Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"The results of my little experiment demonstrate, at the very least, that some fashionable sectors of the American academic Left have been getting intellectually lazy." - Alan David Sokal, PhD, in 1996, regarding the original Sokal academic publishing sting
1. Your link has zero to do with climate change.
2. Your link has zero to do with scientific consensus.
I don't know how to say this without sounding insulting, but there's no other way of putting it; every single one of your posts have done nothing except display your vast ignorance of scientific subject matter.
You have illustrated that you do not understand even the simplest terms.
You do not understand the meaning of scientific consensus
You do not understand the meaning of rapid rate of climate change.
You do not even understand the aim of the scientists from your own link.
Let's tackle your article here. ^
The scientists aim in your link was to expose poor science which is undermining the real and important work being done elsewhere. They wrote 20 articles on different subject matters. This has zero to do with scientific consensus. And it has zero to do with climate change.
Scientific consensus is the collective opinion and judgement of a community of scientists working in a single field of study. Consensus is reached through peer review, communication, publication process, replication, reproducible results, and overwhelming evidence.
Scientific consensus on climate change - that the Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s and that Human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary cause, has been reached through at least 12,000 peer reviewed studies, including a large study in 2010 collected data from 1,372 climate researchers. The data is supported by 18 scientific associations.
Do me a favor and stop googling and posting whatever nonsense you find on the internet and don't bother to read or understand, and stop wasting my time and your own.
LEARN that the climate is changing more rapidly than it has ever done in the past: roughly ten times faster than previously. The rate of Antarctica ice mass loss has tripled just in the last decade.
Constantly parroting that climate change is natural is just a blatantly obvious statement that fails to take into account that comparative rapid rate of change that is happening right now.
If I make small changes to my carbon footprint. What return on investment will I get? Scientifically speaking?
We collectively need to make small changes, not just yourself.
The return on your investment is caring for the planet you live in, creating a better environment to live in, and leaving this a better world for future generations, if you care about that.
For example, anyone remember Climategate? They got caught fudging the data. They cherry picked and published some of the data and left out other data that contradicted the predetermined conclusion they wanted to reach. Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate
5,000 previously unreleased emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal. The article includes damning quotes from the corrupt scientists' emails.
There's something wrong with you.
Your article is making a valid point about poor science, and poorly written publications to support the poor science. Of course, there will always be the odd poor science study that falls through the net. Once again NOTHING TO DO WITH CLIMATE SCIENCE or SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS.
Nothwithstanding, what you're saying is that because you found an article from 3 people that make a point about poor science written in journals, that must mean that climate change scientists who publish in academic journals must be hoaxers. WTF? One has nothing to do with the other.
By your failed logic you're equating anything written in a scientific journal as a hoax.
Better stop all scientific and medical research right now including cancer, disease, chemistry, physics, geology because apparently according to you, if it's written in a scientific journal it must all be a hoax.
Quote:
For example, anyone remember Climategate? They got caught fudging the data. They cherry picked and published some of the data and left out other data that contradicted the predetermined conclusion they wanted to reach. Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate
5,000 previously unreleased emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal. The article includes damning quotes from the corrupt scientists' emails.
I notice you insert the word 'corrupt scientists' all on your own.
Latest leak appears to be attempt to undermine public support for international climate change action ahead of Durban talks
Climate scientists have mounted a robust defence of their work and debates over science after more than 5,000 personal emails were leaked onto the internet in an apparent attempt to undermine public support for international action to tackle climate change.
More than 39,000 pages of emails to and from scientists at the University of East Anglia (UEA) were loaded onto a Russian server and a link to them posted on climate sceptic websites on Tuesday, almost exactly two years after a similar release of hacked or leaked emails in the run-up to the Copenhagen climate talks in 2009.
A selection of hand-picked quotes from the emails appeared to support the criticisms which followed the first batch of emails.../...
...but when read as part of the full email in which they appear, the quotes read very differently, the scientists counter. For example:
In an email discussing graphs of past temperature measurements, Jones says "we're choosing the periods to show warming". This, Jones told a briefing at the Science Media Centre in London, was because the graphs needed to show what the data demonstrated, that there was a warming trend in both sets, from 1901-2005 and 1970-2005: "Those periods show warming. They were not pre-selected to show warming," he said.
In other words, it is an attempt by climate denialists to dishonestly represent information, and has no impact on the 97 - 98% scientific consensus that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmin...l#.W7-fXFJRcjc
Nope. Read the quotes from the 2nd batch of 5,000 anonymously dumped emails. They're pretty damning. The Anthropogenic Climate Change hoaxster scientists involved spoke openly about fudging the data and then discussed how to cover their tracks, including deleting emails that would expose their scam, and thinking they're immune from FOIA requests so no one could check their data and analysis methods.
Yes, in fact, they do. All animal species cull their weak. It's necessary for the survival of the species. They may not cull the weak themselves, but they allow the weak to remain vulnerable to predators and let nature take it's course.
This is true. If you watch the Planet Earth series, injured, weak or under-developed young animals will usually be abandoned by their mothers. It was a haunting site to see the youngling with an injured leg, his mom walking away and you knew he would not stand a chance out there, to gather food or defend himself against predators. I called it the walk of death.
I have also witnessed, living next to the woods, young kittens being abandoned by their mothers, their eyes were glued together/from scratches because an older cat attacked them. I was able to bring a few in and save them. Some, I was able to get Kitten Rescue to take them. One thing I would never do, is believe they would be just fine with the highway 20 feet away. Why do some adult female cats abandon their young? Is that part of teaching them (kittens) to being stronger or it's nature's process to let them fend for themselves? If you watch kitten videos, you will see plenty of them alone. Adult humans taking them in... Likely, their mom either got hit by a car or she pushed the kitten away.
