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

[JohnLarue]

I've posted sources here that you claim are wrong,

Once again you are wrong
I have pointed out issues and expressed skepticism.
I have not claimed they were wrong, nor have I claimed they were right.
I have explained this to you a dozen times
Yet you still do not get it

from your personal views on carbon dating

I explained the limitations on carbon dating which you could not grasp
My personal views on carbon dating?
It is a very ingenious and effective method for dating fossils up to 50,000 years old. I believe it can also be used for quantitative analysis (how much carbon in the sample) with some precision
Those that discovered this technique made a real positive contribution to science, history & humanity

to now your personal views on a peer assessed paper, one of about 7 that came to similar results.

If you are going to claim absolute you will need a whole lot more precision , than a peer review assembled by a potentially biased activist / scientist

My personal views on a peer assessed paper?

No doubt useful to scientists seeking information to plan their experimentation, confirm / refute assumptions & as possible route to discovery.
However if one guy is categorizing results, then, it is not suitable for policy making or claiming an absolute position, which is how you are using it
Despite the fact you do not understand the science

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.

What an absurd statement
There is a law of gravity
Your position is hardly the "Law of climate change"

again you
a) mistake scientific consensus for scientific method
consensus has no place in science
b) proclaim your position is absolute and as infallible as the "Law of gravity"


An absolute scientific position as declared by a lair/ con man who can not pass a grade 10 science test?
I do not think so

 

[basketcase]

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

Your refusal to accept the masses of scientific data (or even discuss the science) puts that "neutral" claim to rest pretty well.

 

[basketcase]

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

Of course if there are thousands of studies about volcanoes and climate like there are for AGW, to ignore them would be completely unscientific and irrational.

 

[basketcase]

...
There is a law of gravity...

Not in a scientific sense. The scientific community sees Newton, Einstein's, and competing gravitational ideas as theories.


The "consensus" (which really means the masses of scientific work) is that Newton and Einstein work perfectly well within their certain parameters.

 

[Frankfooter]

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

I'm glad to hear that you don't think I'm wrong.

 

[Frankfooter]

Once again you are wrong
I have pointed out issues and expressed skepticism.
I have not claimed they were wrong, nor have I claimed they were right.
I have explained this to you a dozen times
Yet you still do not get it
I explained the limitations on carbon dating which you could not grasp
My personal views on carbon dating?
It is a very ingenious and effective method for dating fossils up to 50,000 years old. I believe it can also be used for quantitative analysis (how much carbon in the sample) with some precision
Those that discovered this technique made a real positive contribution to science, history & humanity
If you are going to claim absolute you will need a whole lot more precision , than a peer review assembled by a potentially biased activist / scientist
My personal views on a peer assessed paper?
No doubt useful to scientists seeking information to plan their experimentation, confirm / refute assumptions & as possible route to discovery.
However if one guy is categorizing results, then, it is not suitable for policy making or claiming an absolute position, which is how you are using it
Despite the fact you do not understand the science
What an absurd statement
There is a law of gravity
Your position is hardly the "Law of climate change"
again you
a) mistake scientific consensus for scientific method
consensus has no place in science
b) proclaim your position is absolute and as infallible as the "Law of gravity"
An absolute scientific position as declared by a lair/ con man who can not pass a grade 10 science test?
I do not think so

Well, so much for your claims you are neutral.
Someone who is neutral wouldn't challenge the consensus view, backed up by 99.94% of scientists who study the climate, including claiming that they know more about carbon dating, peer assessed papers and the value of consensus.

Lets put it this way, someone who is neutral would accept the median position based on the science, which is that climate change is happening and human impact the largest factor. Instead you are taking the views of an extremist, standing alone with kooks like pornaddict and canadaman, claiming that science is wrong and you are right.

You're not neutral, you're an extremist.

 

[JohnLarue]

I'm glad to hear that you don't think I'm wrong.

I did not say that
I have said you are moron

 

[K Douglas]

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?

While some scientists are in private institutions, the majority are paid by public funds. Funding based on politics is driving the science. There were a few scientists warning about this back in the 1960's.
And of course there are masses of scientists studying climate change. But there aren't masses who are saying that humans are inducing climate change. The majority don't have an opinion either way citing not enough evidence to conclude. In other words they realize the climate is a massive complex system that we know little about.

 

[JohnLarue]

Well, so much for your claims you are neutral.
Someone who is neutral wouldn't challenge the consensus view,

consensus has no place in science

backed up by 99.94% of scientists who study the climate,

Actually 99.94% had their position cast by one man

including claiming that they know more about carbon dating

,
Explain how accurate a method with a 50,000 year limitation can be sued to date ice cores 800,000 years old?

peer assessed papers and the value of consensus.

consensus has no place in science

Lets put it this way, someone who is neutral would accept the median position based on the science,

Lets not put it that way
Do not try to ring fence what neutral means

Someone who is neutral does not have to accept any position

which is that climate change is happening and human impact the largest factor.

Two separate conclusions, it is more than conceivable one could believe the first while rejecting the second

Instead you are taking the views of an extremist, standing alone with kooks like pornaddict and canadaman, claiming that science is wrong and you are right.

I am not claiming the science is wrong, just as I am not conceding your conclusion is correct

You're not neutral, you're an extremist

Says the moron with the long record of misleading others
Time to grow up fool

 

[JohnLarue]

Of course if there are thousands of studies about volcanoes and climate like there are for AGW, to ignore them would be completely unscientific and irrational.

