    First of all the feedbacks are unknown variables. Scientists that pretend to know what the feedback value of clouds will be 50 years from now are astrologists.
    It's like you're unaware of the concept of estimates or projections.


    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Secondly, for CO2 to "control" the temperature, ALL the other variables have to be controlled by CO2.
    Uh no, that's not how it works. Ye gods, you're amazingly intentionally ignorant & around here that's quite an accomplishment given the high bar of intentional ignorance already in place.


    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Does Canada control the US economy? No.
    Your analogies are as crap as your grasp of science, climate & logic.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  11. #11
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    This troll-thread is going to make me want to plead to Admin to update VBulletin to whatever latest version offers thread-Ignore.

    6 posts by MrCombust since joining 3 days ago, all of them climate squawking.
    6 posts?

    between them moahunter and MrOilers are pushing 50,000 and neither has hit my ignore list (on the other hand, no_one else has either).

    my guess is that without much engagement MrCombust is likely to combust a lot sooner than some of our other friends even without a "thread ignore" option.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  12. #12

    Default

    you have a LOT more time on your hands than I do
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  13. #13
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,695

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    This troll-thread is going to make me want to plead to Admin to update VBulletin to whatever latest version offers thread-Ignore.

    6 posts by MrCombust since joining 3 days ago, all of them climate squawking.
    That would be great, way too many Trump threads..☺

  14. #14

    Default

    Geez folk. So I start fascinating threads like: “Why some people are so sure they're right, even when they are not“, and get absolutely zero, zilch, nadda comments, and here I’m already poster #14.

  15. #15

    Default

    You gotta troll harder!
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  16. #16
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,695

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Geez folk. So I start fascinating threads like: “Why some people are so sure they're right, even when they are not“, and get absolutely zero, zilch, nadda comments, and here I’m already poster #14.

    I missed that, sorry KC..

  17. #17
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    you have a LOT more time on your hands than I do
    i doubt it... whether it is being used wisely however is probably up for debate.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  18. #18

    Default

    Poster starts account, immediately puts up questionable thread, has a clickbait title worse than darker sides of youtube, and then the subsequent related posts. Wonder whats going on here..
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    This troll-thread is going to make me want to plead to Admin to update VBulletin to whatever latest version offers thread-Ignore.

    6 posts by MrCombust since joining 3 days ago, all of them climate squawking.
    Get comfortable. I'm just gettin' started.
    Yeah, we all sense that. How long did it take to achieve combustion the last go round?
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  20. #20

  21. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Nope, rant on with your tinfoil hat conspiracy theories.

    I for one, am not biting.
    Well to be honest most of your posts have no teeth anyway.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  22. #22

  23. #23
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Forest Heights
    Posts
    212

    Default

    Welcome to connect2edmonton, MrCompost!

    I won't add my views on climate change to this discussion but I will state that I'm in solid agreement with Noodle's opinion here on this thread.

    That's pretty much proof to me that Hell has frozen over.
    ˙
    ...From this ragged handful of tents and cabins one day will rise a city...

  24. #24
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,112

    Default

    Why is this thread even here still, there's already a Climate Change thread

  25. #25

    Default

    Because MrCombust felt the need to troll for attention.
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  26. #26
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    Because MrCombust felt the need to troll for attention.
    that might be what started it but it's still here because we keep rising to take the bait...
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  27. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    Because MrCombust felt the need to troll for attention.
    that might be what started it but it's still here because we keep rising to take the bait...
    yep, right on cue... seems to work every time...
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  28. #28
    Last edited by KC; 21-01-2018 at 04:32 PM.

  29. #29

    Default

    No, it's for TRUTH - the caps make it feel more truthy to folks who tend to think everyone else but people they agree with are wrong. Caps are popular with various marketers too.
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  30. #30

    Default The TRUTH about climate change. NASA's credibility and the fake consensus.

    Hello Edmonton and fellow Albertans. In this post I'm going to address NASA's credibility, and the credibility of the consensus.

    Under the heading "FACTS", and "Scientific Consensus", NASA claims that "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
    https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

    Let's take a look and see if it's THE TRUTH.

    NASA lists this paper as a reference: P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.
    Of course there are others, but I can't address them all in one post, I will get to others in due time.
    Here's the survey available online, lets check it to see if it represents what NASA says it does............
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...9EO030002/epdf


    The survey asks two questions:
    1. When compared with pre- 1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
    2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?


    We can see immediately that question 2 doesn't meet the criteria "Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
    "Significant contributing factor" could mean anything. 10% could be "significant" to some scientists. It's an undefined term.

    10,257 scientists were "surveyed", but in the body of the paper we see this result:
    Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.


    So the survey doesn't even ask a question that represents the claim, and the 97% consensus isn't even based on 97 scientists.

    They want us to commit monumental effort to abate "climate change", costing us untold amounts of money. If climate change is real, does this survey really represent the "consensus"?
    Last edited by MrCombust; 22-01-2018 at 10:38 AM. Reason: added link
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  31. #31

  32. #32
    Forum Administrator *
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,561
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    MrCombust,

    You're welcome to have your opinion on this topic, but please do not spam the forum with multiple threads about the same issue. Please only start a new thread when you have a new topic, not just supporting documentation for the same hypothesis/opinion.

    Thank you.
    Ow

  33. #33

    Default

    Medwards posting a fake graph, created by a comedian, showing 3 degrees of warming that hasn't happened..
    Perfect example of fake climate science.

    Check the graph, 3 extra degrees courtesy of the author. Check the link, author is a comedian.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  34. #34

    Default

    The author is a comedian, but the graph is still mostly true.

  35. #35
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,560

    Default

    Can the guy not read graphs? It pretty clearly shows that warming to 2016 is just under 1C.

  36. #36

    Default

    Just to be clear to the forum kooks posting fake science. I'm not here to engage you. I'm here to post the truth. I'm not going to argue with nonsense you post unless it suits me. Post all the fake "science" you want in response to my posts. The graph above is mostly false. I'll be dealing with the fraudulent "hockey stick graph" (of which this is a version thereof), in due time. If you want me to discuss your posts I will do so at your request. But if you post crap from a comedian, with no supporting references, I'm not interested.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  37. #37

    Default

    Question: does pollution (natural or human induced) harm or alter the environmental, ecological, climactic composition on the Earth?
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  38. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Just to be clear to the forum kooks posting fake science.
    Hilarious, given that you're the kook posting the fake science & making unsubstantiated claims that aren't backed by anything other than your own wild imaginings.

