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

[Frankfooter]

It most certainly is if you are going to use their names & results to support an explicit blanket statement such as "human CO2 playing a significant role in current climate change." & "we need to stop the use of fossil fuels immediately" & we need to oppose all infrastructure builds related to fossil fuels
Some papers may only support part of those statements or may just be confirming levels of C02 which do not align with expectations based upon historical extrapolation or independently temperatures which do not align with expectations based upon historical extrapolation

Now you are making up claims in order to continue your denial of the validity of the paper.
Its idiotic that you think you would need to judge the scientific validity of a theory by a person opinion poll, rather then assessing the peer assessed and published scientific research into a subject.

I can not be a denier if I am neutral

You are not neutral, you are denying the validity of all the research presented here based on your personal feelings.
That makes you a denier.

 

[JohnLarue]

Now you are making up claims in order to continue your denial of the validity of the paper.

Nope, just questioning how 99.94% was arrived at & appears the author may have had his pencil on the scale

Its idiotic that you think you would need to judge the scientific validity of a theory by a person opinion poll, rather then assessing the peer assessed and published scientific research into a subject.

your position is 99.94 % of scientist agree with the position that the climate is changing, due to CO2 levels and caused by human actions, specifically the burning of fossil fuels
It turns out (according to post 201) that many of those papers did not explicitly investigate all of those multiple issues
So something is gone off the track. 99.94% ????? i knew that was far too precise & far too close to 100% to be correct
Those scientists may have been mis-represented

You are not neutral, you are denying the validity of all the research presented here based on your personal feelings.

I have not denied anything.
I am questioning certain aspects such as extrapolation to 800,000 years past and extrapolation into the future & the use of carbon dating well in excess of its usable range.
I am questioning the accuracy/ precision of 99.94%
I am questioning scientific consensus being substituted for scientific methodology
I am questioning how a scientific illiterate moron can state his position is absolute when clearly his understanding of science is below a grade 10 level
I am also questioning when I see false authority abused
However I have never stated the scientist are right, nor have I stated they are wrong
As stated many time before I am neutral
You do not acknowledge my right to not agree with you and by default you do not acknowledge my right to dis-agree with you
That would make your position absolute & that is not possible with predictive science

That makes you a denier.

I can not be a denier if I am neutral

You have been caught mis-representing yourself and others , that makes you a liar
You have also been shown to not understand very simple grade 10 level scientific principals, that makes you a moron
Now why should anyone believe a liar and a moron ?

 

[Frankfooter]

Nope, just questioning how 99.94% was arrived at & appears the author may have had his pencil on the scale
your position is 99.94 % of scientist agree with the position that the climate is changing, due to CO2 levels and caused by human actions, specifically the burning of fossil fuels
It turns out (according to post 201) that many of those papers did not explicitly investigate all of those multiple issues
So something is gone off the track. 99.94% ????? i knew that was far too precise & far too close to 100% to be correct
Those scientists may have been mis-represented

Your pornaddict copy and paste blog, or 'post #201' is hardly a credible source. It contains allegations but no facts or numbers to back up its position.
The claims made are even covered in the paper itself, which was peer assessed and found to be solid.

If you want to go through that list of 50,000 papers and tell us you can find 5,000 that support the papers findings you'll have a case.
Until then, you're seen here as backing a blog post vs a peer assessed paper based on your 'feeling' that pornaddict is more like you.

However I have never stated the scientist are right, nor have I stated they are wrong

Bullshit, sir.
You just claimed that the paper I quoted was wrong.
You claim that there isn't a scientific consensus despite multiple, legit, sourced and peer assessed papers backing up my claim.

You are a denier.

 

[JohnLarue]

Your pornaddict copy and paste blog, or 'post #201' is hardly a credible source. It contains allegations but no facts or numbers to back up its position.
The claims made are even covered in the paper itself, which was peer assessed and found to be solid.

So says you, a proven lair & a known scientific moron
So nope

If you want to go through that list of 50,000 papers and tell us you can find 5,000 that support the papers findings you'll have a case.

Your paper, your obligation
if you were to recall, I am neutral, so there is no onus on me to prove anything right or wrong

Until then, you're seen here as backing a blog post vs a peer assessed paper based on your 'feeling' that pornaddict is more like you.

So says you, a proven lair & a known scientific moron
So nope

Bullshit, sir.
You just claimed that the paper I quoted was wrong.

