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

[basketcase]

While some scientists are in private institutions, the majority are paid by public funds.....

From dozens of different countries

So what you have now stooped to is claiming there is an international conspiracy to push a climate agenda for some nefarious purpose.

 

[basketcase]

Including the one which requires a balance of ice and fire ?????
But no ice in Hawaii???
How does that work?

WTF are you talking about? There are not masses of studies on volcanoes so scepticism on that would be reasonable

Meanwhile there are masses of studies concluding that human generated CO2 plays a significant role in current climate changes and you choose to reject them all.

 

[basketcase]

Besure you understand the difference between
a)science which is observed constantly by billions of people every day throughout recorded history ie the force of gravity exerted on a falling object. i.e what goes up must come down
b) science which is extrapolating into the past (beyond recorded history) in order to extrapolate into the the future & predict an outcome- ie climate change science

The confidence level for a) is quite a bit higher than b)
I would put money on a) if anyone was fool enough to accept the bet

everyday occurrences throughout history provide enough proof for me wrt gravity, however if you want to take a neutral position then knock yourself out
Your position wrt gravity is irrelevant to me

Another post where you prove you are absolutely clueless about science in general. You don't even know what gravity is about or the history of Newton's, Einstein's (or competing) theories on it.

 

[JohnLarue]

I see, so your stance is now that your position is 'neutral' whatever the position of science or the population.

No you do not see
My position is neutral & I will not be swayed by a poll
It is conceivable new science could be persuasive, however given the extrapolation well past recorded history & a prediction of future events, the break through would need to be significant for either the pro or con argument

Even though you also say there is 'lots of room for skepticism' despite 99.94% of papers coming to the same conclusion.

Given one guy categorized the papers to arrive at his conclusion & given the asinine behavior of some nut-job climate change activists (you) There is lots of room for skepticism

You are a denier, just like you are denying your position.

Nope , I am neutral & your refusal to accept neutral as a rational & permit-able position, just reinforces my conviction

You are a scientific know nothing, yet you claim your position is absolute and any deviation requires a label "denier" to be placed on anyone whose views do not match yours

Mu guess is you hope one day the shame of being labelled as a "denier" may have the impact of the shame of being labelled a "raciest"
Shame may work for social causes, however it does not work in science
You do you cause far more harm than good

you should learn & understand an issue before you think you have the false authority to label anyone
Not understanding grade 10 level science did not stop you from labeling a scientist's work as "shoddy"
Your credibility is worthless

Do you really think you can convince me by calling me a denier?

 

[JohnLarue]

Another post where you prove you are absolutely clueless about science in general. You don't even know what gravity is about or the history of Newton's, Einstein's (or competing) theories on it.

I know enough to tell you
a) Eisensteins theory collapsed down onto Newtons theory within the current limits of experimentation.
Einsteins theory has never been disproved, nor has it been experimental proven. (as predicted by Einstein)
Thus far no one has directly detected gravitation waves
b) if you drop an object it falls

 

[Frankfooter]

No you do not see
My position is neutral & I will not be swayed by a poll
It is conceivable new science could be persuasive, however given the extrapolation well past recorded history & a prediction of future events, the break through would need to be significant for either the pro or con argument

The science is 150 years old.
They've been researching climate change and the greenhouse effect for that long and nobody has come up with a better explanation in 150 years.
Your claim that it would take 'new science' to convince you shows that you don't accept the existing science.
That labels you clearly as a denier.
I'm not trying to convince you, you're a blowhard who won't actually listen to reason if it challenges your world view, I know you won't change your mind.
All I'm doing is making the label clear and showing the rest of the board why.

You are a denier.

 

[JohnLarue]

The science is 150 years old.

The planet & its constantly evolving climate is 4.5 B years old

They've been researching climate change and the greenhouse effect for that long and nobody has come up with a better explanation in 150 years.

They have been researching for centuries before someone declared the earth was not flat
That guy was not called a denier, rather a heretic

Your claim that it would take 'new science' to convince you shows that you don't accept the existing science.

I never said I do not or do accept the science
I am simply pointing out it is based upon extrapolation well in excess of recorded history & well in excess of the detection limit of the carbon dating technique. Your conclusion also requires extrapolation going forward to predict an outcome
If you understood anything about science you would know extrapolation is an estimate & introduces experimental error while reducing confidence levels

That labels you clearly as a denier.

Says the know nothing fool, who could not pass a grade 10 science test and who is also a known liar

I'm not trying to convince you, you're a blowhard who won't actually listen to reason if it challenges your world view, I know you won't change your mind.
All I'm doing is making the label clear and showing the rest of the board why.

The rest of the board?????

The rest of the board knows you as a fool and lair
Do you actually think you have any credibility here?
That is just too funny

You are a denier.