    (I was gonna respond to more, but what else needs to be said?)
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  39. #39

    Default

    MrCompost

    Love your 'Holier-than-Thou' sanctimonious, holder of all truth statement.

    With your attitude on a discussion forum, I'm not here to engage you either.




    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  40. #40
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,560

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCompost
    I'll be dealing with the fraudulent "hockey stick graph" (of which this is a version thereof), in due time.


    This should be amusing! I look forward to you debunking several dozen different temperature proxy records (the original "hockey stick controversy" was over a single temperature record), including the Berkeley Earth record which was actually created to do just that, but ended up more or less agreeing with all the previous reconstructions:
    http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCompost
    I'm not going to argue with nonsense you post unless it suits me.


    Oh, we fully realize, don't worry.

  41. #41

    Default

    A cursory glance at Berkely Earth is leaving me with cause for concern. Their own "skeptics guide" pamphlet contradicts itself several times. I don't give much quarter to deceptive practices. Maybe you should review your source.

    http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/...ate-change.pdf

    "Hasn’t climate changed before in the past?
    Yes, natural variability exists, and the Earth’s temperature has changed in the past. However, for the past century we know that CO2 is coming from human burning of fossil fuels. While climate has changed in the past, possibly even as quickly and dramatically as it is changing today, we nevertheless can tell from the unique carbon fingerprint that today’s warming is human caused."

    What's the "unique carbon fingerprint" if "climate has changed in the past, possibly even as quickly and dramatically as it is changing today"?

    Isn't that a head scratcher?

    And.............
    "While informed critics of global warming agree that more CO2 leads to a warmer planet, there is wide disagreement about how much warming will occur in the future, and if it may have some positive aspects.

    immediately followed by................

    "The science is clear: global warming is real, and caused by human greenhouse gas emissions"

    You're going to present top drawer "science" from these guys? Oh yes, there WILL be amusement. In fact, I'm quite amused already.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  42. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    "Hasn’t climate changed before in the past?
    Yes, natural variability exists, and the Earth’s temperature has changed in the past. However, for the past century we know that CO2 is coming from human burning of fossil fuels. While climate has changed in the past, possibly even as quickly and dramatically as it is changing today, we nevertheless can tell from the unique carbon fingerprint that today’s warming is human caused."
    The Answer was right below, it's hardly baffling. To paraphrase:

    Yes, the temperature can fluctate drastically without human intervention (i.e. when Yellowstone's super volcano erupts and ash fills the air blocking the sunlight. The temperature will drop drastically). But the whole thing is temporary. Once the dust/ash settles down, it will return to normal.

    These temperature changes we are experiencing can't be explained by anything but humans.

    Speaking of global warming, what happened to winter this year?

  43. #43
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,560

    Default

    MrCompost, first of all, you should be aware of what Berkeley Earth is, who started it, and why. Since you seem to have no idea. The long and short of it is that Richard Muller was himself a climate change skeptic, and didn't trust the numerous other temperature records out there, and felt there were numerous problems with them. So he assembled a team and funding, and set out to create an independent temperature record unsullied by all these problems. Turns out his previous skepticism was unfounded: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richar...Berkeley_Earth

    Quote Originally Posted by Wall Street Journal Op-Ed by Muller
    When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections.
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust
    What's the "unique carbon fingerprint" if "climate has changed in the past, possibly even as quickly and dramatically as it is changing today"?

    Isn't that a head scratcher?
    If you're willfully scientifically ignorant, then yes. If you aren't, then you would look in to it and discover that through radio-isotopic analysis of carbon it can be determined that the increased concentration in our atmosphere is directly attributable to the burning of fossil fuels: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ities-updated/

    Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.
    CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.
    We know, for an absolute fact, that most of the carbon entering the atmosphere is human caused. This is not up for dispute in any scientific circles. None. Nada. Zilch. It is a fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCompost
    You're going to present top drawer "science" from these guys? Oh yes, there WILL be amusement. In fact, I'm quite amused already.


    Are you laughing at yourself?

  44. #44
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,560

    Default

    In any case, what you don't seem to get, MrCompost, is that there are literally dozens of different temperature records at this point, many of them independent. At the time of the hockey stick "controversy", that was just about the only game in town (some minor, legitimate issues were raised and corrected and didn't change it to any significant degree). But that was something like 20+ years ago. Time has moved on and other researchers have done their own reconstructions, and they all point to the same thing: a hockey stick shaped graph. So even if you somehow falsify one, which you haven't even come close to doing (you'll need a PhD for that), you've got to falsify the rest. If you're truly interested in educating yourself, which we both know you aren't, you can start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_(climate)

  45. #45
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    In any case, what you don't seem to get, MrCompost, is that there are literally dozens of different temperature records at this point, many of them independent. At the time of the hockey stick "controversy", that was just about the only game in town (some minor, legitimate issues were raised and corrected and didn't change it to any significant degree). But that was something like 20+ years ago. Time has moved on and other researchers have done their own reconstructions, and they all point to the same thing: a hockey stick shaped graph. So even if you somehow falsify one, which you haven't even come close to doing (you'll need a PhD for that), you've got to falsify the rest. If you're truly interested in educating yourself, which we both know you aren't, you can start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_(climate)
    funny isn't it... he doesn't want to accept numbers generated from the time when we have a greater ability to measure things in more ways than ever before possible but he's quite happy representing "data points" from 5,000 or 10,000 or 20,000 years ago as accurate.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  46. #46

    Default

    The TRUTH about climate change. NASA's credibility, Peer review, and the fake consensus. Part2

    Hello Edmonton and fellow Albertans. In this post I'm going to address NASA's credibility, and the credibility of the consensus.

    Under the heading "FACTS", and "Scientific Consensus", NASA claims that "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show
    that 97 percent or more of actively publishing Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
    https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

    Let's take a look and see if it's THE TRUTH.

    Last time we looked at the Doran survey to see if it supports NASA's statements, or even represents a consensus.
    We found the survey doesn't even ask a question that represents the claim, and the 97% consensus isn't even based on 97 scientists.

    In this post let's look at the Cook "consensus".

    Here's the survey available online, lets check it to see if it represents what NASA says it does............
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...9EO030002/epdf
    "Abstract
    We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature,
    examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4%
    of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.
    Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

    Let's take a careful look at what the abstract says...............