Wrong again stupid. I said there is definatealy room for skepticism. That is quite different from saying it is wrong
Besides, I could say your paper is not worth the value of used toilet paper and that does not mean I have made a definitive choice on climate change, nor would it define my position of the theoretical cause of climate change

You claim that there isn't a scientific consensus despite multiple, legit, sourced and peer assessed papers backing up my claim.

Wrong again stupid, What I said is scientific consensus is being substituted for scientific methodology
I made no explicit claim there was no scientific consensus, although one could argue it has been obtained via mis-representation

You are a denier.

Nope I am neutral
It does not matter how many times you try the false authority on me , I will not be intimidated by a lying moron

 

[Frankfooter]

So says you, a proven lair & a known scientific moron
So nope
Your paper, your obligation
if you were to recall, I am neutral, so there is no onus on me to prove anything right or wrong
So says you, a proven lair & a known scientific moron
So nope
Wrong again stupid. I said there is definatealy room for skepticism. That is quite different from saying it is wrong
Besides, I could say your paper is not worth the value of used toilet paper and that does not mean I have made a definitive choice on climate change, nor would it define my position of the theoretical cause of climate change
Wrong again stupid, What I said is scientific consensus is being substituted for scientific methodology
I made no explicit claim there was no scientific consensus, although one could argue it has been obtained via mis-representation
Nope I am neutral
It does not matter how many times you try the false authority on me , I will not be intimidated by a lying moron

You are not neutral, you are claiming that pornaddicts blog post is more reputable then a peer assessed study that looked at 50,000 papers.
That makes you as neutral as someone like canadaman, who probably thinks that homeopathy is more legit then vaccines.
In fact, with every paper and source presented here by me, you've declared you don't believe them, because I linked them while you apparently trust moviefan and pornaddicts links, regardless of the science or evidence.
That positions you as very much biased based on personal feelings and not science.

Constantly repeating that you are neutral is about as solid a tactic as constantly repeating that you aren't racist as well.

 

[basketcase]

Who are these thousands of independent scientists you speak of? And how can they be independent when they are all relying on the same payer (the public purse) for their livelihood?

1) They don't rely on the same "payer". They are in dozens and dozens of countries with a variety of public and private funding. But judging by another thread, you likely think that it's all part of the "globalists".

2) And are you seriously trying to deny that masses of scientists are studying climate change?

 

[JohnLarue]

You are not neutral, you are claiming that pornaddicts blog post is more reputable then a peer assessed study that looked at 50,000 papers.
That makes you as neutral as someone like canadaman, who probably thinks that homeopathy is more legit then vaccines.
In fact, with every paper and source presented here by me, you've declared you don't believe them, because I linked them while you apparently trust moviefan and pornaddicts links, regardless of the science or evidence.
That positions you as very much biased based on personal feelings and not science.

Constantly repeating that you are neutral is about as solid a tactic as constantly repeating that you aren't racist as well.

So says you, a proven lair & a known scientific moron
So nope, I am neutral

 

[Frankfooter]

So says you, a proven lair & a known scientific moron
So nope, I am neutral

Constantly repeating that you are neutral is about as solid a tactic as constantly repeating that you aren't racist as well.

 

[Insidious Von]

You can deny climate change to your hearts content but it wont matter to what is developing.

The balance of fire and ice is being disrupted by the warming temperatures. In the short term it'll mean more violent hurricanes and typhoons, but let's forget about the abnormal Hurricane Sandy. The decrease in glaciers also means an increase in volcanic activity. There are lots of dormant volcanoes along the Rocky Mountain Ridge that will awaken without the cooling effect of ice. And don't forget, Yellowstone needs lots of snow.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/get-ready-for-more-volcanic-eruptions-as-the-planet-warms/

 

[Frankfooter]

You can deny climate change to your hearts content but it wont matter to what is developing.

The balance of fire and ice is being disrupted by the warming temperatures. In the short term it'll mean more violent hurricanes and typhoons, but let's forget about the abnormal Hurricane Sandy. The decrease in glaciers also means an increase in volcanic activity. There are lots of dormant volcanoes along the Rocky Mountain Ridge that will awaken without the cooling effect of ice. And don't forget, Yellowstone needs lots of snow.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/get-ready-for-more-volcanic-eruptions-as-the-planet-warms/

I would expect that the slowdown of the AMOC is probably more worrying, as historically it appears it can stop suddenly and change the climate of North America and Europe pretty drastically fairly quickly.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...current-weakest-for-1600-years-research-finds

 

[JohnLarue]

Constantly repeating that you are neutral is about as solid a tactic as constantly repeating that you aren't racist as well.

Constantly telling others they are wrong about what what their stated beliefs are is pretty much the tell tale sign of a bullshit slinging con artist.

 

[Frankfooter]

Constantly telling others they are wrong about what what their stated beliefs are is pretty much the tell tale sign of a bullshit slinging con artist.

Constantly claiming you are neutral when you also claim the science is wrong is the tell tale sign of a bullshit artist.
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/10-indicators-that-show-climate-change

 

[canada-man]

You can deny climate change to your hearts content but it wont matter to what is developing.

The balance of fire and ice is being disrupted by the warming temperatures. In the short term it'll mean more violent hurricanes and typhoons, but let's forget about the abnormal Hurricane Sandy. The decrease in glaciers also means an increase in volcanic activity. There are lots of dormant volcanoes along the Rocky Mountain Ridge that will awaken without the cooling effect of ice. And don't forget, Yellowstone needs lots of snow.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/get-ready-for-more-volcanic-eruptions-as-the-planet-warms/

volcanoes are not linked to climate. that's is the latest climate alarmist propaganda.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/geography/natural_hazards/volcanoes_rev1.shtml

The formation of volcanoes

Magma rises through cracks or weaknesses in the Earth's crust.
Pressure builds up inside the Earth.
When this pressure is released, eg as a result of plate movement, magma explodes to the surface causing a volcanic eruption.
The lava from the eruption cools to form new crust.
Over time, after several eruptions, the rock builds up and a volcano forms.

 

[JohnLarue]

Constantly claiming you are neutral when you also claim the science is wrong is the tell tale sign of a bullshit artist.
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/10-indicators-that-show-climate-change

Again you mis-represent me
You do a lot of mis-representing don't you?
I never claimed the science is wrong, I never endorsed it as correct either
Yet that is exactly what you say I claim.
what is your authority again to tell me (incorrectly) what my position is?
Oh yes its that false authority, which is worthless and ineffective on me


I did point out that your 99.94% is most likely mis-representation as one guy assigned all the scientists positions to be either
a) supporting his conclusion or
b) a denier

You publish a paper & years later , someone else gets to declare what your position is?


I wonder why he assigned 0.06% of the scientists as opposed? ?????

or did he say their position was inconclusive, undetermined, undecided or neutral?
Obviously even he believes that a conclusion which differs from his is permissible otherwise the number would be 100%

but you will have none of that

 

[JohnLarue]

You can deny climate change to your hearts content but it wont matter to what is developing.

The balance of fire and ice is being disrupted by the warming temperatures. In the short term it'll mean more violent hurricanes and typhoons, but let's forget about the abnormal Hurricane Sandy. The decrease in glaciers also means an increase in volcanic activity. There are lots of dormant volcanoes along the Rocky Mountain Ridge that will awaken without the cooling effect of ice. And don't forget, Yellowstone needs lots of snow.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/get-ready-for-more-volcanic-eruptions-as-the-planet-warms/

No big chunks of ice in Hawaii & probably none for the last couple of hundred thousand years
I wonder why it is erupting now?
That must be explained by some other kind of theory
Plate tectonics??

 

[Frankfooter]

Again you mis-represent me
You do a lot of mis-representing don't you?
I never claimed the science is wrong, I never endorsed it as correct either
Yet that is exactly what you say I claim.

I've posted sources here that you claim are wrong, from your personal views on carbon dating to now your personal views on a peer assessed paper, one of about 7 that came to similar results.
Claiming you are neutral while stating you don't believe the consensus science is like stating you're neutral on the theory of gravity, so therefore are going to floating off the CN tower later.

 

[basketcase]

Constantly telling others they are wrong about what what their stated beliefs are is pretty much the tell tale sign of a bullshit slinging con artist.

Or it simply means you are wrong.

 

[basketcase]

No big chunks of ice in Hawaii & probably none for the last couple of hundred thousand years
I wonder why it is erupting now?
That must be explained by some other kind of theory
Plate tectonics??

I'd guess climate plays a small role in volcanoes but there hasn;t been a lot of study on the relationship.

On the other hand, there has been loads of studies on how human produced CO2 affects climate but they don't seem to have any influence on your views.

 

[JohnLarue]

Or it simply means you are wrong.

Well If I were to claim someone is wrong about their position , then I would not be neutral

 

[JohnLarue]

I'd guess climate plays a small role in volcanoes but there hasn;t been a lot of study on the relationship.

On the other hand, there has been loads of studies on how human produced CO2 affects climate but they don't seem to have any influence on your views.

So you agree that perhaps we should not rush to buy into every climate change activists theory on the internet?
Again I have expressed skepticism, but I have not expressed my views, other to say i am neutral on the issue