Nope I am neutral
You are an idiot

 

[HungSowel]

I know enough to tell you
a) Eisensteins theory collapsed down onto Newtons theory within the current limits of experimentation.
Einsteins theory has never been disproved, nor has it been experimental proven. (as predicted by Einstein)
Thus far no one has directly detected gravitation waves
b) if you drop an object it falls

a) I do not know what you mean by "experimentally proven", but the manhattan project probably qualifies if not then I submitt Huddington's mercery observation, or gravitational lensing, or the creation of a bose-einstien condensate in the 90s, or the fact that we have to correct satallite clocks to compensation for time dilation, or nuclear energy, or a million other things. I do not know what you mean by "directly detected" but the 2017 nobel was awarded for the detection of gravitational waves.

 

[JohnLarue]

a) I do not know what you mean by "experimentally proven", but the manhattan project probably qualifies if not then I submitt Huddington's mercery observation, or gravitational lensing, or the creation of a bose-einstien condensate in the 90s, or the fact that we have to correct satallite clocks to compensation for time dilation, or nuclear energy, or a million other things. I do not know what you mean by "directly detected" but the 2017 nobel was awarded for the detection of gravitational waves.

I stand corrected. You are right
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_observation_of_gravitational_waves

The first observation of gravitational waves was made on 14 September 2015 and was announced by the LIGO and Virgo collaborations on 11 February 2016.

Previously gravitational waves had only been inferred indirectly, via their effect on the timing of pulsars in binary star systems.

My references had predated this occurrence.

https://www.amnh.org/explore/scienc.../essay-newton-vs.-einstein-vs.-the-next-wave/

So far, Einstein has been right. It’s been eight decades since he introduced General Relativity, and a gravitational wave has not yet been detected. It wasn’t until 1974 that scientists even got close. That year two radio astronomers, Joseph Taylor and Russell Hulse, were analyzing a pair of neutron stars (superdense collapsed stars) that orbit each other. Hulse and Taylor realized that the orbits were speeding up at a rate Einstein predicted would occur if gravitational waves were indeed being generated by the system. The first indirect evidence of gravitational waves was in, but the waves themselves were not directly measured.

 

[Frankfooter]

I never said I do not or do accept the science
I am simply pointing out it is based upon extrapolation well in excess of recorded history & well in excess of the detection limit of the carbon dating technique. Your conclusion also requires extrapolation going forward to predict an outcome
If you understood anything about science you would know extrapolation is an estimate & introduces experimental error while reducing confidence levels

That really sums up your claim.
First you claim that you are neutral then you clearly state you don't accept the science based on your personal views about carbon dating, despite carbon dating being only one tool used within climatology.

In other words, you claim you are neutral and then claim the science is wrong in the same post.
You are a denier.

 

[basketcase]

...
Einsteins theory has never been disproved, nor has it been experimental proven. ...

Wow. You really are decades behind and show your scientific illiteracy by thinking there is such a thing as "proven". There is plenty of evidence supporting Einsteinian gravitation in certain ranges as well as experimental evidence showing on largest scales it doesn't work without there being invisible matter.

But yes, you should drop your claims of scepticism/climate denial because your scientific claims have fallen.

 

[JohnLarue]

That really sums up your claim.
First you claim that you are neutral then you clearly state you don't accept the science based on your personal views about carbon dating, despite carbon dating being only one tool used within climatology.

I most certainly did not state any such thing
What is wrong with you?

your stupidity is a rather poor excuse for accusing someone

In other words,

There is the problem "In other words" is not valid when it is being translated by a lying moron, who does not understand the subject matter

you claim you are neutral and then claim the science is wrong in the same post.

No I did not
If you cant comprehend what you read I suggest you get some help


I calmed I was neutral and explained there are issues related to extrapolation in excess of record history & the techniques limitations.
That is not claiming the science is wrong nor is it claiming it is correct
There is No claim made.

You are a denier.

Nope
You are an idiot

 

[JohnLarue]

Wow. You really are decades behind and show your scientific illiteracy by thinking there is such a thing as "proven". There is plenty of evidence supporting Einsteinian gravitation in certain ranges as well as experimental evidence showing on largest scales it doesn't work without there being invisible matter.

But yes, you should drop your claims of scepticism/climate denial because your scientific claims have fallen.

Give your head a shake
2015 is hardly a decade.

A recent discovery about gravitational wave theory via astrophysics some how tips the scale on climate change science ?
Perhaps you can show us how they are related?

 

[Frankfooter]

I calmed I was neutral and explained there are issues related to extrapolation in excess of record history & the techniques limitations.
That is not claiming the science is wrong nor is it claiming it is correct
There is No claim made.

You claim there are 'issues' with the way techniques were used.
That's not neutral, that's taking a stance and saying the science is not correct.

Every post you make just confirms this and that you are a denier.

Didn't you previously post that if climate change is happening and we do nothing about it that it would be the greatest crime or sin ever?

 

[JohnLarue]

You claim there are 'issues' with the way techniques were used.
That's not neutral, that's taking a stance and saying the science is not correct.

No it is not

Do not be so god damn stupid
It does raise questions about the precision of your 99.94% & your conculsion
It also casts further doubt about your absolute position
However it does not claim the science is correct or incorrect.
That is left to the reader to decide.
Of course you will have none of that now will you?
Like a true commie, you also want to control what others are permitted to think

Every post you make just confirms this and that you are a denier.

Every post you make just confirms your status as a scientific moron and as someone with an agenda

Didn't you previously post that if climate change is happening and we do nothing about it that it would be the greatest crime or sin ever?

"If" being the key word moron

Close to 300 posts on this subject & approx 20% of those are you telling me what my views are & probably 35% are you & basketcase telling me that my neutral position is not permissible
What are the chances that your position is an objective one?

You have been shown to be a scientific dunce, yet your position is absolute.
How can anyone claim their position is absolute if they do not understand the subject matter?

 

[basketcase]

Give your head a shake
2015 is hardly a decade.

A recent discovery about gravitational wave theory via astrophysics some how tips the scale on climate change science ?
Perhaps you can show us how they are related?

Yes, they are related because you are clueless about all science. And there was plenty of evidence supporting Einstein's gravity before gravitational waves were potentially detected.


I'm mostly just waiting for you to explain where you came up with the idea that the theory of gravity was "proven".

 

[JohnLarue]

Yes, they are related because you are clueless about all science.

No the question was
"A recent discovery about gravitational wave theory via astrophysics some how tips the scale on climate change science ?
Perhaps you can show us how they are related?"

Time to show us what you know or do not know

And there was plenty of evidence supporting Einstein's gravity before gravitational waves were potentially detected.

Plenty of theoretical evidence, however as I stated & as the linked and quoted article states 2015 was the first time they had been directly measured

the first observation of gravitational waves was made on 14 September 2015 and was announced by the LIGO and Virgo collaborations on 11 February 2016.
Previously gravitational waves had only been inferred indirectly, via their effect on the timing of pulsars in binary star systems.

indirectly via their effect on the timing of pulsars in binary star systems

I'm mostly just waiting for you to explain where you came up with the idea that the theory of gravity was "proven".

Every time you take a step

I have a whole lot more confidence in the law of gravity than in the theory of climate change
To equate the two is disingenuous
Do you truly wish to mislead others ?

 

[Frankfooter]

"If" being the key word

Lets sum this up:
You state that if climate change is occurring as reported by the IPCC and we do nothing about it then its the greatest crime/sin in history.
You state that you are neutral on whether the science is correct or not, yet still suggest we do nothing about climate change.

Is that a fair assessment of your position?

 

[JohnLarue]

Lets sum this up:
You state that if climate change is occurring as reported by the IPCC and we do nothing about it then its the greatest crime/sin in history.
You state that you are neutral on whether the science is correct or not, yet still suggest we do nothing about climate change.

Is that a fair assessment of your position?

No you mis-quote me again

"if" being the key word
I made no mention of the IPCC being the last word on this issue
I have never said we should do nothing about climate change
I did say demands to immediately stop the use of fossil fuels are totally unrealistic and not achievable
Applying carbon taxes when our biggest competitors do not will accomplish nothing other than to make our economy uncompetitive

I will also add that using climate change as an excuse to expand government and increase taxes is evil and I beleive that is your real agenda
I find it disturbing that a scientific morn such as yourself can take an absolute position on an issue you clearly do not understand & brow beat others who may not agree with your position, because you have an agenda

 

[Frankfooter]

No you mis-quote me again

"if" being the key word
I made no mention of the IPCC being the last word on this issue
I have never said we should do nothing about climate change
I did say demands to immediately stop the use of fossil fuels are totally unrealistic and not achievable
Applying carbon taxes when our biggest competitors do not will accomplish nothing other than to make our economy uncompetitive

I will also add that using climate change as an excuse to expand government and increase taxes is evil and I beleive that is your real agenda
I find it disturbing that a scientific morn such as yourself can take an absolute position on an issue you clearly do not understand & brow beat others who may not agree with your position, because you have an agenda

I don't have an agenda, that's you projecting.
The IPCC working papers represent a good summary of the science now, you really should check them out.
Because when you are looking at the 'greatest crime/sin in history' and you're too lazy to do enough research to see if its true, yet spend endless pages here on personal attacks it really makes your own agenda apparent.

If you spent as much time in one day posting here in basic research, you'd be much better informed.
ipcc.ch