    "We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW"

    Right away, how do you get a 97% "consensus" on "climate change" if 2/3's of the papers don't endorse it? But it gets much, much worse........

    "Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

    Notice the language gets a bit tricky here......... "humans are causing global warming." So, there's a 97% consensus that man is causing SOME global warming?????. Not even close to NASA's criteria that "Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities." In fact, why would you even bother about a consensus that man is causing SOME global warming?

    But it gets even worse.............One of the ratings was "1,Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%" Closer to NASA's "Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
    How many papers of 12,000 had this rating? 64.

    So, in this "consensus" of 12,000 papers, only 64 "1,Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%".
    According to NASA, and John Cook's methodology 64 of 12,000 becomes a 97% consensus.
    Check John Cook's data on the journal(peer review) website......
    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/...91datafile.txt

    Here are some questions I ask myself every day.........

    Doesn't NASA know what was done here?
    How did this paper, with this methodology, get past "peer review?
    If NASA knows what this paper does(surely they do), why are they pretending it's legitimate?
    If NASA is pretending this is legitimate, what else are they pretending is legitimate that we can't verify?
    If this is what passes as "peer review", what won't they pass?

    The answer to the last question is nothing. There is nothing they won't pass. "Climate science" is a cult being published as science. I will be debunking more fake science soon. Stay tuned.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 24-01-2018 at 12:51 PM. Reason: simplification
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  47. #47

    Default

    Your tinfoil hat is on crooked.

  48. #48

    Default

    This new MrCombust guy brings up some great points.

  49. #49

    Default

    No, he brings up mostly irrelevant posts.
    There can only be one.

  50. #50

  51. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    No, he brings up mostly irrelevant posts.
    NASA is lying to us about climate change "facts". You think that is irrelevant?
    When you reference their temperature record as evidence of global warming will the "FACT" that they lied about the consensus be irrelevant?
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  52. #52
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    No, he brings up mostly irrelevant posts.
    NASA is lying to us about climate change "facts". You think that is irrelevant?
    When you reference their temperature record as evidence of global warming will the "FACT" that they lied about the consensus be irrelevant?
    ???
    when i reference the scale in my dr's office as evidence of my putting on [another ] three pounds and should start a diet as a result, does the fact the 8 people that dined in the same restaurant the nurse did for dinner last night did not actually reach a consensus on whether the food was good or bad even though she reported that most people enjoyed themselves mean anything or is it irrelevant?
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  53. #53

    Default

    If the yelp reviews didn't explicitly mention that the food was fattening then it clearly wasn't.

    Also, if your wife says you're just *perfect* then she's right*, and everyone else from your doctor to your fishing buddies are clearly corrupted by vested interests in the diet industry when they call you "overweight" and "lard-***" respectively.

    *It's not at all that she doesn't want an argument like last time skipping desert was suggested.
    There can only be one.

  54. #54

    Default

    looks like r/The_Donald is leaking

  55. #55
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,560

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    This new MrCombust guy brings up some great points.
    Now you're just trolling.

  56. #56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    This new MrCombust guy brings up some great points.
    Now you're just trolling.
    "just"??? he has been trolling since day one...


    Regarding MrCompost

    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  57. #57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    The TRUTH about climate change. NASA's credibility, Peer review, and the fake consensus. Part2

    Hello Edmonton and fellow Albertans. In this post I'm going to address NASA's credibility, and the credibility of the consensus.

    Under the heading "FACTS", and "Scientific Consensus", NASA claims that "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
    https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

    Let's take a look and see if it's THE TRUTH.

    Last time we looked at the Doran survey to see if it supports NASA's statements, or even represents a consensus.
    We found the survey doesn't even ask a question that represents the claim, and the 97% consensus isn't even based on 97 scientists.

    In this post let's look at the Cook "consensus".

    Here's the survey available online, lets check it to see if it represents what NASA says it does............
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...9EO030002/epdf
    "Abstract
    We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature,
    examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4%
    of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.
    Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

    Let's take a careful look at what the abstract says...............

    "We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW"

    Right away, how do you get a 97% "consensus" on "climate change" if 2/3's of the papers don't endorse it? But it gets much, much worse........

    "Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

    Notice the language gets a bit tricky here......... "humans are causing global warming." So, there's a 97% consensus that man is causing SOME global warming?????. Not even close to NASA's criteria that "Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities." In fact, why would you even bother about a consensus that man is causing SOME global warming?

    But it gets even worse.............One of the ratings was "1,Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%" Closer to NASA's "Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
    How many papers of 12,000 had this rating? 64.

    So, in this "consensus" of 12,000 papers, only 64 "1,Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%".
    According to NASA, and John Cook's methodology 64 of 12,000 becomes a 97% consensus.
    Check John Cook's data on the journal(peer review) website......
    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/...91datafile.txt

    Here are some questions I ask myself every day.........

    Doesn't NASA know what was done here?
    How did this paper, with this methodology, get past "peer review?
    If NASA knows what this paper does(surely they do), why are they pretending it's legitimate?
    If NASA is pretending this is legitimate, what else are they pretending is legitimate that we can't verify?
    If this is what passes as "peer review", what won't they pass?

    The answer to the last question is nothing. There is nothing they won't pass. "Climate science" is a cult being published as science. I will be debunking more fake science soon. Stay tuned.
    I don’t have the time or desire to look at this for more than a minute but the first part seems to compare two different things. The NASA statement has a percentage that neither references scientists or published papers or abstracts.

    Taken directly from the post it says this:

    "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."

    https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/


    It says “multiple studies” without showing a count, or a total or even a percentage for the studies.

    I’d want to know what all the active publishing climate warming trends are.


    Uggh. I spent more than a minute fussing with typos and formatting via my tiny little screen.
    Last edited by KC; 24-01-2018 at 04:33 PM.

  58. #58

    Default

    Fellow Edmontonians, and proud Albertans.........

    Notice that my posts are well supported with factual information. The climate change crowd despises science. They tell you to "look at the science" all day long, but it's a lie. They WILL NOT "look at the science". Notice they don't respond to my posts except with name calling and cartoons all the while calling ME the troll.

    Let me just apologize in advance for using the Trumpism "fake", as in fake news, or fake science. I am not affiliated with Trump, but the expression is often appropriate when describing "climate science".

    I am posting here for now. When was the last time the CBC reported the 97% consensus on climate change is fake? They will not. The news and the media prefer doomsday prophesies. They will not report the truth about climate change.

    If you have questions, or would like me to address a particular subject please do so. Do not fear the climate thugs with thier name calling, mockery, cartoons, and insults. It is all part of the climate change agenda to sabotage intelligent, honest, respectful discourse.

    Let's raise the bar and talk about "climate change".
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  59. #59

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    This new MrCombust guy brings up some great points.
    Maybe, but NASA talks about trends and all the opposition’s points seem to reference something else altogether different: published papers, counts of scientists, positions etc. and not the “trends”. It’s hard to make sense of the rebuttal.

    If you saw a statement saying that 97% of the actively published global equity market index trends were were moving upwards due to global declines in interest rates, why would you go out and start calculating percentages of analysts or papers etc and not determining which are the indexes comprising the 100% used to calculate the 97% trend? (SPTR TSX...)
    Last edited by KC; 24-01-2018 at 04:45 PM.

  60. #60
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,601

    Default

    There are two reasons I prefer the NOAA temperature record to that of NASA even though the two are in close agreement.

    One, the NOAA is a branch of the US Department of Commerce and also runs the National Weather Service. Dr. James Hansen's activism tainted NASA's objectivity on climate change in the minds of some. Even though measuring the world's temperature is a scientific exercise, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the now retired Hansen's views.

    Two, the NOAA's 'Climate at a Glance' is the best online tool I have run across. It is very user friendly and frequently updated.

    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-s...d/12/1880-2017

  61. #61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    The TRUTH about climate change. NASA's credibility, Peer review, and the fake consensus. Part2

    Hello Edmonton and fellow Albertans. In this post I'm going to address NASA's credibility, and the credibility of the consensus.

    Under the heading "FACTS", and "Scientific Consensus", NASA claims that "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
    https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

    Let's take a look and see if it's THE TRUTH.

    Last time we looked at the Doran survey to see if it supports NASA's statements, or even represents a consensus.
    We found the survey doesn't even ask a question that represents the claim, and the 97% consensus isn't even based on 97 scientists.

    In this post let's look at the Cook "consensus".

    Here's the survey available online, lets check it to see if it represents what NASA says it does............
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...9EO030002/epdf
    "Abstract
    We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature,
    examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4%
    of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.
    Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

    Let's take a careful look at what the abstract says...............

    "We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW"

    Right away, how do you get a 97% "consensus" on "climate change" if 2/3's of the papers don't endorse it? But it gets much, much worse........

    "Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

    Notice the language gets a bit tricky here......... "humans are causing global warming." So, there's a 97% consensus that man is causing SOME global warming?????. Not even close to NASA's criteria that "Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities." In fact, why would you even bother about a consensus that man is causing SOME global warming?

    But it gets even worse.............One of the ratings was "1,Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%" Closer to NASA's "Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
    How many papers of 12,000 had this rating? 64.

    So, in this "consensus" of 12,000 papers, only 64 "1,Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%".
    According to NASA, and John Cook's methodology 64 of 12,000 becomes a 97% consensus.
    Check John Cook's data on the journal(peer review) website......
    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/...91datafile.txt

    Here are some questions I ask myself every day.........

    Doesn't NASA know what was done here?
    How did this paper, with this methodology, get past "peer review?
    If NASA knows what this paper does(surely they do), why are they pretending it's legitimate?
    If NASA is pretending this is legitimate, what else are they pretending is legitimate that we can't verify?
    If this is what passes as "peer review", what won't they pass?

    The answer to the last question is nothing. There is nothing they won't pass. "Climate science" is a cult being published as science. I will be debunking more fake science soon. Stay tuned.
    I don’t have the time or desire to look at this for more than a minute but the first part seems to compare two different things. The NASA statement has a percentage that neither references scientists or published papers or abstracts.

    Taken directly from the post it says this:

    "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."

    https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/


    It says “multiple studies” without showing a count, or a total or even a percentage for the studies.

    I’d want to know what all the active publishing climate warming trends are.


    Uggh. I spent more than a minute fussing with typos and formatting via my tiny little screen.
    The quote you supplied is missing the number 1 after
    "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.....
    " The 1 refers to the footnotes at the bottom of the page.
    In the footnotes you will find the supporting documents.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  62. #62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Fellow Edmontonians, and proud Albertans.........

    Notice that my posts are well supported with factual information. The climate change crowd despises science. They tell you to "look at the science" all day long, but it's a lie. They WILL NOT "look at the science". Notice they don't respond to my posts except with name calling and cartoons all the while calling ME the troll.

    Let me just apologize in advance for using the Trumpism "fake", as in fake news, or fake science. I am not affiliated with Trump, but the expression is often appropriate when describing "climate science".

    I am posting here for now. When was the last time the CBC reported the 97% consensus on climate change is fake? They will not. The news and the media prefer doomsday prophesies. They will not report the truth about climate change.

    If you have questions, or would like me to address a particular subject please do so. Do not fear the climate thugs with thier name calling, mockery, cartoons, and insults. It is all part of the climate change agenda to sabotage intelligent, honest, respectful discourse.

    Let's raise the bar and talk about "climate change".
    Well read my post. 97% of trends deemed human caused is not 97% of scientists. It’s 97% of trends. It could be two scientists each looking at 5 and 50 trends respectively and then maybe looking for a simple majority (52%) scientific support of cause for each case. (Much like Donald Trump getting elected without a popular majority. So you wouldn’t go and say the election outcome was a fraud because you calculate that the popular vote was in favour of Hillary Clinton winning. Aggregate national popular vote has nothing to do with it.)

    Maybe the supporting documents explain what went into the calculation but based on that statement, you appear to be making irrational comparisons.
    Last edited by KC; 24-01-2018 at 05:01 PM.

  63. #63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Fellow Edmontonians, and proud Albertans.........

    Notice that my posts are well supported with factual information. The climate change crowd despises science. They tell you to "look at the science" all day long, but it's a lie. They WILL NOT "look at the science". Notice they don't respond to my posts except with name calling and cartoons all the while calling ME the troll.

    Let me just apologize in advance for using the Trumpism "fake", as in fake news, or fake science. I am not affiliated with Trump, but the expression is often appropriate when describing "climate science".

    I am posting here for now. When was the last time the CBC reported the 97% consensus on climate change is fake? They will not. The news and the media prefer doomsday prophesies. They will not report the truth about climate change.