Nope. Read the quotes from the 2nd batch of 5,000 anonymously dumped emails. They're pretty damning. The Anthropogenic Climate Change hoaxster scientists involved spoke openly about fudging the data and then discussed how to cover their tracks, including deleting emails that would expose their scam, and thinking they're immune from FOIA requests so no one could check their data and analysis methods.
I read the quotes. I read the article.
READ my post. READ the link. I already responded to your post.
Your so-called Climategate has been debunked as I already stated - it is an attempt by climate denialists to undermine public support for international climate change action.
None of the independent investigations that followed the 2009 release found any hints of scientific misconduct. Critics won't find any in the new batch either — the animated discussions that the highlighted e-mails do include, not shy of strong personal opinions and the occasionally harsh judgement concerning the quality of this or that piece of work, never really stray from sound normal science.
Climategate did no lasting damage to science. In fact, it can be argued that the incident fostered climatology and improved the way the field is perceived by the general public. The anonymous onslaught — illegal and grossly low, to be sure — has forced scientists to speak more openly about the gaps, difficulties and uncertainties that they are facing. On a more general note, it served to remind scientists, and hopefully legitimate critics as well, that respect, honesty and politeness are essential qualities in any intellectual endeavour.
If anything, Climategate 2 may damage the cause of the climate sceptics who eagerly promote it. Despite their obvious lack of anything approaching credible evidence, their hyperbole, accusations, claims and allegations remain the same. Beyond the echo chamber they inhabit, who is still listening? You cannot, as Abraham Lincoln said, fool all of the people all of the time. And it is getting harder to fool them some of the time too.
I repeat:
The scientific consensus on climate change, is that:
Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s Human activities -primarily greenhouse gas emissions - are the primary cause
Continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of a global effects.
The findings are supported by 97- 98% of climate scientists from 12,000 peer reviewed studies, from at least from 1,372 climate researchers and supported by 18 scientific associations.
So rather than believe the expert findings you would rather find any excuse to support your 2% alternative conspiracy theory view of the world.
Even if 98% of scientists, working in their own field of study were wrong - which they're not - we should all be doing what we can to care for our planet.
This was once a nation that celebrated scientific research. I don't know what's happened to the Republican Party. They've regressed into a collection of conspiracy theorist science deniers.
THE POINT is that the RATE of change is unprecedented.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruithne
Try to understand these words:
I repeat;
The RATE of change IS UNPRECEDENTED.
No, it isn't unprecedented.
Read and weep:
One of the more recent intriguing findings is the remarkable speed of these changes. Within the incredibly short time span (by geologic standards) of only a few decades or even a few years, global temperatures have fluctuated by as much as 15°F (8°C) or more.
For example, as Earth was emerging out of the last glacial cycle, the warming trend was interrupted 12,800 years ago when temperatures dropped dramatically in only several decades. A mere 1,300 years later, temperatures locally spiked as much as 20°F (11°C) within just several years. Sudden changes like this occurred at least 24 times during the past 100,000 years. In a relative sense, we are in a time of unusually stable temperatures today—how long will it last?
In the last 100,000 years alone -- never mind the last 800,000 years -- there have been 24 different rapid temperature changes occurring over years or decades, not centuries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
The earth is suppose to be cooling right now according to historical data, and its only getting worse.
False statement of scientific fact.
Inter-Glacial Periods have lasted 12,000 to 26,000 years, save one that abruptly ended after 8,000 years for reasons scientists are totally unable to explain. There is no way to predict how long an Inter-Glacial Period will last.
This Inter-Glacial Period could easily last another 5,000 to 12,000 years, and it still wouldn't exceed the longest Inter-Glacial Period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
What are you talking about??
Global warming will cripple the animal kingdom and destroy all hopes of forming a self sustaining society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
Global warming will destroy the world if we allow private industry to control human development.
False statements of fact.
The previous Inter-Glacial Period was 15.3°F warmer than present, and the present average global temperature is generally reported at 58.4°F.
The coldest Inter-Glacial Period was still 7.8°F warmer than it is now.
There are no global extinction events associated with Inter-Glacial Periods.
Warmer temperatures will result in a wetter climate, creating more tropical areas, expanding arable land creating even more ecosystems and increasing the amount of flora and fauna.
You cannot show a single shred of evidence that warmer temperatures will destroy anything, other than coastal cities subject to rising sea levels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StillwaterTownie
Conservatives, including Trump, haven't noticed any bad effects of global warming, so far. That's the problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamajane
We deserve what we get because of who we have chosen to become. It isn't anyone's fault but our own. We can't blame the techno-kings, or the educational system, or the media, or the politicians. It's us at the deepest levels.
The average global temperatures for 7 of the previous 8 Inter-Glacial Periods were 7.8°F to 15.3°F warmer than present.
The last Inter-Glacial Period was 15.3°F warmer than present.
You should be asking yourself why the Earth has not sufficiently warmed to fall into the normal temperature range during Inter-Glacial Periods.
If you never burned an ounce of fossil fuels, your "problems" would still exist, because average global temperatures of 7.8°F to 15.3°F warmer than present are typically and perfectly normal for Inter-Glacial Periods.
It's not my fault you built cities on coastal areas subject to flooding before you discovered that Earth regularly resolves from a Glacial Period to an Inter-Glacial Period and then back to a Glacial Period, and sea levels rise and fall during those periods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruithne
You do not understand the meaning of scientific consensus
Consensus is for Politics, not Science.
Science is about universality and provability through repeated testing.
You should consider the fact that at one time, the Scientific Consensus was that Negroes were inferior to Caucasians.
How'd that work out for every one?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
and how very easily it can be manipulated:
