Global Warming is over.

[BraveUlysses]

This is the best you can do?

I don't need kid gloves, just a mature adult debate, apparently beyond you

And btw, it's not me saying you're ignorant, it's the reviewers of the study

Lol

no, i'm not questioning their stated credentials or calling them ignorant

i'm calling you ignorant, this entire thread is a shrine to your pride of ignorance

you instantly give credit to this non-peer reviewed paper and demand we accept it but discount thousands of peer-reviewed papers and perpetuate global warming conspiracies time and time again.

[cale]

Chill out there chief, you said there was no proper peer review.

Are you the only unpleasant Canadian? Soory.

Oh and way to not profess your actual position. Would you like a position in the Trump Cabinet?

No I didn't, perhaps read the entire argument here to gain context.

I said the article GWB posted was not a peer-reviewed paper submitted by climate scientists, that it was simply a review of other peoples work. It doesn't present anything new itself, it rejects the findings of others. If you had read it, and then followed up by reading the discussion afterwards you'd have a full understanding of my position wrt AGW science.

Staunch anti-theist and a CC sceptic(not denier).

It's no doubt that air pollution is having an effect on the atmosphere, however, we haven't been recording the data long enough to draw a finite conclusion as to how much of it is man made vs natural and whether its cyclical or we're really leading to a doomsday scenario.

So essentially you don't accept the methods science uses to determine conditions and compositions of past climates? What specifically do you not accept?

[gwb72tii]

so cale, if an IPCC lead reviewer and Ph.D's in atmospheric sciences are not peer reviewers please define peer review for the crowd.

And here are more published peer reviewed papers from other scientists that pretty much eliminates the misconception of AGW, the hockey stick and CO2 as a terrible pollutant, from around the world.
Apparently they are not part of the "consensus".

http://notrickszone.com/2017/05/29/80-graphs-from-58-new-2017-papers-invalidate-claims-of-unprecedented-global-scale-modern-warming/#sthash.FRCeo69o.iJaFwmD0.dpbs

[BraveUlysses]

http://bfy.tw/CvCE

[Massive Lee]

97% of papers on global warming support the fact that it is human induced.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

BTW Does it mean that humans are the only ones to bare the responsibility of global warming? Not necessarily. It is possible that there's also a natural cause to some of this warming process... But because humans are not the only ones responsible, doesn't mean they are not involved and that there's nothing they can do to help.

Everything is the result of balance. But balance is very fragile and chaos can easily set-in... Nop. God's creation ain't perfect and humans can easily alter it... :devil:

[marshallnoise]

97% of papers on global warming support the fact that it is human induced.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

BTW Does it mean that humans are the only ones to bare the responsibility of global warming? Not necessarily. It is possible that there's also a natural cause to some of this warming process... But because humans are not the only ones responsible, doesn't mean they are not involved and that there's nothing they can do to help.

Everything is the result of balance. But balance is very fragile and chaos can easily set-in... Nop. God's creation ain't perfect and humans can easily alter it... :devil:

The bold is the crux of the whole issue. People who do not believe in anthropomorphic global warming do not deny global warming or climate change could exist. What they deny is that humans are responsible for it in a meaningful way.

That science is not settled at all.

Moreover, people who deny anthropomorphic global warming do not desire to trash the planet. This is the whole problem with this debate. Environmentalists are religious zealots who show similar mentality to ISIS, Al Qaeda, et cetera. They would simply prefer to destroy and kill the opposition and another point of view is heretical and unacceptable.

potstir

[BraveUlysses]

so cale, if an IPCC lead reviewer and Ph.D's in atmospheric sciences are not peer reviewers please define peer review for the crowd.

And here are more published peer reviewed papers from other scientists that pretty much eliminates the misconception of AGW, the hockey stick and CO2 as a terrible pollutant, from around the world.
Apparently they are not part of the "consensus".

http://notrickszone.com/2017/05/29/8....iJaFwmD0.dpbs

4 years later you're still balls deep into fucking this chicken, over and over.

this is required reading
and you all clamor for "peer review"
here it is
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/3...ogenic-or-not/

just admit you're a dishonest hack

[cale]

GWB I'm curious if you actually have these websites Favorited, or you just google 'climate change hoax' every time you look for something to post up.

I've never denied material gets created to support the denial of AGW, it does. Now that I've acknowledged you can actually source a document you're not willing to take the time to read, now what? Are we simply going to throw links at each other to prove our beliefs? If that's the logical approach, should I counter your 3% with my 97%? After all, we're just throwing links at each other.

I made fun of the article (I say article because it's nothing more than comments on an accumulation of others work) you started with because I found some laughter in it. I've long since given up on holding a consistent intellectual discourse with you, because you're stuck on repeat and continue to make the same tired arguments.

The bold is the crux of the whole issue. People who do not believe in anthropomorphic global warming do not deny global warming or climate change could exist. What they deny is that humans are responsible for it in a meaningful way.

I could set my watch to the frequency that someone will chime in on this thread talking about no warming since 98. Denialism has shifted from the climate isn't changing, to it's not changing because of us, to it's just a money grab.

[marshallnoise]

I could set my watch to the frequency that someone will chime in on this thread talking about no warming since 98. Denialism has shifted from the climate isn't changing, to it's not changing because of us, to it's just a money grab.

You understand fractions, right?

19 years worth of changes over 4.543 billion years.

Lets extrapolate this out:
19/4,543,000,000

Then lets put this into a percentage so people can understand:
4.18225842e-9%

Nahh, that's still hard.
.00000000418225842%

There, that's your sample size.

I mean, what the fuck do I know? ;D

[cale]

Yea yea the numbers are large and the knowledge of that never once evaded me, thanks for bringing yourself up to speed though?

The context that is important is the rate of change over a period of time that earths life can adapt without serious repercussions to currently living species, that rate is already moving too quickly for many species to adapt. Change at a rate that has not previously occurred short of dramatic natural disaster type events, events which lead to massive loss of plant an animal life, including extinctions. Get my drift?

Please refer to this link and list before you try to continue to apply your own brand of logic to this topic.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=percentage

[marshallnoise]

Yea yea the numbers are large and the knowledge of that never once evaded me, thanks for bringing yourself up to speed though?

The context that is important is the rate of change over a period of time that earths life can adapt without serious repercussions to currently living species, that rate is already moving too quickly for many species to adapt. Change at a rate that has not previously occurred short of dramatic natural disaster type events, events which lead to massive loss of plant an animal life, including extinctions. Get my drift?

Please refer to this link and list before you try to continue to apply your own brand of logic to this topic.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/arg...p?f=percentage

The exact same sample sizes apply to the rate of change. I have been to that website before. Might as well link WWE website too.

Once again, ecoterrorists will accept nothing but full compliance.

[cale]

The exact same sample sizes apply to the rate of change.

I need you to expand on this. The rate of change that is relevant to species alive today cannot be compared to rates of change over millions of years.

Literally every figure on that website is back up with a reference and a link to it, most of which are direct links to the documents published by the researcher. If you need to compare Ivy league universities to the theatrics of professional wrestling to validate your position, then you've already given up on becoming the slightest bit more informed.

I'm also not asking for compliance, I'm asking you to read and understand the topic. Currently you're failing at this.

[parkerbink]

No I didn't, perhaps read the entire argument here to gain context.

I said the article GWB posted was not a peer-reviewed paper submitted by climate scientists, that it was simply a review of other peoples work. It doesn't present anything new itself, it rejects the findings of others. If you had read it, and then followed up by reading the discussion afterwards you'd have a full understanding of my position wrt AGW science.



So essentially you don't accept the methods science uses to determine conditions and compositions of past climates? What specifically do you not accept?

I see, sems fair. Sorry.

As far as Hoof, apparently 100% accepted science is meaningless where he comes from. Next he'll be telling us Homo Sapien & T-Rex lived together.

[marshallnoise]

I need you to expand on this. The rate of change that is relevant to species alive today cannot be compared to rates of change over millions of years.

Literally every figure on that website is back up with a reference and a link to it, most of which are direct links to the documents published by the researcher. If you need to compare Ivy league universities to the theatrics of professional wrestling to validate your position, then you've already given up on becoming the slightest bit more informed.

I'm also not asking for compliance, I'm asking you to read and understand the topic. Currently you're failing at this.

If there is science involved, then yes, you can compare rates of change over millions of years. If you did though, it would blow up the outcome you so desperately want.

Ivy League universities are the biggest purveyors of group-think on the planet. You know, an echo chamber. Same with Washington DC, Brussels and the DC media complex. But, all of that group-think is still based on the smallest of small sample sizes, its irrelevant.

I have said it once and I will say it again; all the world's scientists once believed the world was flat and that letting out your blood would cure you of all your ailments.

The experts are largely full of shit.

[cale]

If there is science involved, then yes, you can compare rates of change over millions of years. If you did though, it would blow up the outcome you so desperately want.

Noted, you still don't get it. I just wanted to clarify this.

Glad to see you can't argue the science so you chalk them all off as corrupt. Easier to sweep under the rug than address the mess anyways.

Take it easy, we can try this again when you can actually substantiate your nonsense.