    If you have questions, or would like me to address a particular subject please do so. Do not fear the climate thugs with thier name calling, mockery, cartoons, and insults. It is all part of the climate change agenda to sabotage intelligent, honest, respectful discourse.

    Let's raise the bar and talk about "climate change".
    It seems to me that rather than posting science you are accusing a great conspiracy.

    Showing that there is not unanimous agreement, or that extreme doomsday predictions have been published on occasion does not undermine the science itself. That CBC fails to reflect your opinion does not invalidate major media. If anything, major news outlets have been quick to report on things like the "starving Polar Bear" photo & controversy, or to stories about regions or industries that may enjoy benefits.
    Where a drought or heat wave is linked to something like an el nino cycle the media reports on that.



    If Climate Change is a conspiracy it's either the most subtle ever or the worst.
    There can only be one.

  64. #64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    The TRUTH about climate change. NASA's credibility, Peer review, and the fake consensus. Part2

    Hello Edmonton and fellow Albertans. In this post I'm going to address NASA's credibility, and the credibility of the consensus.

    Under the heading "FACTS", and "Scientific Consensus", NASA claims that "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
    https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

    Let's take a look and see if it's THE TRUTH.

    Last time we looked at the Doran survey to see if it supports NASA's statements, or even represents a consensus.
    We found the survey doesn't even ask a question that represents the claim, and the 97% consensus isn't even based on 97 scientists.

    In this post let's look at the Cook "consensus".

    Here's the survey available online, lets check it to see if it represents what NASA says it does............
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...9EO030002/epdf
    "Abstract
    We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature,
    examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4%
    of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.
    Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

    Let's take a careful look at what the abstract says...............

    "We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW"

    Right away, how do you get a 97% "consensus" on "climate change" if 2/3's of the papers don't endorse it? But it gets much, much worse........

    "Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

    Notice the language gets a bit tricky here......... "humans are causing global warming." So, there's a 97% consensus that man is causing SOME global warming?????. Not even close to NASA's criteria that "Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities." In fact, why would you even bother about a consensus that man is causing SOME global warming?

    But it gets even worse.............One of the ratings was "1,Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%" Closer to NASA's "Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
    How many papers of 12,000 had this rating? 64.

    So, in this "consensus" of 12,000 papers, only 64 "1,Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%".
    According to NASA, and John Cook's methodology 64 of 12,000 becomes a 97% consensus.
    Check John Cook's data on the journal(peer review) website......
    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/...91datafile.txt

    Here are some questions I ask myself every day.........

    Doesn't NASA know what was done here?
    How did this paper, with this methodology, get past "peer review?
    If NASA knows what this paper does(surely they do), why are they pretending it's legitimate?
    If NASA is pretending this is legitimate, what else are they pretending is legitimate that we can't verify?
    If this is what passes as "peer review", what won't they pass?

    The answer to the last question is nothing. There is nothing they won't pass. "Climate science" is a cult being published as science. I will be debunking more fake science soon. Stay tuned.
    I don’t have the time or desire to look at this for more than a minute but the first part seems to compare two different things. The NASA statement has a percentage that neither references scientists or published papers or abstracts.

    Taken directly from the post it says this:

    "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."

    https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/


    It says “multiple studies” without showing a count, or a total or even a percentage for the studies.

    I’d want to know what all the active publishing climate warming trends are.


    Uggh. I spent more than a minute fussing with typos and formatting via my tiny little screen.
    The quote you supplied is missing the number 1 after
    "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.....
    " The 1 refers to the footnotes at the bottom of the page.
    In the footnotes you will find the supporting documents.
    Sorry but the quote I supplied is the quote you supplied.

    Moreover, I said that in my post. So why are you saying to me: “The quote you supplied is missing ...”?

    Please quote from the supporting documents a quote to justify the pursuit of the 97% consensus that you engaged in in your post above. The NASA quote provided above isn’t sufficient.
    Last edited by KC; 24-01-2018 at 05:16 PM.

  65. #65
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,560

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCompost
    Notice that my posts are well supported with factual information.


    Yeah, no. Your posts are full of misinformation. And when I brought actual information, for example on isotopic analysis of atmospheric carbon proving that the increased levels in the atmosphere are the direct result of human activity, you completely ignored it. You're an intellectual coward and a liar.

  66. #66

    Default

    J-a-y-s-u-s y'all love feeding trolls... Why so mad? Recreation? Trolls have no interest in being educated, simply stirring up attention.
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  67. #67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    J-a-y-s-u-s y'all love feeding trolls... Why so mad? Recreation? Trolls have no interest in being educated, simply stirring up attention.
    Why engage in name calling? Trolling?

  68. #68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    J-a-y-s-u-s y'all love feeding trolls... Why so mad? Recreation? Trolls have no interest in being educated, simply stirring up attention.
    Why engage in name calling? Trolling?
    If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  69. #69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    J-a-y-s-u-s y'all love feeding trolls... Why so mad? Recreation? Trolls have no interest in being educated, simply stirring up attention.
    Why engage in name calling? Trolling?
    If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
    Anyone preaching and arguing their strongly held beliefs is a troll?

  70. #70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    J-a-y-s-u-s y'all love feeding trolls... Why so mad? Recreation? Trolls have no interest in being educated, simply stirring up attention.
    Why engage in name calling? Trolling?
    If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
    Anyone preaching and arguing their strongly held beliefs is a troll?
    Preaching and etc. just to provoke attention, yes.
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  71. #71

    Default NASA, the American Meterological society, the fake consensus, and a real one.

    Hello Edmontonians and Albertans, and welcome to the final instalment of NASA and the fake 97% consensus.

    On NASA's blog, under "FACTS" and "scientific consensus", there is a list of impressive American institutions, all stating their position on climate change. The American meteorological Society is one of them...............

    "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide."

    But who wrote this? Did all the members get together? No. The statement is prepared by a drafting committee. A handful of people.

    But the AMS did poll their membership, and got this result.........According to a new survey of AMS members, only 29% think the change is largely or entirely due to human activity (i.e., 81 to 100%); 67% say climate change over the last 50 years is mostly to entirely caused by human activity"

    29% think the change is largely or entirely due to human activity, this lines up with their statement on climate change that "the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced", so according to the AMS's own poll, only 29% of their members believe it.

    http://blog.ametsoc.org/news/new-sur...limate-change/

    That's not even close to a 97% consensus. Are 71% of AMS members deniers? 33%?

