[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Global warming (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 12/2/2016 3:34:38 AM EDT
|
School me.
I've been fascinated by it in the last few days. Not that it's big $$, I get that. Show me that they aren't also correct. Links, cites, etc. Please |
|
Quoted:
School me. I've been fascinated by it in the last few days. Not that it's big $, I get that. Show me that they aren't also correct. Links, cites, etc. Please I could come up with a million ridiculous theories that can't be "proven" to be false, like my theory that the universe was created by an old lady who lives in a shoe, but that doesn't make them true. It is up to the people who create a hypothesis to gather enough evidence to support it, and they have simply not done that. Read more about the scientific method here, and you can easily see that the ACC supporters have not only failed to support their hypothesis, but have not followed the scientific method. This part is key: "A theory is accepted not based on the prestige or convincing powers of the proponent, but on the results obtained through observations and/or experiments which anyone can reproduce: the results obtained using the scientific method are repeatable." And yet every single one of their computer models has been wrong! |
|
IMO the manmade global warming/climate change argument suffers to much from the following for me to believe in it:
1) Reports of data manipulation 2) A whole slew of scientists who oppose the manmade GW argument 3) Earths climate has a history of change that spans millions of years, at one point being warm enough to support large reptilian life. Also, to be clear, I am not saying we are not undergoing climate change at this point, I just think mankind's impact is less than we are being told it is. |
|
Quoted:
IMO the manmade global warming/climate change argument suffers to much from the following for me to believe in it: 1) Reports of data manipulation 2) A whole slew of scientists who oppose the manmade GW argument 3) Earths climate has a history of change that spans millions of years, at one point being warm enough to support large reptilian life. Also, to be clear, I am not saying we are not undergoing climate change at this point, I just think mankind's impact is less than we are being told it is. Can you give me a link to these "slew of scientist who oppose the manmade GW argument."? |
|
Quoted:
I could come up with a million ridiculous theories that can't be "proven" to be false, like my theory that the universe was created by an old lady who lives in a shoe, but that doesn't make them true. It is up to the people who create a hypothesis to gather enough evidence to support it, and they have simply not done that. Read more about the scientific method here, and you can easily see that the ACC supporters have not only failed to support their hypothesis, but have not followed the scientific method. This part is key: "A theory is accepted not based on the prestige or convincing powers of the proponent, but on the results obtained through observations and/or experiments which anyone can reproduce: the results obtained using the scientific method are repeatable." And yet every single one of their computer models has been wrong! Nasa says it's happening. |
|
Quoted:
Can you give me a link to these "slew of scientist who oppose the manmade GW argument."? Quoted:
Quoted:
IMO the manmade global warming/climate change argument suffers to much from the following for me to believe in it: 1) Reports of data manipulation 2) A whole slew of scientists who oppose the manmade GW argument 3) Earths climate has a history of change that spans millions of years, at one point being warm enough to support large reptilian life. Also, to be clear, I am not saying we are not undergoing climate change at this point, I just think mankind's impact is less than we are being told it is. Can you give me a link to these "slew of scientist who oppose the manmade GW argument."? Pretty much where I'm at. That's why I asked for links, cite, etc to refute the links and such from places like nasa |
|
Quoted:
Can you give me a link to these "slew of scientist who oppose the manmade GW argument."? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can you give me a link to these "slew of scientist who oppose the manmade GW argument."? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming As approximately 97% of publishing climate scientists support the consensus on anthropomorphic climate change,[3] this list represents a minority viewpoint. Sheesh. That's not a great link. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can you give me a link to these "slew of scientist who oppose the manmade GW argument."? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming As approximately 97% of publishing climate scientists support the consensus on anthropomorphic climate change,[3] this list represents a minority viewpoint. Sheesh. That's not a great link. |
|
Quoted:
As approximately 97% of publishing climate scientists support the consensus on anthropomorphic climate change,[3] this list represents a minority viewpoint. Sheesh. That's not a great link. You're welcome to your opinion. I'll keep mine... It also is worth pointing out that "climate scientists" probably have a financial interest in propagating the myth of manmade global warming, they need grants and employment to finance that college degree. |
|
Quoted:
As approximately 97% of publishing climate scientists support the consensus on anthropomorphic climate change,[3] this list represents a minority viewpoint. Sheesh. That's not a great link. Anyone who trots out "consensus" is an idiot. Consensus has NOTHING to do with science. There is no step in the Scientific Method that says "get a consensus of scientists, and your hypothesis is now a theory!" (hypothesis is in science what theory is in common lingo, where theory is something that is generally provable and reproducable) Besides, there are a ton of refutations of the shoddy work that produced this "97% consensus" bullshit. Summary: Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts [brief summaries] of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause). A later analysis by Legates et al. (2013) found there to be only 41 papers (0.3%) that supported this definition. Cook et al.'s methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. The second part of Cook et al. (2013), the author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with the abstract ratings. |
|
Quoted:
You're welcome to your opinion. I'll keep mine... It also is worth pointing out that "climate scientists" probably have a financial interest in propagating the myth of manmade global warming, they need grants and employment to finance that college degree. Quoted:
Quoted:
As approximately 97% of publishing climate scientists support the consensus on anthropomorphic climate change,[3] this list represents a minority viewpoint. Sheesh. That's not a great link. You're welcome to your opinion. I'll keep mine... It also is worth pointing out that "climate scientists" probably have a financial interest in propagating the myth of manmade global warming, they need grants and employment to finance that college degree. I know that. I said so in the op. What I'm looking for, is to refute the 97%. With data. Without calling anyone idiots, like our friend from Iowa above. 
|
|
Quoted:
Anyone who trots out "consensus" is an idiot. Consensus has NOTHING to do with science. There is no step in the Scientific Method that says "get a consensus of scientists, and your hypothesis is now a theory!" (hypothesis is in science what theory is in common lingo, where theory is something that is generally provable and reproducable) Besides, there are a ton of refutations of the shoddy work that produced this "97% consensus" bullshit. Summary: Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts [brief summaries] of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause). A later analysis by Legates et al. (2013) found there to be only 41 papers (0.3%) that supported this definition. Cook et al.'s methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. The second part of Cook et al. (2013), the author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with the abstract ratings. Quoted:
Quoted:
As approximately 97% of publishing climate scientists support the consensus on anthropomorphic climate change,[3] this list represents a minority viewpoint. Sheesh. That's not a great link. Anyone who trots out "consensus" is an idiot. Consensus has NOTHING to do with science. There is no step in the Scientific Method that says "get a consensus of scientists, and your hypothesis is now a theory!" (hypothesis is in science what theory is in common lingo, where theory is something that is generally provable and reproducable) Besides, there are a ton of refutations of the shoddy work that produced this "97% consensus" bullshit. Summary: Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts [brief summaries] of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause). A later analysis by Legates et al. (2013) found there to be only 41 papers (0.3%) that supported this definition. Cook et al.'s methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. The second part of Cook et al. (2013), the author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with the abstract ratings. Thanks. I've seen that. More the merrier |
|
Quoted:
Said iowan has been drinking since he doesn't work tomorrow.  Quoted:
Quoted:
I know that. I said so in the op. What I'm looking for, is to refute the 97%. With data. Without calling anyone idiots, like our friend from Iowa above. Said iowan has been drinking since he doesn't work tomorrow. Fuckin a brother. |
|
Quoted:
Thanks. I've seen that. More the merrier So you've seen it, seen how the methodology of coming up with this "97% consensus" is seriously flawed... but still want more? If you just want more sources, I gave you 98 of them. What factual data they each have, I don't know, I haven't read all 98 of them. Some are probably no longer in existence. Simple fact, though is that science is based on reproducible facts, not consensus, not any opinion of agreement between X percentage of scientists. If 9999 scientists out of 10000 believe something is so, and that 1 dissenter proves the hypothesis in question wrong, then all 9999 of those scientists are wrong. Opinion and consensus doesn't mean shit at all to science, and it appears that AGW 'believers' tend to base their position off of it. You could do some research on "Climategate" that broke in 2012. See in their own words how the core scientists working on climate change have handled things like Freedom of Information Act requests (the UK equivalent), and a lot more. Very unbecoming, shady and reclusive. If the science was absolutely solid, they should have made their data and methodology openly available. They did not. They had a "trust us, we're scientists!" attitude about it. The logical fallacy here is "Arguing from Authority". |
|
Quoted:
Global warming is hot air. Plain and simple. As usual, follow the money, there are people who stand to make a lot of money from the hysteria. Also, as usual, there are people who want to control how you live your life. Fuck me. My original post was literally 30 words. Can you refute(with data) the data presented by 97% of the world's top scientists? |
|
Quoted:
So you've seen it, seen how the methodology of coming up with this "97% consensus" is seriously flawed... but still want more? If you just want more sources, I gave you 98 of them. What factual data they each have, I don't know, I haven't read all 98 of them. Some are probably no longer in existence. Simple fact, though is that science is based on reproducible facts, not consensus, not any opinion of agreement between X percentage of scientists. If 9999 scientists out of 10000 believe something is so, and that 1 dissenter proves the hypothesis in question wrong, then all 9999 of those scientists are wrong. Opinion and consensus doesn't mean shit at all to science, and it appears that AGW 'believers' tend to base their position off of it. You could do some research on "Climategate" that broke in 2012. See in their own words how the core scientists working on climate change have handled things like Freedom of Information Act requests (the UK equivalent), and a lot more. Very unbecoming, shady and reclusive. If the science was absolutely solid, they should have made their data and methodology openly available. They did not. They had a "trust us, we're scientists!" attitude about it. The logical fallacy here is "Arguing from Authority". Yes, I want more reading material. I'm unconvinced by either side. I think everyone is lying. Edit The leftys have fancy pics and gifs and such to go along with the 97% |
|
Quoted:
I didn't just pull that out of my ass, and you didn't just scroll buy the post it came from twice without noticing. Parts of the planet are getting warmer than they were in the last few years. Some parts were even warmer in the past. Some may even be cooler. The climate changes, It has always changed. |
|
Quoted:
Parts of the planet are getting warmer than they were in the last few years. Some parts were even warmer in the past. Some may even be cooler. The climate changes, It has always changed. Quoted:
Quoted:
I didn't just pull that out of my ass, and you didn't just scroll buy the post it came from twice without noticing. Parts of the planet are getting warmer than they were in the last few years. Some parts were even warmer in the past. Some may even be cooler. The climate changes, It has always changed. Millions and millions of people think humans are the cause. NASA has written pretty extensively on it, along with, obviously a HUGE majority of scientists asked the question. Refute it. With facts. (I want to, I cant) help me. |
|
Quoted:
Fuck me. My original post was literally 30 words. Can you refute(with data) the data presented by 97% of the world's top scientists? LOL, you still believe that 97% lie? You are either intentionally dishonest, or you haven't researched this subject...at all. Read this before you repeat that lie again. |
|
Quoted:
Millions and millions of people think humans are the cause. NASA has written pretty extensively on it, along with, obviously a HUGE majority of scientists asked the question. Refute it. With facts. (I want to, I cant) help me. You think that NASA (aka the Muslim outreach program) isn't political? 
|
|
I've read that also, since you started this the other day, fucker, lol.
I didn't bring up the 97, someone here linked it almost immediately. It's something leftys bring up all the time. Now, refute the actual science. With links and cites amd cool gifs and pics. |
|
Quoted:
LOL, you still believe that 97% lie? You are either intentionally dishonest, or you haven't researched this subject...at all. Read this before you repeat that lie again. Quoted:
Quoted:
Fuck me. My original post was literally 30 words. Can you refute(with data) the data presented by 97% of the world's top scientists? LOL, you still believe that 97% lie? You are either intentionally dishonest, or you haven't researched this subject...at all. Read this before you repeat that lie again. Seriously, you're implying that I'm lying? again? You are something else. |
|
Quoted:
I've read that also, since you started this the other day, fucker, lol. I didn't bring up the 97, someone here linked it almost immediately. It's something leftys bring up all the time. Now, refute the actual science. With links and cites amd cool gifs and pics. I gave you a link to a site that does nothing but refute the climate change nonsense. It is far too much info to post here, so go to that site and start reading, if you actually want to learn the truth. But I highly doubt you want to learn. You seem like one of the true believers. |
|
Quoted:
I gave you a link to a site that does nothing but refute the climate change nonsense. It is far too much info to post here, so go to that site and start reading, if you actually want to learn the truth. But I highly doubt you want to learn. You seem like one of the true believers. You linked to a hit piece that has a few references. Congrats. |
|
The answer you seek is in this thread title;
https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1939315_RECORD-COLD-FRONT-WILL-COVER--USA.html |
|
Quoted:
Refute it. Not by saying baaaahhahaha nasa? Fuck nasa bahahahaha who the hell are those idiots bahahahaha I can only evaluate it based on the totality of circumstances and what I have seen in the past, I am posting this as a Justice Department employee. The US federal government is not afraid of disseminating bulllshit. In fact, the US federal government loves it. |
|
Quoted:
Yes, it is a blatant lie that has been thoroughly debunked. If you keep repeating a lie that has been proven false, then you are a liar, by definition. You're a real scumbag you know that? I opened this thread to learn and get answers, and here you are, sitting it up, again. You don't know a God damned thing for certain, yet you have the fucking balls to call me a liar. Fuck you. |
|
Quoted:
What they know isn't the issue. It's what they push to the public. t's all political. Correct, NASA's public position is 100% political. How about the 49 former NASA scientists who wrote a letter to Bolden, objecting to his climate change nonsense? http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4 |
|
Quoted:
I can only evaluate it based on the totality of circumstances and what I have seen in the past, I am posting this as a Justice Department employee. The US federal government is not afraid of disseminating bulllshit. In fact, the US federal government loves it. Quoted:
Quoted:
Refute it. Not by saying baaaahhahaha nasa? Fuck nasa bahahahaha who the hell are those idiots bahahahaha I can only evaluate it based on the totality of circumstances and what I have seen in the past, I am posting this as a Justice Department employee. The US federal government is not afraid of disseminating bulllshit. In fact, the US federal government loves it. Not what I'm arguing. The money, the politicians, etc. I get it. That doesn't make the data wrong. |
|
Quoted:
Correct, NASA's public position is 100% political. How about the 49 former NASA scientists who wrote a letter to Bolden, objecting to his climate change nonsense? http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4 Why don't you post things like that to start instead of being a fucking scumbag? |
|
Quoted:
You're a real scumbag you know that? I opened this thread to learn and get answers, and here you are, sitting it up, again. You don't know a God damned thing for certain, yet you have the fucking balls to call me a liar. Fuck you. If you actually wanted to learn, you would be reading the links I provided, not launching personal attacks. |
|
Quoted:
Very well. I will accept your premise for the purpose of this discussion. Please tell what year, month or date the climate was normal. So we can have a baseline. Yes, OP. Give us a baseline for the climate of the planet. Ask your 97% of scientists. It would be really funny. |
|
Quoted:
Why don't you post things like that to start instead of being a fucking scumbag? Are you just trying to get banned? If you actually want to learn, go to Wattsupwiththat and read for hours. If you enter with an open mind, you will then realize how badly you have been duped. And I am not going to take your bait and get banned along with you, so give it up. |