What is wrong with you?
Were both your parents stupid?
Were you deprive of oxygen at birth/
Did a horse kick you in the head?
I am neutral on this issue
Here's One Global Warming Study Nobody Wants You To See
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
Were both your parents stupid?
Were you deprive of oxygen at birth/
Did a horse kick you in the head?
I am neutral on this issue
Inside Climate News calls itself a non partisan foundation but let's be honest it's an environmental activist foundation. Look at it's donors. My guess is that they aren't in possession of the majority of Exxon documentation related to scientific findings on the matter. Their scientists most likely came to the outcome that we just don't know, which is the true consensus of climate change. And we will likely never know the true human influence on climate change. I wouldn't be surprised of the the outcome either way, it depends upon what court hears the case. Lots of Liberal judges out there.InsideClimateNews broke the story.
They have Exxon docs that prove the claim.
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...senior-executives-engage-and-warming-forecast
Its very well researched.
https://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken
Their work was nominated for a pulitzer.
http://www.pulitzer.org/finalists/insideclimate-news
The lawsuits are ongoing and Exxon is not doing well.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...t-to-stop-climate-change-probes-idUSKBN1H536R
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...n-children-california-cities-attorney-general
Denying that Exxon knew about climate change is pretty weak in the face of all the evidence and lawsuits.
You have taken a position.
You dispute the findings of the scientific community.
That's not neutral.
I dispute your fraudent scientific community based on the phoney 97 % consensus!
Plus science cannot be based on consensus! It must be based on facts!
Not manuipulated computer model by the liberal / leftie/ Al Gore / so called climate scientists!
The 97 Percent Solution
By IAN TUTTLE
October 8, 2015 8:00 AM
(Richard Nelson/Dreamstime)
Unable to address Texas senator Ted Cruz’s questions about “the Pause” — the apparent global-warming standstill, now almost 19 years long — at Tuesday’s meeting of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, Sierra Club president Aaron Mair, after an uncomfortable pause of his own, appealed to authority: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists concur and agree that there is global warming and anthropogenic impact,” he stated multiple times.
The relevant exchange begins at 1:39 (though the whole segment is worth watching):
The myth of an almost-unanimous climate-change consensus is pervasive. Last May, the White House tweeted: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” A few days later, Secretary of State John Kerry announced, “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists tell us this is urgent.”
“Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists” say no such thing.
There are multiple relevant questions: (1) Has the earth generally warmed since 1800? (An overwhelming majority of scientists assent to this.) (2) Has that warming been caused primarily by human activity? And, if (1) and (2), is anthropogenic global warming a problem so significant that we ought to take action?
In 2004, University of California-San Diego professor Naomi Oreskes reported that, of 928 scientific abstracts from papers published by refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, “75% . . . either explicitly or implicitly accept[ed] the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.” Also remarkably, the papers chosen excluded several written by prominent scientists skeptical of that consensus. Furthermore, the claims made in abstracts — short summaries of academic papers — often differ from those made in the papers themselves. And Oreskes’s analysis did not take up whether scientists who subscribe to anthropogenic global warming think the phenomenon merits changes in public policy.
RELATED: On Climate, Science and Politics Are Diverging
The “97 percent” statistic first appeared prominently in a 2009 study by University of Illinois master’s student Kendall Zimmerman and her adviser, Peter Doran. Based on a two-question online survey, Zimmerman and Doran concluded that “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific bases of long-term climate processes” — even though only 5 percent of respondents, or about 160 scientists, were climate scientists. In fact, the “97 percent” statistic was drawn from an even smaller subset: the 79 respondents who were both self-reported climate scientists and had “published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” These 77 scientists agreed that global temperatures had generally risen since 1800, and that human activity is a “significant contributing factor.”
A year later, William R. Love Anderegg, a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to determine that “97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” The sample size did not much improve on Zimmerman and Doran’s: Anderegg surveyed about 200 scientists.
#share#Surely the most suspicious “97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and creator of the blog Skeptical Science (subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”). In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded.
RELATED: Scientists Don’t Actually Know What’s Causing ‘Extreme Weather’
Studies showing a wider range of opinion often go unremarked. A 2008 survey by two German scientists, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, found that a significant number of scientists were skeptical of the ability of existing global climate models to accurately predict global temperatures, precipitation, sea-level changes, or extreme weather events even over a decade; they were far more skeptical as the time horizon increased. Most did express concerns about global warming and a desire for “immediate action to mitigate climate change” — but not 97 percent.
#related#A 2012 poll of American Meteorological Society members also reported a diversity of opinion. Of the 1,862 members who responded (a quarter of the organization), 59 percent stated that human activity was the primary cause of global warming, and 11 percent attributed the phenomenon to human activity and natural causes in about equal measure, while just under a quarter (23 percent) said enough is not yet known to make any determination. Seventy-six percent said that warming over the next century would be “very” or “somewhat” harmful, but of those, only 22 percent thought that “all” or a “large” amount of the harm could be prevented “through mitigation and adaptation measures.”
COMMENTS
And according to a study of 1,868 scientists working in climate-related fields, conducted just this year by the PBL Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency, three in ten respondents said that less than half of global warming since 1951 could be attributed to human activity, or that they did not know.
Given the politics of modern academia and the scientific community, it’s not unlikely that most scientists involved in climate-related studies believe in anthropogenic global warming, and likely believe, too, that it presents a problem. However, there is no consensus approaching 97 percent. A vigorous, vocal minority exists. The science is far from settled.
They were nominated for a pulitzer and their work is now the basis of multiple court cases.Inside Climate News calls itself a non partisan foundation but let's be honest it's an environmental activist foundation.
Can't get much more legit then that.
As larue says:
That's why they are now in court and being sued for billions, like the tobacco industry before them.My position has been that It would be the biggest sin mankind ever committed if we cause our own extinction
No, you are not.What is wrong with you?
Were both your parents geniuses?
Were you given extra of oxygen at birth/
Did a horse bow to your awesomeness?
I am neutral on this issue
That's a statement that says you don't believe the findings of climatologists, where 99.94% of them support the IPCC reports.the complete understanding of man's impact upon climate is not iron clad and not absolute
https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/climate-change-consensus-07042018/
That says you don't believe the findings reported by NASA.
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
That says you don't believe the findings of the largest scientific body in North America.
http://whatweknow.aaas.org/
That's not neutral.
You are just plainly too stupid to understand this howeverNo, you are not.
That's a statement that says you don't believe the findings of climatologists, where 99.94% of them support the IPCC reports.
https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/climate-change-consensus-07042018/
That says you don't believe the findings reported by NASA.
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
That says you don't believe the findings of the largest scientific body in North America.
http://whatweknow.aaas.org/
That's not neutral.
Most rational people are capable of evaluation the pros and cons of any issue and making their own determination
That determination does not have to be absolute Yes or No
You are stating that either I agree with your position or I am a denier
That is exactly why I find you so despicableslapping a scarlet D on anyone who veers from environmentalist dogma is not science. It's a strong-arm tactic meant to squelch debate and impose scientific conformity.
Stupid and uncompromising is a no way to go through life Groggy
There is no such thing as neutral in this. Either you accept the conclusions arrived at by the scientific community or you don't....
I am neutral on this issue
And of course the conclusions and our understanding aren't absolute. Science is never about absolutes but simply following where the evidence leads. If there is new evidence then new conclusions get made. The argument that we shouldn't believe a scientific conclusion because we don't know everything is the exact same argument that creationists use to dismiss evolution. Do you deny evolution as well or are you "neutral"?
According to you, anyone who uses science is an "activist"Inside Climate News calls itself a non partisan foundation but let's be honest it's an environmental activist foundation....
There is a reason why the scientific community overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that human activity and CO2 are warming the planet and creating negative changes and it is not because of some conspiracy like you pretend.
According to you, anyone who uses science is an "activist"
There is a reason why the scientific community overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that human activity and CO2 are warming the planet and creating negative changes and it is not because of some conspiracy like you pretend.
https://butnowyouknow.net/those-who-fail-to-learn-from-history/climate-change-timeline/
Home About Ideas Truth vs Myth Your Rights Learn from History…
Climate Change Timeline – 1895-2009
Ideas | Truth vs Myth | Your Rights | Learn from History
Climate Change Timeline | History of Economic Downturns | 8th Grade Final Exam
Chart documenting the five year global cooling trend
NEW: 5th Year of Global Cooling, NOAA Says <- Read!
There is most certainly a pattern to climate change…
…but it’s not what you may think:
For at least 114 years, climate “scientists” have been claiming that the climate was going to kill us…but they have kept switching whether it was a coming ice age, or global warming.
1895 – Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again – New York Times, February 1895
1902 – “Disappearing Glaciers…deteriorating slowly, with a persistency that means their final annihilation…scientific fact…surely disappearing.” – Los Angeles Times
1912 – Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age – New York Times, October 1912
1923 – “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada” – Professor Gregory of Yale University, American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress, – Chicago Tribune
1923 – “The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age” – Washington Post
1924 – MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age – New York Times, Sept 18, 1924
1929 – “Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will continue to get warmer” – Los Angeles Times, in Is another ice age coming?
1932 – “If these things be true, it is evident, therefore that we must be just teetering on an ice age” – The Atlantic magazine, This Cold, Cold World
1933 – America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise – New York Times, March 27th, 1933
1933 – “…wide-spread and persistent tendency toward warmer weather…Is our climate changing?” – Federal Weather Bureau “Monthly Weather Review.”
1938 – Global warming, caused by man heating the planet with carbon dioxide, “is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power.”– Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
1938 – “Experts puzzle over 20 year mercury rise…Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities thuout the world which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades” – Chicago Tribune
1939 – “Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer” – Washington Post
1952 – “…we have learned that the world has been getting warmer in the last half century” – New York Times, August 10th, 1962
1954 – “…winters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing” – U.S. News and World Report
1954 – Climate – the Heat May Be Off – Fortune Magazine
1959 – “Arctic Findings in Particular Support Theory of Rising Global Temperatures” – New York Times
1969 – “…the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two” – New York Times, February 20th, 1969
1969 – “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000” — Paul Ehrlich (while he now predicts doom from global warming, this quote only gets honorable mention, as he was talking about his crazy fear of overpopulation)
1970 – “…get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters – the worst may be yet to come…there’s no relief in sight” – Washington Post
1974 – Global cooling for the past forty years – Time Magazine
1974 – “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age” – Washington Post
1974 – “As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed” – Fortune magazine, who won a Science Writing Award from the American Institute of Physics for its analysis of the danger
1974 – “…the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure…mass deaths by starvation, and probably anarchy and violence” – New York Times
Cassandras are becomingincreasingly apprehensive,for the weatheraberrations they arestudying may be theharbinger of anotherice age
1975 – Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable – New York Times, May 21st, 1975
1975 – “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind” Nigel Calder, editor, New Scientist magazine, in an article in International Wildlife Magazine
1976 – “Even U.S. farms may be hit by cooling trend” – U.S. News and World Report
1981 – Global Warming – “of an almost unprecedented magnitude” – New York Times
1988 – I would like to draw three main conclusions. Number one, the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements. Number two, the global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect. And number three, our computer climate simulations indicate that thegreenhouse effect is already large enough to begin to effect the probability of extreme events such as summer heat waves. – Jim Hansen, June 1988 testimony before Congress, see His later quote and His superior’s objection for context
1989 -“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” – Stephen Schneider, lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Discover magazine, October 1989
1990 – “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing – in terms of economic policy and environmental policy” – Senator Timothy Wirth
1993 – “Global climate change may alter temperature and rainfall patterns, many scientists fear, with uncertain consequences for agriculture.” – U.S. News and World Report
1998 – No matter if the science [of global warming] is all phony . . . climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” —Christine Stewart, Canadian Minister of the Environment, Calgary Herald, 1998
2001 – “Scientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible.” – Time Magazine, Monday, Apr. 09, 2001
2003 – Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as “synfuels,” shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration” – Jim Hansen, NASA Global Warming activist, Can we defuse The Global Warming Time Bomb?, 2003
2006 – “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” — Al Gore, Grist magazine, May 2006
Now: The global mean temperature has fallen for four years in a row, which is why you stopped hearing details about the actual global temperature, even while they carry on about taxing you to deal with it…how long before they start predicting an ice age?
The actual Global Warming Advocates' chart, overlayed on the "climate change" hysterics of the past 120 years. Not only is it clear that they take any change and claim it's going to go on forever and kill everyone, but notice that they often get the trend wrong...
The actual Global Warming Advocates' chart, overlayed on the "climate change" hysterics of the past 120 years. Not only is it clear that they take any change and claim it's going to go on forever and kill everyone, but notice that they even sometimes get the short-term trend wrong...
Worse still, notice that in 1933 they claim global warming has been going on for 25 years…the entire 25 years they were saying we were entering an ice age. And in 1974, they say there has been global cooling for 40 years…the entire time of which they’d been claiming the earth was getting hotter! Of course NOW they are talking about the earth “warming for the past century”, again ignoring that they spent much of that century claiming we were entering an ice age.
The fact is that the mean temperature of the planet is, and should be, always wavering up or down, a bit, because this is a natural world, not a climate-controlled office. So there will always be some silly bureaucrat, in his air-conditioned ivory tower, who looks at which way it’s going right now, draws up a chart as if this is permanant, realizes how much fear can increase his funding, and proclaims doom for all of humanity.
2006 – “It is not a debate over whether the earth has been warming over the past century. The earth is always warming or cooling, at least a few tenths of a degree…” — Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT
2006 – “What we have fundamentally forgotten is simple primary school science. Climate always changes. It is always…warming or cooling, it’s never stable. And if it were stable, it would actually be interesting scientifically because it would be the first time for four and a half billion years.” —Philip Stott, emeritus professor of bio-geography at the University of London
2006 – “Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930’s the media peddled a coming ice age. From the late 1920’s until the 1960’s they warned of global warming. From the 1950’s until the 1970’s they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate’s fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.” – Senator James Inhofe, Monday, September 25, 2006
2007– “I gave a talk recently (on fallacies of global warming) and three members of the Canadian government, the environmental cabinet, came up afterwards and said, ‘We agree with you, but it’s not worth our jobs to say anything.’ So what’s being created is a huge industry with billions of dollars of government money and people’s jobs dependent on it.” – Dr. Tim Ball, Coast-to-Coast, Feb 6, 2007
2008 – “Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress” – Dr. John S. Theon, retired Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA, see above for Hansen quotes
Next time you see the usual "global warming" chart, look carefully: it is in tiny fractions of one degree. The ENTIRE global warming is less than six tenths of one degree. Here is the Global Warming Advocates' own chart, rendered in actual degrees like sane people use. I was going to use 0-100 like a thermometer, but you end up with almost a flat line, so I HELPED the Climate Change side by making the temperature range much narrower.
Next time you see the usual "global warming" chart, look carefully: it is in tiny fractions of one degree. The ENTIRE global warming is less than six tenths of one degree. Here is the Global Warming Advocates' own chart, rendered in actual degrees like sane people use. I was going to use 0-100 like a thermometer, but you end up with almost a flat line, so I HELPED the Climate Change side by making the temperature range much narrower, and the chart needlessly tall to stretch the up-down differences in the line.
??There is no such thing as neutral in this. Either you accept the conclusions arrived at by the scientific community or you don't.
Absolutely not
Unlike you and the fool Frankfooter, I am willing to hear what other scientists say even if it is not supportive of your absolute and non compromising position,
Is that how you deal with others on contentious issues, such as abortion, gay rights, gun control, equality.....taxation, one way streets, fluoridation in the drinking water etc ?
They are either in agreement with you or they are sinners, anti-woman, rednecks, queer, gun nuts, bigots or deniers ?