    It may be impressive for all these institutions to be on board for climate change. But in the era of Obama's big push it is politically wise to tow the line. PR departments consisting of a handful of people, prepare carefully crafted climate change statements, in order to appease the climate thugs. These statements do not represent the memberships.

    The next time the climate thugs post "you think it's a big conspiracy", or "I've got a tin foil hat", or, "you're a troll for denial of "climate science". Remember, me and 33% of American Meteorological Society members believe "climate change" is a load of crap. Don't let them tell you the vast majority of scientists agree that man is causing most of the warming, it's not true. And as for NASA's 97%, well, NASA is lying to you.

    Stay tuned to my next series of posts about some great Canadians that have challenged the fake climate claims, and the fake climate science.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  72. #72

    Default

    You still haven’t posted a NASA quote on that 97% “consensus” you are talking about. It’s starting to appear that you are creating a fake NASA statement.


    Here’s more on the AMS... indirect source but with direct quotes of AMS people.
    96% Of American Meteorological Society Members Think Climate Change Is Happening


    AMS Executive Director Dr. Keith Seitter even wrote on the AMS website clarifying the results and condemning rampant distortion that was being spread. A full statement of the survey authors' response to the horrific distortion of their findings can be found at this link. With such a mischaracterized response, the AMS felt that a new survey was needed. The preliminary results of that new report were released this week.

    Dr. Seitter provides some context for why the new survey was conducted,

    This survey is noteworthy in having posed questions on climate change in very clear and precise ways that allow straightforward and direct interpretation of the results without ambiguity...
    ...

    Nearly all AMS members (96%) think climate change -as defined by AMS-is happening with almost 89% stating that they are either “extremely” or “very sure” it is happening. Only 1% think climate change is not happening.

    A large majority of AMS members indicated that human activity is causing at least a portion of the changes in the climate over the past 50 years (see summary for details)….Conversely, 5% think the climate is caused largely or entirely by natural events, 6% say they don’t know….”

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/marshall...ys-new-report/



    Last edited by KC; 24-01-2018 at 11:28 PM.

  73. #73

    Default

    I now see that the NASA quote provided by MrCombust changes between his posts #30 and #46. (Essentially just a typo/omission/errant deletion. I know I have major troubles trying to post anything from a tiny autocorrecting screen.) Sorry for not catching that and going into the reading comprehension issue.


    ...here:
    Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus

    Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

    https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

    Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming
    John Cook1,2,3,16, Naomi Oreskes4, Peter T Doran5, William R L Anderegg6,7, Bart Verheggen8,
    Ed W Maibach9, J Stuart Carlton10, Stephan Lewandowsky11,2, Andrew G Skuce12,3, Sarah A Green13, Dana Nuccitelli3, Peter Jacobs9, Mark Richardson14, Bärbel Winkler3, Rob Painting3 and Ken Rice15


    ...
    Abstract
    The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on
    11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non- experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming (‘no position’) represent non- endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies. ...”
    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10...1/4/048002/pdf
    Last edited by KC; 25-01-2018 at 06:53 AM.

  74. #74

    Default

    KC is posting the fake science I just debunked.

    KC's post references two of the surveys I just showed you.............

    "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming
    "John Cook1,2,3,16, Naomi Oreskes4, Peter T Doran5, William R L Anderegg6,7, Bart Verheggen8,"

    John Cook is the author of the Cook consensus. Read what I wrote about that. His fake consensus turns 64 of 12,000 papers into a 97% consensus. I posted a link to his data so you can verify his ratings and confirm what I wrote about it. The fraud John Cook has perpetrated in the name of climate science is unimaginable, his website, skepticalscience, is an ocean of lies about climate change.

    And when dealing with the fake surveys always watch for deception like what KC also posted above.....................
    "96% Of American Meteorological Society Members Think Climate Change Is Happening"

    Of course climate change is happening. Know what else? 97% of scientists think water is wet.

    You would think these guys wouldn't pull this kind of fraud, you would even "trust" them not to decieve the public with such sleazy tactics. I'm sorry to say, your "trust" is misplaced. In the name of "saving the planet" you are being lied to. Peer review has failed, they rubber stamp each other's work, and they have corrupted science to a level few are willing to believe. Our society must face up to the existential failure of the peer review and scientific process when we needed it the most.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  75. #75

    Default

    It’s all about what population one seems worthy of the climate scientists label.

    If someone surveyed doctors on some medical issue and included PHds in Philosophy you’d likely get a debate on reasonable populations to filter for to determine degree of “consensus” as well.

  76. #76

    Default

    So MrCombust, I note that you haven’t apologized for your misquote and then your attempt to put that one on me. Very interesting, and insightful.

  77. #77
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,560

    Default

    KC, if you want some actual, real information on the whole "consensus" topic, you can read up here: https://www.skepticalscience.com/glo...s-advanced.htm

    They even have three different tabs for level of detail. Looks like there's been at least half a dozen different papers written on the topic. I linked to the advanced one. In any case, you're wasting your time with MrCompost.

  78. #78

    Default

    Maybe mrcombust is a waste of time, but there's value in not allowing his garbage posts to go unanswered.

    Thanks for the reasoned rebuttal, KC.
    There can only be one.

  79. #79

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    So MrCombust, I note that you haven’t apologized for your misquote and then your attempt to put that one on me. Very interesting, and insightful.
    Notice the raging arrogance of the climate change advocates. KC posts fake science, cartoons, he can't find the quote on the very page I provided a link for, he makes up gobbledy-gook about "trends", he ignores my post debunking John Cook's consensus then posts John Cook's consensus, he doesn't "have the time or desire to look at this for more than a minute", then he asks me for an apology.

    What a hoot these unflinching faithful's are. This is why I don't wish to engage them. They will ask questions I already posted about, they will make points unrelated to my posts, they will argue without researching, they will point to their favourite liar blogs and expect me to be crushed by their fake science.

    If I do not respond to their posts it's not because I can't, it's because climate change discussions quickly end up being a quagmire of semantics as the faithful make one error after another and/or use liar blogs to support their position.

    And the all time favourite tactic of climate change advocates..........switch definitions of "climate change" from one sentence to the next. I will address the numerous mix'n'match definitions of "climate change" in a future post. If "climate change" is sometimes confusing to you, it's because it's intentionally confusing. I will apply a proper, rigorous, scientific analysis of different definitions of "climate change" as they frequently use it erroneously, and interchangeably. Once you understand the frequent misuse of the term "climate change" it will clarify things a great deal, and you will see how poor their arguments really are. You can see how the term was misused in the "consensus" statements....... "97% of scientists believe climate change is happening". Well, no kidding!
    Last edited by MrCombust; 25-01-2018 at 09:34 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  80. #80

    Default

    Notice the raging arrogance of the climate change deniers...

  81. #81

    Default

    MrCombust - are you even an Edmontonian?

  82. #82
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    So MrCombust, I note that you haven’t apologized for your misquote and then your attempt to put that one on me. Very interesting, and insightful.
    Notice the raging arrogance of the climate change advocates. KC posts fake science, cartoons, he can't find the quote on the very page I provided a link for, he makes up gobbledy-gook about "trends", he ignores my post debunking John Cook's consensus then posts John Cook's consensus, he doesn't "have the time or desire to look at this for more than a minute", then he asks me for an apology.

    What a hoot these unflinching faithful's are.
    This is why I don't wish to engage them. They will ask questions I already posted about, they will make points unrelated to my posts, they will argue without researching, they will point to their favourite liar blogs and expect me to be crushed by their fake science.

    If I do not respond to their posts it's not because I can't, it's because climate change discussions quickly end up being a quagmire of semantics as the faithful make one error after another and/or use liar blogs to support their position.

    And the all time favourite tactic of climate change advocates..........switch definitions of "climate change" from one sentence to the next. I will address the numerous mix'n'match definitions of "climate change in a future post. If "climate change" is sometimes confusing to you, it's because it's intentionally confusing. I will apply a proper, rigorous, scientific analysis of different definitions of "climate change" as they frequently use it erroneously, and interchangeably. Once you understand the frequent misuse of the term "climate change" it will clarify things a great deal, and you will see how poor their arguments really are. You can see how the term was misused in the "consensus" statements....... "97% of scientists believe climate change is happening". Well, no kidding!
    emphasis added...

    Notice the raging arrogance of the climate change advocates. as opposed to the complete lack of arrogance in your posts responding to those who disagree with you?

    What a hoot these unflinching faithful's are. those "unflinching faithful's"? i haven't seen much flinching from you in regard to your positions - would that not also make your positions - or you - a hoot as well?

    If I do not respond to their posts it's not because I can't, it's because climate change discussions quickly end up being a quagmire of semantics as the faithful make one error after another and/or use liar blogs to support their position. not responding yet expecting to be believed doesn't do much to support your position. and for the record, "liar, liar, pants on fire" is not a response so it is probably true that you really don't respond.

    I will address the numerous mix'n'match definitions of "climate change["] in a future post. i can't wait.

    Well, no kidding! ​no, really, i can't wait.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  83. #83

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    This new MrCombust guy brings up some great points.
    Now you're just trolling.

    Lighten up, it's a joke.

    Bunch of squares in this thread.

  84. #84
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    MrCombust - are you even an Edmontonian?
    why would that even matter one way or the other? climate isn't restricted to or excluded from municipal boundaries. would you toss that out to glen hatfield or stephen hawking (not that i'm comparing MrCombust to either of them or vice versa)?
    Last edited by kcantor; 25-01-2018 at 09:50 AM.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  85. #85

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    This new MrCombust guy brings up some great points.
    Now you're just trolling.

    Lighten up, it's a joke.

    Bunch of squares in this thread.
    Can you stop with the personal attacks? Name-calling, insults, etc. Not very good coming from the guy crying foul in another thread.

  86. #86

  87. #87

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    MrCombust - are you even an Edmontonian?
    why would that even matter one way or the other? climate isn't restricted to or excluded from municipal boundaries. would you toss that out to glen hatfield or stephen hawking (not that i'm comparing MrCombust to either of them or vice versa).
    It doesn't matter, however, I would find it interesting that MrCombust would spend so much energy here if he wasn't, though most of his rhetoric is copy/paste from somewhere else likely that he is spamming the same funk,

  88. #88
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,560

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    This new MrCombust guy brings up some great points.
    Now you're just trolling.

    Lighten up, it's a joke.

    Bunch of squares in this thread.
    Mine was intended as a joke as well! We're all good.

  89. #89

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    I am so sorry.
    so am I

  90. #90
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,112

    Default

    Hello Edmontonians and fellow Albertans
    The TRUTH about Climate Change....

    I think every post in this thread should start with that phrase. Would make for a much more interesting read, it's just so obnoxious.

  91. #91

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post

    I will address the numerous mix'n'match definitions of "climate change["] in a future post. i can't wait.

    Well, no kidding! ​no, really, i can't wait.
    No need to wait if you're that enthusiastic. I already pointed out a shining example of the misuse of the term.

    John Cook creates a 97% consensus that "man is causing global warming", his definition of global warming is man is causing most of the warming, but his methodology tests for papers that man is causing SOME warming.

    The American Meteorological Society did the same thing when they said 96% of their members believe man is causing climate change. They switched definitions of "climate change".

    Nobody disputes man is causing climate change, not even me.

    Explain how this deceptive practice of substituting definitions is appropriate.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  92. #92
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post

    I will address the numerous mix'n'match definitions of "climate change["] in a future post. i can't wait.

    Well, no kidding! ​no, really, i can't wait.
    No need to wait if you're that enthusiastic. I already pointed out a shining example of the misuse of the term.

    John Cook creates a 97% consensus that "man is causing global warming", his definition of global warming is man is causing most of the warming, but his methodology tests for papers that man is causing SOME warming.

    The American Meteorological Society did the same thing when they said 96% of their members believe man is causing climate change. They switched definitions of "climate change".

    Nobody disputes man is causing climate change, not even me.

    Explain how this deceptive practice of substituting definitions is appropriate.
    emphasis added...

    ??? if nobody disputes "man is causing climate change, not even you", please explain what f'g difference it makes if there isn't complete or 97% or 77% or 57% concurrence on definitions and how any perceived lack of concurrence on your part constitutes deception.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  93. #93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post

    I will address the numerous mix'n'match definitions of "climate change["] in a future post. i can't wait.

    Well, no kidding! ​no, really, i can't wait.
    No need to wait if you're that enthusiastic. I already pointed out a shining example of the misuse of the term.