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

 

[Frankfooter]

consensus has no place in science
Actually 99.94% had their position cast by one man
Explain how accurate a method with a 50,000 year limitation can be sued to date ice cores 800,000 years old?
consensus has no place in science
Lets not put it that way
Do not try to ring fence what neutral means
Someone who is neutral does not have to accept any position
Two separate conclusions, it is more than conceivable one could believe the first while rejecting the second
I am not claiming the science is wrong, just as I am not conceding your conclusion is correct
Says the moron with the long record of misleading others
Time to grow up fool

Over the years scientists wrote 50,000 papers on climate change, 99.94% of them supported the consensus views on anthropomorphic climate change.
And you still think the neutral position is to say they are all wrong.

 

[JohnLarue]

Not in a scientific sense. The scientific community sees Newton, Einstein's, and competing gravitational ideas as theories.


The "consensus" (which really means the masses of scientific work) is that Newton and Einstein work perfectly well within their certain parameters.

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

 

[JohnLarue]

Over the years scientists wrote 50,000 papers on climate change, 99.94% of them supported the consensus views on anthropomorphic climate change.
And you still think the neutral position is to say they are all wrong.

Look stupid, how many times do you need to be told?
Neural means neither agree or disagree
I have never said they are wrong, nor have I said they are correct

I have said you do not understand the science you preach and that you are a moron and a lair

 

[Frankfooter]

Look stupid, how many times do you need to be told?
Neural means neither agree or disagree
I have never said they are wrong, nor have I said they are correct

I have said you do not understand the science you preach and that you are a moron and a lair

Its not neutral to claim that scientific use of carbon dating is wrong.
Its not neutral to claim that consensus has no value.

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

That's why the IPCC reports clearly state confidence levels for each projection and finding.
Its not neutral to state that when scientists have 95% confidence on a finding that based on your personal feelings you think they are wrong.

 

[JohnLarue]

Its not neutral to claim that scientific use of carbon dating is wrong.

Once again that is not what I said
carbon dating has limitations and the dates in those studies exceed the limitations by ordrs of magnitude
You are more than free to explain if/ how they worked around this issue. Too bad you do not understand the science

Its not neutral to claim that consensus has no value.

Once again that is not what I said
Consensus has no place in science

That's why the IPCC reports clearly state confidence levels for each projection and finding.

And you somehow equate that to the infallibility of gravity???
God you are stupid

Its not neutral to state that when scientists have 95% confidence on a finding that based on your personal feelings you think they are wrong.

Once again that is not what I said
For what seems like the 100th time
I have not stated they are wrong, nor have I stated they are right
That is neutral, stupid

 

[Frankfooter]

Once again that is not what I said
carbon dating has limitations and the dates in those studies exceed the limitations by ordrs of magnitude

Are you agreeing with the use of carbon dating in IPCC reports, which summarize the findings of all of climatology or are you stating that your personal argument is correct?
What you stated clearly puts you in the denier camp, where you are claiming the existing science is wrong.
That's very much not neutral.

 

[JohnLarue]

Are you agreeing with the use of carbon dating in IPCC reports, which summarize the findings of all of climatology or are you stating that your personal argument is correct?

Niether
I am simply stating carbon dating has a detection limitation of 50,000 years, yet your studies are dating ice core samples which they claim are 800,000 years old

What you stated clearly puts you in the denier camp,

no it does not

where you are claiming the existing science is wrong.

I never claimed it is wrong, nor did I endorse it as correct

That's very much not neutral.

It is neutral stupid

Look moron, you will never convince anyone by incorrectly telling them what they are thinking.
The stuff that worked when you were in grade 4 does not apply to adults.

Telling me I am not neutral just highlights how inflexible you are & will accept nothing less than absolute & that you have an agenda
That is not science, that is propaganda & an attempt to apply a false authority

The reality of it is your conclusion it is a series of theories supported by extrapolation of data well in excess of recorded history & well in excess of the dating methodology limlitations
So lots of room for skepticism

 

[Frankfooter]

Niether
I am simply stating carbon dating has a detection limitation of 50,000 years, yet your studies are dating ice core samples which they claim are 800,000 years old

I never claimed it is wrong, nor did I endorse it as correct

It is neutral stupid


Telling me I am not neutral just highlights how inflexible you are & will accept nothing less than absolute & that you have an agenda
.....
So lots of room for skepticism

Skepticism is not neutral.
That is the pose of the denier.

Someone who is neutral stands with the majority views, from the 70% of Canadians who support the findings on anthropomorphic climate change to the 99.94% of climatologists who also support those findings.
http://pressprogress.ca/7_in_10_can...seriously_threatens_the_future_of_the_planet/

 

[JohnLarue]

Skepticism is not neutral.
That is the pose of the denier.

Look stupid
Neutral is a perfectly valid position,

Claiming is not is just plain ridiculous & disingeniousness

Calling me a denier, only proves you are uncompromising & have an agenda.
It does nothing to add any value to your claim of scientific evidence.
Something you do not understand

Someone who is neutral stands with the majority views,

WTF ???
That is only true if the majority are neutral
Consensus has no place in science

from the 70% of Canadians who support the findings on anthropomorphic climate change to the 99.94% of climatologists who also support those findings.

So the majority are not neutral
Your stupidity has no limits

 

[Frankfooter]

Look stupid
Neutral is a perfectly valid position,

Claiming is not is just plain ridiculous & disingeniousness

Calling me a denier, only proves you are uncompromising & have an agenda.
It does nothing to add any value to your claim of scientific evidence.
Something you do not understand


WTF ???
That is only true if the majority are neutral
Consensus has no place in science


So the majority are not neutral
Your stupidity has no limits

I see, so your stance is now that your position is 'neutral' whatever the position of science or the population.
Even though you also say there is 'lots of room for skepticism' despite 99.94% of papers coming to the same conclusion.

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