And Yet Frank footer dismisses this new paper out of hand with immediate character assassinationAnd of course the conclusions and our understanding aren't absolute. Science is never about absolutes but simply following where the evidence leads. If there is new evidence then new conclusions get made.
He did not dispute the methodology, the data collection , the assumptions made or the calculations. Instead he just slung mud
How is that following where the evidence leads ????
When the planet is 4.5 B years old, has a history of climate change and the data set for drawing your conclusion is on the scale of thousands of years, there is plenty of room for skepticismThe argument that we shouldn't believe a scientific conclusion because we don't know everything is the exact same argument that creationists use to dismiss evolution.
My opinion on evolution is completely irrelevant to the question of climate change and to the question of mans culpability.Do you deny evolution as well or are you "neutral"
Being neutral does not mean that I am a denier
The possibility we may be slow roasting our species is defiantly a concern
However again the data set for this conclusion is too small, thus the conclusion is far from being absolute.
Climate change cause by man is a theory not a fact
The same fools who claim it is absolute fact also want an immediate halt of fossil fuel use and that is simply not a logical or practical demand.
So I question their intelligence & their claim it is absolute fact
At one time the scientific community was also absolute that the earth was flat
Larue, you claim to be 'neutral' on this issue and you also claim that the science isn't settled.You are just plainly too smart and understand this however
Most rational people are capable of evaluation the pros and cons of any issue and making their own determination
That determination does not have to be absolute Yes or No
You are stating that either I agree with your position or I am a denier
That is exactly why I find you so despicable
honourable and uncompromising is a no way to go through life frankfooter
That's not a neutral stance.
That's a stance that says you disbelieve all legit science.
That's the stance of a denier.
I'm sorry if you're not bright enough to understand this.
I dismiss Curry because she has a history of shoddy work.??
And Yet Frank footer dismisses this new paper out of hand with immediate character assassination
He did not dispute the methodology, the data collection , the assumptions made or the calculations. Instead he just slung mud
This one also fits those terms, its a 4 year old, minor work that nobody besides pornaddict and the deniers take seriously.
Its worth noting that I criticized the use of simplistic modelling that didn't take non-linear results into consideration.
If you'd like a detailed response, realclimate pulled the science of the paper apart here.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/10/climate-response-estimates-from-lewis-curry/
I also note that you didn't read the paper, don't know what its about and have no clue what or if there is any relevance from the findings of this paper to this debate.
Your 'neutral' stance is that you don't think any of the legit science is valid, and instead cling to minor fringe works funded by lobbyists.
Funny because you completely ignore what the vast majority of scientists are saying.??
Absolutely not
Unlike you and the fool Frankfooter, I am willing to hear what other scientists say even if it is not supportive of your absolute and non compromising position, ...
And you are not neutral. You refuse to accept what the vast majority of the scientific community have concluded.
Funny because you completely ignore what the vast majority of scientists are saying.
And you are not neutral. You refuse to accept what the vast majority of the scientific community have concluded.
http://www.academia.edu/18879451/97...re_skeptical_of_global_warming_crisis._FORBES
A Teetering Consensus: 97 New Papers
Amassed In 2018 Support A Skeptical Position
On Climate Alarm
By Kenneth Richard on 26. February 2018
The Science Unsettles
Image Source:
Robertson and Chilingar, 2017
In just the first 8 weeks of 2018, 97 scientific papers have been published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob!
or that otherwise serve to question the efficacy of climate models or the related “consensus” positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and mainstream media sources.
These 97 new papers affirm the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes, emphasizing that climate science is not settled.
WTF ?Funny because you completely ignore what the vast majority of scientists are saying.
As I have said "The possibility we are slow roasting the planet is a concern"
When the planet is 4.5 B years old, has a history of climate change and the data set for drawing your conclusion is on the scale of thousands of years, there is plenty of room for skepticismAnd you are not neutral. You refuse to accept what the vast majority of the scientific community have concluded.
This is far from absolute
You have an opinion.
I assume you have weighed all the evidence available to you and formulated that opinion.
You are entitled to that opinion
But you are not entitled to tell me what my opinion is
wtf ????????
The late Michael Critchton says" There is no such things consensus sciences! If it is consensus, it isn't sciences! If it is sciences, it is not consensus!"
Consensus is invoked only in the situation when the science is not solid enough.
Nobody says the consensus of scientists says E=mc2.
Nobody says the consensus the sun is 93 million miles away. It would occur to anyone to speak that way.
However, consensus doesn’t decide science, facts do!
Consensus is invoked only in the situation when the science is not solid enough.
Nobody says the consensus of scientists says E=mc2.
Nobody says the consensus the sun is 93 million miles away. It would occur to anyone to speak that way.
However, consensus doesn’t decide science, facts do!
Last edited:
You POS liarI dismiss Curry because she has a history of shoddy work.
You dismissed her work because of a perceived conflict of interest
Originally Posted by Frankfooter
Curry again.
Its not worth paying attention.
“I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry. My company…does [short-term] hurricane forecasting…for an oil company, since 2007. During this period I have been both a strong advocate for the IPCC, and more recently a critic of the IPCC, there is no correlation of this funding with my public statements.”
No my neutral stance is based on the concern we may be slow roasting the planet, yet I also know that the planet is 4.5 B years old has a long history of climate change and the data set for your conclusion is insignificant relative to history of the planetYour 'neutral' stance is that you don't think any of the legit science is valid, and instead cling to minor fringe works funded by lobbyists.
I shake my head when morons like you take an absolute position on scientific issues
what is even worse is when you resort to mud slinging in an attempt to dis-credit an opposing view
There should be no need for such slimy actions if you truly believe you are 100% absolutely coorect
Yet you still resorted to character assassination rather than criticizing methodology, data collection, allocations or assumptions made.
You are juts as clueless wrt science as you are about economics , fiance and policy issues.
After being shown your character assassination plan was despicable and completely inappropriate you
How do characterize "shoddy scientific work" ?I dismiss Curry because she has a history of shoddy work
Do you have a degree in atmospheric chemistry or physics?
Do you know what a mole is ?
Can you calculate the theoretical number of CO2 tons from the complete combustion of a gallon of gasoline?
Show your work or do not bother answering as on-line calculators will not prove you have even a limited understanding of the subject
Can you explain how IR detection works ?
Please give examples of the types of errors in her "shoddy work "
a) systematic errors
b) random errors or
c) blunders
Please explain the difference between GC/ MS & GC/IR ?
Explain what a theoretical plate is in GC
you of all people are not qualified to call her work "shoddy' and this is just another one of your shameful know-nothing propaganda campaigns
You are truly dispicable
49 Former NASA Scientists Send A Letter Disputing Climate Change
http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4
Gus Lubin
Apr. 11, 2012, 7:10 AM
Some prominent voices at NASA are fed up with the agency's activist stance toward climate change.
The following letter asking the agency to move away from climate models and to limit its stance to what can be empirically proven, was sent by 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts.
The letter criticizes the Goddard Institute For Space Studies especially, where director Jim Hansen and climatologist Gavin Schmidt have been outspoken advocates for action.
http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4
Gus Lubin
Apr. 11, 2012, 7:10 AM
Some prominent voices at NASA are fed up with the agency's activist stance toward climate change.
The following letter asking the agency to move away from climate models and to limit its stance to what can be empirically proven, was sent by 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts.
The letter criticizes the Goddard Institute For Space Studies especially, where director Jim Hansen and climatologist Gavin Schmidt have been outspoken advocates for action.
That directly shows you ignore what the vast majority of the scientific community is saying....
When the planet is 4.5 B years old, has a history of climate change and the data set for drawing your conclusion is on the scale of thousands of years, there is plenty of room for skepticism...
No one doubts that there were changes to the climate before. The scientific community simply realizes that significant climactic change will mean that human society and population numbers will be massively effected.
Did you look at the list of signatories for this six year old letter?49 Former NASA Scientists Send A Letter Disputing Climate Change...n.
Long retired astronauts, pilots, engineers, project managers,...
But of course you are happy to accept the word of an assistant manager of quality assurance over people who actually study the topic.
