Here's One Global Warming Study Nobody Wants You To See
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
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.
Anyone who uses science to further a political or social agenda is an activist. In some cases legitimately. Just not this one.
And again I will disagree with your assertion that the scientific community overwhelmingly supports AGW.
Before we dig into this debate further, larue, are you willing to stake your entire credibility as 'expert' in scientific and economic knowledge on backing the work of Judith Curry?
Are you that sure of her 'independent' and 'neutral' science that you'll stand your personal reputation on her scientific work?
Yes or no?
No one is making an absolute conclusion and yes, your post shows you refuse to accept the current best scientific conclusions.
So you now admit that your list of NASA "scientist" are a bunch of retired pilots, engineers, and project managers and not a list of people with any relevance to the field.
And I'm sure that if anyone look at your list of papers, they also would not support the idiotic, unscientific claims you make.
p.s. Have you realized yet that the paper in your original post supports the scientific consensus?
You should just admit that your definition is anyone with conclusions you don't like. There are thousands upon thousands of scientific papers supporting the idea of AGW. Even the paper that started this thread, written by people backed with oil money, supported that AGW is real and responsible for a significant temperature increase.
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! Period."
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!
97 Articles Refuting The “97% Consensus” as there is no consensus.. The science is not settled.."a majority of scientists are skeptical of global warming crisis." FORBES
https://www.academia.edu/18879451/9...re_skeptical_of_global_warming_crisis._FORBES
PS. You should read the articles again ... You misunderstood the article!
It says "A Teetering Consensus: 97 New Papers Amassed In 2018 Support A Skeptical Position"
This is the latest article on 97% consensus published on 2018
I do not take yes or no ultimatums from anyone
Why would I pledge credibility on a loaded question like that?
Particularly when the ultimatum originates from someone with zero integrity and zero credibility.
So to answer your question: Don't be an idiot
It is not about what I think of Judith Curry, it is about you attacking her conclusion via character assassination without reference to her paper
"Shoddy work" is not how scientific conclusions are debated or questioned
You know nothing of science & you proved it by taking the character assassination route rather than show fault with her methodology, data collection, calculations or assumptions
I noticed you failed to show us how to calculate the theoretical number of CO2 tons from the complete combustion of a gallon of gasoline?
BTW this is not a debate
I am just showing you for the damn fool you are
Oh ......but yes you are making an absolute conclusion
You must be if you claim there is no possible place for a neutral position
There are only three possible positions
Agree with you
Disagree with you
and neutral.. i.e. I am not convinced or even I am not convinced yet
If you refuse to allow the neutral position, because you say I refuse to to accept what the vast majority of the scientific community have concluded,
the same argument applies if I choose to disagree with you
You would refuse to allow the disagree position because again you would say I refuse to to accept what the vast majority of the scientific community have concluded
That leaves but one choice according to you, which is to agree with you.
When there is only on choice, it is by definition absolute
This is simple logic.........you know what science is suppose to be based upon
If you can follow this simple logic, what are doing commenting on scientific papers?
Running away from defending Curry so quickly?
You accuse me of character attacks on her, for attacking her shoddy work, and here you are squirming away from defending her.
At least you're now willing to admit that even you won't stand by her work.
And she was the one scientist you defended, even if she has never studied the climate.
Time to get back to this statement of yours:
We've got 99.9% of people who actually study the climate, unlike Curry, saying that we are committing the 'biggest sin ever'. Now that you don't even have geologist Curry, on what scientific basis do you now doubt the work of 99/9% of people who have studied the issues?
Exclusive: Elevated CO2 Levels Directly Affect Human Cognition, New Harvard Study Shows:
In a landmark public health finding, a new study from the Harvard School of Public Health finds that carbon dioxide (CO2) has a direct and negative impact on human cognition and decision-making. These impacts have been observed at CO2 levels that most Americans — and their children — are routinely exposed to today inside classrooms, offices, homes, planes, and cars.
https://thinkprogress.org/exclusive...gnition-new-harvard-study-shows-2748e7378941/
In a landmark public health finding, a new study from the Harvard School of Public Health finds that carbon dioxide (CO2) has a direct and negative impact on human cognition and decision-making. These impacts have been observed at CO2 levels that most Americans — and their children — are routinely exposed to today inside classrooms, offices, homes, planes, and cars.
https://thinkprogress.org/exclusive...gnition-new-harvard-study-shows-2748e7378941/
look stupid, get it through your head, I will not be boxed into a corner by a loaded question, so take a different route
I will defend her right to be judged on her work, not dismissed out of hand because her conclusions do not support your propaganda
I never said that
Why do you think anyone is stupid enough to allow you to manipulate their words and misrepresent them?
Stop doing that !
I am not defending her, I am opposing your ignorant dismal of her work
She has studied climate otherwise there would be no paper.
More off the cuff dismal of scientific facts by Frankfooter the scientific know nothing
# 1 that is not my statement
You can misrepresent yourself all you want, but DO NOT MISREPRESENT ME
# 2 Show the quote where
"99.9% of people who actually study the climate, unlike Curry, saying that we are committing the 'biggest sin ever'"
I said if we are slow roasting the planet then it will be the biggest sin mankind has ever made.
Please take note of the "if"
The scientific basis is the planets climate has been constantly changing for 4.5 B years & the data set which your absolute conclusions are based upon represent a an almost infinitesimal fraction of that time
Climate change as a result of man is a theory, it is not fact.
a theory which has been neither proven absolutely or dis-proven absolutely.
Until you get that through your thick skull you will do far more damage than good to your cause
You are too stupid to take seriously
The only absolute conclusion is that most scientists see CO2 as presenting a major threat to human society. If evidence comes along that shows them wrong then the scientific community will shift. That is how science works and their conclusion is the best one possible with the evidence available.
And there is no such thing as neutral. You either accept the scientific conclusions or you don't. To claim that we shouldn't accept the conclusions because maybe in the future there could possibly be contradictory evidence belongs in the world of philosophy, not science.
Thankfully, science isn't a popularity contest battling to convince people but simply a search for a continually better understanding.
Do you realize that Crichton was a fiction writer and trained as a doctor? Should we just add him to your list of retired astronauts and project managers that you claim are really experts in climate?
And I do love those attacks on the majority scientific stance when they complain that only experts in the field were surveyed. Even in the 70's (when you claim scientists thought an ice age was coming) the vast majority of papers supported the concept of increasing global temperatures due to CO2 concentrations.
https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/climate-change-consensus-07042018/
So you've got 99.94% of people who researched the matter saying we are slow roasting the planet.
So why are you backing committing the 'biggest sin mankind has ever made'?
That is simply untrue on basically every level. There is mountains of evidence that disproves co2 as the primary driver of climate change. Unfortunately left wing politics gets in the way of the truth. And guys like you and that nutjob Frankie are complicit.
you do not have that understanding
You have done it again
According to you a neutral position is wrong and unacceptable
But also according to you a position which disagrees with yours is wrong and unacceptable
Therefore the only possible position which is acceptable according to you is your position
Since it is the only acceptable position..... it is absolute, according to you
Go ahead prove that logic is flawed
You can not
Well we know the 97% consensus has been thoroughly debunked so 99.94% is completely laughable. The guy who commissioned this study is clearly a propagandist. Probably has a poster of Karl Marx hanging in his bedroom.
Please take note of the "if",,,,, stupid
You can even calculate a simple weighted average, ie average tax
So how does someone lacking grade 8 level math skills have the balls to question a scientists "shoddy work"on matters related to atmospheric chemistry?
Lets have it, you lying propaganda machine what exactly about her work do you find "shoddy"?