    John Cook creates a 97% consensus that "man is causing global warming", his definition of global warming is man is causing most of the warming, but his methodology tests for papers that man is causing SOME warming.

    The American Meteorological Society did the same thing when they said 96% of their members believe man is causing climate change. They switched definitions of "climate change".

    Nobody disputes man is causing climate change, not even me.

    Explain how this deceptive practice of substituting definitions is appropriate.
    emphasis added...

    ??? if nobody disputes "man is causing climate change, not even you", please explain what f'g difference it makes if there isn't complete or 97% or 77% or 57% concurrence on definitions and how any perceived lack of concurrence on your part constitutes deception.

    If man is causing 1% of the warming, and 99% is natural, as opposed to man is causing MOST of the warming, it makes a difference. Looks like you yourself has been fooled by the fraudulent consensus surveys. Don't be too upset. The fraud is intentional and is intended to get the public's acceptance.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  94. #94

    Default

    Planet Earth has been spinning for just under 5 billion years. It's gone through, fires, floods, earthquakes, tornados and volcanos. I would think volcanos may have the biggest impact on the worlds temperatures. The times we live now is just the equivalent of a nano second in history. In a hundred years it could be a different story. In 500 hundred years a completely different one. If the earths temperatures fluctuate a few degrees every 200-300 years we have survived that and will survive it again.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  95. #95

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Planet Earth has been spinning for just under 5 billion years. It's gone through, fires, floods, earthquakes, tornados and volcanos. I would think volcanos may have the biggest impact on the worlds temperatures. The times we live now is just the equivalent of a nano second in history. In a hundred years it could be a different story. In 500 hundred years a completely different one. If the earths temperatures fluctuate a few degrees every 200-300 years we have survived that and will survive it again.
    Interglacial periods (like the one we are in right now) last about 10,000 years before temperatures start to drop and New York will be under a mile of ice again. In the last interglacial period hippopotamus' were swimming in the Thames. Our current interglacial period has lasted about 10,000 years. Think a few degrees of warming is bad? Try 10 degrees of cooling. Goodbye Canada.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  96. #96

  97. #97

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    So MrCombust, I note that you haven’t apologized for your misquote and then your attempt to put that one on me. Very interesting, and insightful.
    Notice the raging arrogance of the climate change advocates. KC posts fake science, cartoons, he can't find the quote on the very page I provided a link for, he makes up gobbledy-gook about "trends", he ignores my post debunking John Cook's consensus then posts John Cook's consensus, he doesn't "have the time or desire to look at this for more than a minute", then he asks me for an apology.

    What a hoot these unflinching faithful's are. This is why I don't wish to engage them. They will ask questions I already posted about, they will make points unrelated to my posts, they will argue without researching, they will point to their favourite liar blogs and expect me to be crushed by their fake science.

    If I do not respond to their posts it's not because I can't, it's because climate change discussions quickly end up being a quagmire of semantics as the faithful make one error after another and/or use liar blogs to support their position.

    And the all time favourite tactic of climate change advocates..........switch definitions of "climate change" from one sentence to the next. I will address the numerous mix'n'match definitions of "climate change" in a future post. If "climate change" is sometimes confusing to you, it's because it's intentionally confusing. I will apply a proper, rigorous, scientific analysis of different definitions of "climate change" as they frequently use it erroneously, and interchangeably. Once you understand the frequent misuse of the term "climate change" it will clarify things a great deal, and you will see how poor their arguments really are. You can see how the term was misused in the "consensus" statements....... "97% of scientists believe climate change is happening". Well, no kidding!
    Please take a minute to review the quote you used in your post #46. My failure was to not go back to your earlier post and then to double check the two different versions you provided against a verifiable source in order to sort out which one was the correct NASA quote.

    You say: “the faithful make one error after another”. The error I made followed up on your error which out of your hubris you tried twice now to put on me rather than simply apologizing. You need to look in the mirror as you criticize others while you make errors yourself.

    I’ll copy and paste the quote from your post #46 here adding bolding:

    “Under the heading "FACTS", and "Scientific Consensus", NASA claims that "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show
    that 97 percent or more of actively publishing Climate-warming trends
    over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
    https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/”
    Last edited by KC; 25-01-2018 at 02:41 PM.

  98. #98

    Default

    Hockey stick graph again. I'm done for the day but here's a gem. If you look at the index you'll see Mann was involved with three of the "reconstructions".

    Here's a two minute clip of Mann testifying before a Congressional Science Committee....................
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3f42t4C7XU

    And if you could use a good laugh today here's a hysterical talk by Canadian Mark Steyn about Michael Mann and his fraudulent hockey stick graph.
    Mann is suing Mark Steyn for calling his hockey stick graph a "complete fraud". It's even funnier if you know the context.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbAgl7w_Vws
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  99. #99

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post

    I will address the numerous mix'n'match definitions of "climate change["] in a future post. i can't wait.

    Well, no kidding! ​no, really, i can't wait.
    No need to wait if you're that enthusiastic. I already pointed out a shining example of the misuse of the term.

    John Cook creates a 97% consensus that "man is causing global warming", his definition of global warming is man is causing most of the warming, but his methodology tests for papers that man is causing SOME warming.

    The American Meteorological Society did the same thing when they said 96% of their members believe man is causing climate change. They switched definitions of "climate change".

    Nobody disputes man is causing climate change, not even me.

    Explain how this deceptive practice of substituting definitions is appropriate.
    emphasis added...

    ??? if nobody disputes "man is causing climate change, not even you", please explain what f'g difference it makes if there isn't complete or 97% or 77% or 57% concurrence on definitions and how any perceived lack of concurrence on your part constitutes deception.
    Don’t all scientists reserve the right to change their minds?

    So yesterday’s count may not match tomorrow’s count. Plus yes everyone agrees that man causes errors in scientific studies so various parts of the science may change, get refined, get tossed in the dust bin, etc. So what?

    Whatever we do today will not make much of a difference either way. However reducing and diversifying some of our energy dependence will by definition reduce the maximum benefit fossil fuel reliance could provide but it will introduce an element of risk mitigation through diversification of energy sources while the scientist continue with their search for a reality around the issue of potentially harmful climate change caused by human activities.
    Last edited by KC; 25-01-2018 at 02:54 PM.

  100. #100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    What the heck caused that rapid upward swing in temperature in the year 1350?

Page 1 of 9 12345 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •