Here's One Global Warming Study Nobody Wants You To See

[Frankfooter]

No I understand science much better than you do
Your article is no doubt supportive of your argument
there are extrapolations and estimates in those findings and it is not absolute

That link isn't to an 'article', its to the summary pages of the IPCC's 5th assessment. It includes a summary of the science you don't understand, that shows the methods, with links to the original studies, that they used to put together their paleoclimate studies.

Your refusal to click on it or to even consider the research once again shows that your position is not 'neutral'.
You've taken a stand and refuse to 'neutrally' assess the science, you've pre-ordained that you don't accept it.

 

[JohnLarue]

It includes a summary of the science you don't understand

Look stupid
I most certainly understand science better than some loud mouth, high school drop-out who can not calculate a weighted average

Your refusal to click on it or to even consider the research once again shows that your position is not 'neutral'.

I clicked on it, read some of it. Impressive no doubt
I have never said they are wrong
I have also never said they are right

I was looking for the part which you said would change my position

This will clear up your misconceptions about 'extrapolation'.

I searched for extrapolation & found only one mention & that did not provide any indication there was not any extrapolation or estimations in any or all of the work
How can one state an ice core sample is 800,000 years old without extrapolation?
They do not come with a birth certificate

There were a lot of references "high confidence " which is supportive of your position, however as any scientist will tell you it is NOT ABSOLUTE otherwise they would have stated it was absolute

Funny how one almost never sees "absolute" in scientific papers
Why do you think that is moron?

Even "absolute zero" is only theoretical and thus far experimentally impossible to achieve
Perhaps you could enlighten us on that subject given your expertise in science?


Now lets dive into your statement

Shows that your position is not 'neutral'.

How can a paper show me my position is not neutral?
I saw no mention of my name in that paper
The word neutral is not even in the text

You can not seem to understand that you do not get to define other peoples position
You are not a scientist and instead are a propaganda spewing bullshit artist who thinks he can lie often enough to convince others of his position
I have met several pathological lairs and just like you they think they can fool all of the people all of the time

Your character assassination attacks of scientists who do not support your position is despicable and requires a complete lack of integrity
Words do not describe how despicable and loathsome that is

Your scientific expertise is based upon cut and paste from the internet and your scientific understanding is limited to the propaganda value of your cut and paste routine
Any idiot can do that, so congratulations on reaching the peak of your potential as a slimy propaganda spewer
What is the value to society of someone who's goal is to mislead others and to manufacture a false climate of authority?

You've taken a stand and refuse to 'neutrally' assess the science, you've pre-ordained that you don't accept it.

Nope
I have never said they are wrong
I have also never said they are right
Neutral is a perfectly valid position to take in any case,.
More so when there are potential sources of errors, there are opposing views and particularly when a misrepresenting bull shit artist is telling me my position is not valid and his is absolute

you on the other hand refuse to accept another persons position of neutral & what is worse is you somehow think you have the authority to tell them a neutral position is not permitted
That is not science that is propaganda & the worse kind

What you truly understand about science would not fill a test tube
You prove that ever time you say a neutral position is not permitted

 

[Frankfooter]

I clicked on it, read some of it. Impressive no doubt

I will give you some credit for clicking on it and attempting to understand it.

I was looking for the part which you said would change my position

How much of it did you read?

I searched for extrapolation & found only one mention & that did not provide any indication there was not any extrapolation or estimations in any or all of the work
How can one state an ice core sample is 800,000 years old without extrapolation?
They do not come with a birth certificate

That's because they don't use 'extrapolation', they use carbon dating, tree rings, sedimentary geology, carbon dating of ice cores.
No extrapolation, they used carbon dating to measure previous climates.

You made a good start today, you should dig deeper into the IPCC site as it answers all of your questions.

 

[PornAddict]

You made a good start today, you should dig deeper into the IPCC site as it answers all of your questions.

IPCC site is biased and not truthful when come to science. And here why....


PROFESSOR WILLIAM HAPPER, P Professor of Physics at Princeton University and a member of the US Government’s group of independent scientific advisors JASON, for whom he pioneered the development of adaptive optics. Recipient of the Davisson-Germer Prize in Atomic or Surface Physics, the Herbert P Broida Prize, and a Thomas Alva Edison patent award. Fellow of the American Physical Society and of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

This is what Professor William Happer, PH.D. said " The whole hockey-stick episode reminds me motto of Orwell's Ministry of Information in novel 1984.

On February 25th 2009, Professor Happer testified before the US Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee : The existence of climate variability in the past has long been an embarrassment to those who claim that all climate change is due to man and that man can control it. When I was a schoolboy, my textbooks on earth science showed a prominent “Medieval Warm Period” at the time the Vikings settled Greenland, followed by a vicious “Little Ice Age” that drove them out. So I was very surprised when I first saw the celebrated “hockey stick curve,” in the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC.

I could hardly believe my eyes. Both the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period were gone, and the newly revised temperature of the world since the year 1000 had suddenly become absolutely flat until the last hundred years when it shot up like the blade on a hockey stick… The hockey stick was trumpeted around the world as evidence that the end was near. The hockey stick has nothing to do with reality but was the result of incorrect handling of proxy temperature records and incorrect statistical analysis.

There really was a Little Ice Age and there really was a Medieval Warm Period that was as warm or warmer than today. I bring up the hockey stick as a particularly clear example that the IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are not dispassionate statements of the facts…

The whole hockey-stick episode reminds me of the motto of Orwell’s Ministry of Information in the novel 1984 : “He who controls the present controls the past. He who controls the past controls the future.” In 2011, Will Happer expanded his thoughts on “controlling the past” : This damnatia memoriae of inconvenient facts was simply expunged from the 2001 IPCC report, much as Trotsky and Yezhov were removed from Stalin’s photographs by dark-room specialists in the later years of the dictator’s reign. There was no explanation of why both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, very clearly shown in the 1990 report, had simply disappeared eleven years later.

The IPCC and its worshipful supporters did their best to promote the hockey-stick temperature curve. But as John Adams remarked, “Facts are stubborn things, and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” Maybe not. But the hockey stick certainly took “facts and evidence” on a wild ride. In order to control the future, the IPCC had to take control of the past and Mann’s graph was their way to do that.

 

[basketcase]

You do not get it
As someone with a neutral position, I am not compelled to support one side or the other ...

There is no sides, simply scientific research.

And your refusal to discuss exactly what scientific evidence has you choosing continued denial that human CO2 plays a significant role in current climactic change despite the masses of scientific data showing otherwise show you are just another flavour of evolution "skeptics".

 

[basketcase]

Who said I am ignoring anyone ?
Ignoring a position is quite different than not taking the same position...

Refusing to discuss the science behind your position is a choice. You are not neutral but simply looking for an excuse to disagree with climactic science since you think it is a liberal agenda.

 

[basketcase]

Believing in climate change, but not behaving sustainably...

Do you believe in climate change?

Of course people have trouble altering their lifestyles. It does nothing to minimize the weight of scientific research.

 

[JohnLarue]

That's because they don't use 'extrapolation', they use carbon dating, tree rings, sedimentary geology, carbon dating of ice cores.
No extrapolation, they used carbon dating to measure previous climates.

All of which requires extrapolation / estimates to look back or to look forward.
again what grade did you drop out of high school?

Carbon dating is based upon half lives which requires exponential extrapulation

http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/beyond/articles/ExpDecay/Carbon14.html
carbon 14 dating is not particularly helpful for very recent deaths and deaths more than 50,000 years ago.

Your studies were using ice cores supposedly 800,000 years old


Tree Rings?

https://archserve.id.ucsb.edu/cours...ourseware/Chronology/07_Dendrochronology.html
There also must be an existing master strip for that area and species. There is an absolute limit on how far back in the past we can date things with tree rings. Although bristle cone pine trees can live to 9,000 years, this is a very rare phenomenon.

Sounds like that is quite short of 800,000 years


Sedimentary geological methods have limitations as well
https://www.nature.com/scitable/kno...-and-fossils-using-geologic-methods-107924044

There are three general approaches that allow scientists to date geological materials and answer the question: "How old is this fossil?" First, the relative age of a fossil can be determined. Relative dating puts geologic events in chronological order without requiring that a specific numerical age be assigned to each event. Second, it is possible to determine the numerical age for fossils or earth materials. Numerical ages estimate the date of a geological event and can sometimes reveal quite precisely when a fossil species existed in time. Third, magnetism in rocks can be used to estimate the age of a fossil site. This method uses the orientation of the Earth's magnetic field, which has changed through time, to determine ages for fossils and rocks.

Did the ice core samples have fossils in them?
or were they attempting to date / measure historical carbon dioxide levels in fossils embedded in gas permeable sedimentary rock in the parts per million level ?
or were they extrapolating from the relative geological record for that area to date the ice cores by drilling to the same relative depth? i.e. rule of thumb

Magnetism? Apparently the earths magnetic field varies over time. Not the ideal method for doing time series experiments


You will not answer these questions as that would require some thought and some scientific understanding

Lots of room for skepticism
This is not a knock on scientists
Most are exceptionally intelligent , dedicated, careful, methodical, inquisitive and generally sincere about their quest for discovery & the truth.
They will also tell you that absolute proof is extremely difficult to achieve

Neutral works for me.... for now

As I have repeatedly said your scientific understanding is limited to cut and paste from the internet.
You are not qualified to critique a real scientist , let alone claim they performed "shoddy work".
is there no low you will not sink to?

 

[JohnLarue]

Refusing to discuss the science behind your position is a choice. You are not neutral but simply looking for an excuse to disagree with climactic science since you think it is a liberal agenda.

I discussed the science

I am neutral and I respect others have the right to their position (pro, neutral or con) even if not in absolute alignment with mine.
not respecting that right can only be explained by irrational thinking or having an agenda.

 

[basketcase]

I discussed the science....

I must have missed the imaginary post where you discussed science.

If you think there is scientific research that puts doubt on the role of human produced CO2 then lets see it. Otherwise you're just sticking your head in the sand ignoring all the evidence and scientific conclusions you don't like.


And yes, of course you have a right to disagree with scientific research. Just admit that it is because of your beliefs and not about the science.

 

[JohnLarue]

I must have missed the imaginary post where you discussed science.

Pay attention. post # 168

If you think there is scientific research that puts doubt on the role of human produced CO2 then lets see it.

You are the one claiming your position is absolute
Absolute in science is very rare and next to impossible with respect to time series studies, even more so when predicting the future
On top of that you want apply an absolute on the cause after assuming your conclusion about the affect is true
Sorry but the onus is on you to prove your conclusion is absolute

Otherwise you're just sticking your head in the sand ignoring all the evidence and scientific conclusions you don't like.

you want to dis-allow anyone from taking a neutral position (or opposing position) and you have the nerve to talk about sticking your head in the sand or scientific conclusions you do not like?
For over 170 posts you and that moron Frankfooter have tried to brow beat me into accepting your conclusion as the absolute only possible position, while going berserk over a neutral position
You need to look in the mirror when you make that statement

And yes, of course you have a right to disagree with scientific research.

Just so long as that disagreement does not conflict with your beliefs correct?
Otherwise

Either you are like K and believe that the masses of scientists are faking their results and somehow suppressing those with contrary results or you have to accept the scientific community strongly supports the concept that human produced CO2 is a significant contributor to current climactic change

So on one hand you say I have a right to disagree with scientific research, while on the hand you say I have two choices: either I accuse the scientists of falsify their results or I have to accept your position. One or the other, no third choice.
That is just plain bullshit and nobody should ever agree to conditions on their conclusions

The Russians get to vote, just so long as it is for Putin, but they should be happy they get to vote?

Freedom of thought with conditions on the conclusions?
Yeah I do not think so
Neutral works for me ... for now

Just admit that it is because of your beliefs and not about the science.

No
You are claiming an absolute position and that is just not the case. What is worse is you are attempting to use consensus as a false authority & that has no place in science.

Perhaps you might consider how inappropriate and ludicrous your demands are with respect to MY conclusion

 

[Frankfooter]

All of which requires extrapolation / estimates to look back or to look forward.
again what grade did you drop out of high school?

Again, read the IPCC reports, your use of the term 'extrapolation' shows you don't understand the methods used.

Carbon dating is based upon half lives which requires exponential extrapulation

Your studies were using ice cores supposedly 800,000 years old

Your site talks about carbon dating for organic material, those numbers are not correct for climate change studies.
But more importantly, carbon dating is only one of several methods used for ice cores, from volcanic dust, uranium, wiggle matching and Beryllium levels have all be used, plus a few other techniques.

Tree Rings?

Accurate reports with the oldest 12,000 years old.
https://www.thoughtco.com/dendrochronology-tree-rings-170704


All the rest of your questions are answered in the IPCC reports and through the studies they reference for those reports.
There is literally nothing you can ask here that's a legit concern that hasn't been studied.

The only real question is why you don't this.

 

[basketcase]

Pay attention. post # 168

Even ignoring your severe misunderstandings about how ice cores and tree rings are used, what exactly do they have to repeated studies by a large number of scientists that conclude that human produced CO2 is playing a significant role in current climactic changes?

You are the one claiming your position is absolute...

For a guy who keeps screaming for people to read things that aren't there, you should really read my posts. In science there are no absolutes, simply conclusions based on the best available evidence. You might be hoping that at some point in the future that refuting evidence will be found but the evidence currently available says human CO2 is significant.

To paraphrase a science teacher I had, neutral in science is a haven for the ignorant or the scared.

 

[JohnLarue]

Again, read the IPCC reports, your use of the term 'extrapolation' shows you don't understand the methods used.

You arrogant and unbelievably stupid fool

https://answersingenesis.org/geolog...ometric-dating-problems-with-the-assumptions/

Physicists have carefully measured the radioactive decay rates of parent radioisotopes in laboratories over the last 100 or so years and have found them to be essentially constant (within the measurement error margins). Furthermore, they have not been able to significantly change these decay rates by heat, pressure, or electrical and magnetic fields. So geologists have assumed these radioactive decay rates have been constant for billions of years.
However, this is an enormous extrapolation of seven orders of magnitude back through immense spans of unobserved time without any concrete proof that such an extrapolation is credible. Nevertheless, geologists insist the radioactive decay rates have always been constant, because it makes these radioactive clocks “work”!

Your site talks about carbon dating for organic material, those numbers are not correct for climate change studies.

you continue to pile on the examples of your complete lack of scientific understanding.
Real basic stuff as well

Organic Material?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/organic chemistry

Definition of organic chemistry
: a branch of chemistry that is concerned with carbon and especially carbon compounds which are found in living things

Carbon & Carbon dioxide are most certainly organic material

those numbers are not correct for climate change studies

.
WTF?
That is just plain wrong
The half life of a carbon isotope does not vary with the type of material, compound or physical state (gas, liquid or solid) the carbon is found in. That is the basis of the technique.

Keep digging the hole stupid

Tree Rings
Accurate reports with the oldest 12,000 years old.
https://www.thoughtco.com/dendrochronology-tree-rings-170704

So what?
12,000 years might get you near the end of the most recent ice age & roughly the same amount of time of human civilization is proposed to have start.
your studies are quoting ice core samples supposedly 800,000 years old .
A rule of thumb wrt extrapolation is the forecasting variable should not exceed the magnitude of the know sample data. ie you should not try to measure out 13 inches with a foot long ruler, instead go get a two foot ruler.

800,000 years quite a bit larger than the age of your 12,000 year old tree rings.
Extrapolation of 800,000 from 12,000 of known sample?
That a potential source for a very significant experimental error.

Yet somehow you claim 90 % confidence across all studies
This after claiming 99.94% confidence


You simply do not understand what you are reading on the internet and certainly do not understand what you are posting about
What kind of moron thinks he can fool others about scientific matters when he does not understand real basic stuff ?

All the rest of your questions are answered in the IPCC reports and through the studies they reference for those reports.

Running and hiding are you?

Come on, you insult me , tell me

you don't understand the methods used.

Then run away and hide behind a internet link ?????

Come back for more, I am having a hell of good time showing what a complete liar / idiot / know nothing that you are.

There is literally nothing you can ask here that's a legit concern that hasn't been studied.

here are a couple of asks
1. What was grade were you in when dropped out of school?
2. what possessed you to portray / promote your self as even remotely knowledgeable about any science ?
You had to know that you would be tested and fail miserably

 

[JohnLarue]

Even ignoring your severe misunderstandings about how ice cores and tree rings are used, what exactly do they have to repeated studies by a large number of scientists that conclude that human produced CO2 is playing a significant role in current climactic changes?

Do a lot of ice core work in your spare time, do ya?
Dating any item back past recorded time requires extrapolation & that is a source of experimental error, regardless of the technique
BTW a consensus does not eliminate sources of experimental error.

For a guy who keeps screaming for people to read things that aren't there, you should really read my posts.

I am not screaming, just defending my right to a neutral position
I am reading your posts, how else can i quote you if I did not?
Again simple logic

In science there are no absolutes, simply conclusions based on the best available evidence.

If true you should have no issue with others having
a) an opposing conclusion from yours
b) a neutral position

Yet you keep on trying to tell me that a neutral position (and an opposing position by default) is not permitted

So which is true ?

You might be hoping that at some point in the future that refuting evidence will be found but the evidence currently available says human CO2 is significant.

Hopefully for the last time I will explain this to you .......again
I have not said they are right and I have not said they are wrong
The conclusion is being promoted as absolute, which is not correct.

Worse than that, the term "science" is being used as a tool to convey a false authority over those that oppose the conclusion or may still be formulating their own conclusion
And that is inexcusable

To paraphrase a science teacher I had, neutral in science is a haven for the ignorant or the scared.

Really?
So your teacher would rather get a result, than ensure he took his time and obtained the correct result?
Perhaps that is why he was teaching rather than doing experimental work.

There is no time limit on scientific discovery and neutral does not have to be a permanent state

 

[basketcase]

Do a lot of ice core work in your spare time, do ya?...e

No but I have enough curiosity to read up about them and scientific knowledge to understand what they are saying.

And all you are doing is saying that hundreds of separate studies that have concluded human CO2 is playing a significant role are wrong and you refuse to explain why those studies are wrong other than at some point in the future someone will discover other evidence.

Simply put, your "neutral" is simply a choice to ignore the scientific research that is out there which overwhelmingly points to one conclusion just because you don;t like that conclusion.

And there is no "false authority". There are scientific studies that reached conclusions based on the evidence available. The results are known based on what we have. Why do you continue to deny them?

 

[Frankfooter]

You arrogant and unbelievably stupid fool

https://answersingenesis.org/geolog...ometric-dating-problems-with-the-assumptions/

Physicists have carefully measured the radioactive decay rates of parent radioisotopes in laboratories over the last 100 or so years and have found them to be essentially constant (within the measurement error margins). Furthermore, they have not been able to significantly change these decay rates by heat, pressure, or electrical and magnetic fields. So geologists have assumed these radioactive decay rates have been constant for billions of years.
However, this is an enormous extrapolation of seven orders of magnitude back through immense spans of unobserved time without any concrete proof that such an extrapolation is credible. Nevertheless, geologists insist the radioactive decay rates have always been constant, because it makes these radioactive clocks “work”!

So now you think that even radioactive half lives are wrong based on your superior instincts.
I have to say, Larue, that you're now jumping into the land of scientific wacko, with theories that might as well come from pornaddict, moviefan, canadaman or maybe Gywneth Paltrow.

Go ahead, challenge of all of nuclear physics on an escort board and show the world how wrong they are.
In the meantime, you're really just confirming my claim that you are scientifically illiterate.

 

[JohnLarue]

So now you think that even radioactive half lives are wrong based on your superior instincts

.

Look stupid, that is not what I said
I know this will be over your head but carbon dating has its limitations
Anything over 5,000 years is pushing it and will introduce experimental errors which grow exponentially the further you push out from 5,000 years
The quantity of isotope in a compound is minisule to being with and it decays over time becoming more and more difficult to detect.

Your complete lack of understanding of science becomes more & more evident each post you make
No-one with rudimentary scientific training should mistake the introduction of experimental error as an accusation of "wrong " as you just did
It also shows you do not understand what you were talking about when you claimed your bullshit confidence numbers (its just propaganda to you)

I have to say, Larue, that you're now jumping into the land of scientific wacko, with theories that might as well come from pornaddict, moviefan, canadaman or maybe Gywneth Paltrow.

Says the scientific know nothing who can not compute a weighted average, does not understand extrapolation, does not think carbon is a organic material and believes there are special half lives for specific "Climate change studies"
you are a joke

Go ahead, challenge of all of nuclear physics on an escort board and show the world how wrong they are.

Oh I am quite confident they will agree that you understand next to nothing and are a horses ass to boot

In the meantime, you're really just confirming my claim that you are scientifically illiterate.

Really?
look stupid, I have forgotten more about science than you will ever possibly know
You are not even at a high school level of understanding of science yet you try to discredit a scientist by claiming her work is "shoddy'
stupid and dishonest is a really bad combination and has no place in science

 

[Frankfooter]

.

Look stupid, that is not what I said
I know this will be over your head but carbon dating has its limitations
Anything over 5,000 years is pushing it and will introduce experimental errors which grow exponentially the further you push out from 5,000 years
The quantity of isotope in a compound is minisule to being with and it decays over time becoming more and more difficult to detect.

Your complete lack of understanding of science becomes more & more evident each post you make
None with rudimentary scientific training mistakes the introduction of experimental error as an accusation of "wrong " as you just did
It also shows you do not understand what you were talking about when you claimed bullshit confidence numbers



Says the scientific know nothing who can not compute a weighted average, does not understand extrapolation, does not think carbon is a organic material and believes there are special half lives for specific "Climate change studies"



Oh I am quite confident they will agree that you understand next to nothing and are a horses ass to boot



Really?
look stupid, I have forgotten more about science than you will ever possibly know
You are not even at a high school level of understanding of science yet you try to discredit a scientist by claiming her work is "shoddy'
stupid and dishonest is a really bad combination and has no place in science

As usual you can provide only insults.
Look, you've come out and said that you alone dispute the science on decay rates and carbon dating.
Its just like your stance on climate change, where you refuse to accept the science based on your own personal 'feelings'.
For someone who claims to have a science education, you appear to only be able to argue only with insults.

Physicists have carefully measured the radioactive decay rates of parent radioisotopes in laboratories over the last 100 or so years and have found them to be essentially constant (within the measurement error margins). Furthermore, they have not been able to significantly change these decay rates by heat, pressure, or electrical and magnetic fields. So geologists have assumed these radioactive decay rates have been constant for billions of years.
However, this is an enormous extrapolation of seven orders of magnitude back through immense spans of unobserved time without any concrete proof that such an extrapolation is credible. Nevertheless, geologists insist the radioactive decay rates have always been constant, because it makes these radioactive clocks “work”!

 

[JohnLarue]

No but I have enough curiosity to read up about them and scientific knowledge to understand what they are saying.

Then you must have some understanding of experimental error

And all you are doing is saying that hundreds of separate studies that have concluded human CO2 is playing a significant role are wrong

I have never said that
nor have I said they were right
You have a very bad habit of incorrectly telling me what I said

and you refuse to explain why those studies are wrong other than at some point in the future someone will discover other evidence.

those are your words, not mine
again I have never said someone will solve this question in the future
to be fair I have also never said someone will not solve this question in the future

Simply put, your "neutral" is simply a choice to ignore the scientific research that is out there which overwhelmingly points to one conclusion just because you don;t like that conclusion.

Nope
That is incorrect
You have no more false authority to tell me what my motivation is than you do to tell me that my neutral position is not permitted

And there is no "false authority".

Sure there is, you just tried to use by incorrectly telling my position is unacceptable and my motivation is based upon some bullshit you dreamed up

are going to honestly say that your brow beating has never successfully convinced someone who does not have scientific training / understanding?
Come on, be honest

unlike the moron, you are able to communicate, appear to be well read, portray confidence and given the post count on this thread you obviously are tenacious and self -righteous
You must have convinced scores of average joes / joesphines who lack an understanding of science !
Your refuse to permit my neutral position, so why would allow them to remain unconvinced despite the fact they do not really understand or question the science ? (no way you would let that happen)
I bet you have successfully used that "false authority" so many times you lost count

And that is not how science should be used
Science is not always absolute, particularly predictive science.
What are the moral implications if you are wrong ?

No moral implication for me as I am not attempting to convince anyone to take one position or another
Instead I point out facts and allow the reader to form their own conclusion

You would be well advise to consider respecting that you conclusion is not absolute and others have a right to disagree with you or simply remain undecided or neutral