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.
- a summary of several research papers that lead to the conclusion that 90% of the GHG Effect is due to water vapor in clear skies, and 99% in cloudy skies--- co2 accounting for the almost all of the remaining 10% & 1% respectively, the combined effect of all remaining GHGs together being negligible.
Technique rebuttals are a particularly effective and economic tool, according to Betsch, because methods used by science deniers tend to be very similar. One such technique, called selectivity, involves cherry-picking isolated papers that support an unconventional viewpoint or discrediting a few flawed papers to cast doubt on an entire field of science. Another method raises impossible expectations for science—arguing, for example, that rejecting vaccination is acceptable because vaccines are not 100 percent safe, although science can never guarantee that certainty for any medical product. Even routinely used medications such as aspirin come with potential risks.
Good read and you can see some of the techniques by the climate science deniers used here. Also, I've noticed the deniers tend to have far right views. If you look at their posting history, clear themes emerge.
The question is why do conservatives try to deny climate change? Good article here.
That scientific consensus was enough to pull virtually all of the major nations along. Conservative-leaning governments in Britain, France, Germany and Japan all signed on to successive climate change agreements.
Those divisions did not happen by themselves. Republican lawmakers were moved along by a campaign carefully crafted by fossil fuel industry players, most notably Charles D. and David H. Koch, the Kansas-based billionaires who run a chain of refineries (which can process 600,000 barrels of crude oil per day) as well as a subsidiary that owns or operates 4,000 miles of pipelines that move crude oil.
Here are the some of groups that study and claim climate change is happening.
American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Medical Association, American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, The Geological Society of America, International Academies, and U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
You have to believe that these highly trained scientists are wrong despite having the education and studies that give support to the climate change position. That some keyboard warrior, without the education requirements to get a PHD in that area of study, has some insight and ability to prove that climate change is a hoax. It is both amusing and sad to see this in action.
It covers many myths that conservatives are pushing as fact. At this point the debate is the world scientific committee and most of the world's population vs. The United States small subset of republicans/conservatives.
Technique rebuttals are a particularly effective and economic tool, according to Betsch, because methods used by science deniers tend to be very similar. One such technique, called selectivity, involves cherry-picking isolated papers that support an unconventional viewpoint or discrediting a few flawed papers to cast doubt on an entire field of science. Another method raises impossible expectations for science—arguing, for example, that rejecting vaccination is acceptable because vaccines are not 100 percent safe, although science can never guarantee that certainty for any medical product. Even routinely used medications such as aspirin come with potential risks.
Good read and you can see some of the techniques by the climate science deniers used here. Also, I've noticed the deniers tend to have far right views. If you look at their posting history, clear themes emerge.
The question is why do conservatives try to deny climate change? Good article here.
That scientific consensus was enough to pull virtually all of the major nations along. Conservative-leaning governments in Britain, France, Germany and Japan all signed on to successive climate change agreements.
Those divisions did not happen by themselves. Republican lawmakers were moved along by a campaign carefully crafted by fossil fuel industry players, most notably Charles D. and David H. Koch, the Kansas-based billionaires who run a chain of refineries (which can process 600,000 barrels of crude oil per day) as well as a subsidiary that owns or operates 4,000 miles of pipelines that move crude oil.
Here are the some of groups that study and claim climate change is happening.
American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Medical Association, American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, The Geological Society of America, International Academies, and U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
You have to believe that these highly trained scientists are wrong despite having the education and studies that give support to the climate change position. That some keyboard warrior, without the education requirements to get a PHD in that area of study, has some insight and ability to prove that climate change is a hoax. It is both amusing and sad to see this in action.
It covers many myths that conservatives are pushing as fact. At this point the debate is the world scientific committee and most of the world's population vs. The United States small subset of republicans/conservatives.
An evaluation of The State of the Climate from The Global Warming Policy Foundation (from Norway).
Summary-- No evidence of changing storm activity or of snow cover....Minimal sea level change (+1mm/yr)...Small rise in world temps poorly correlated with markedly rising co2 levels, but well corrleated with ocean temp cycles...Arctic sea ice cycles recovering from a low in 2016-- correlates with ocean cycles.
To those who think co2 is so important-- turn to pp 23-25. Pay particular attention to the Figure 20- graphing changes in sea and air temps and co2 levels-- co2 changes lag behind temp changes by 3-4 months. Oceans determine changes in co2 levels.
NPR: Sea levels along coastlines in the United States will rise about one foot by 2050, with larger increases on the East and Gulf coasts, ..
I've seen predictions of 10 meters which decreased later to 6 meters which decreased later to 3 meters which decreased to 1 meter and now it's a mere 1 foot.
The astonishing thing is the global warming nutter on NPR said 6" will be due to continental subsidence, so in reality, only 6" will be caused by "global warming."
The reason their predictions were wrong is because their models are all wrong and they're wrong because water vapor is the driver of climate and not CO2.
That should be obvious. There's a very good reason why we're in an Ice Age now and have been for 23 Million years and will continue to be for another 20 Million years.
Yes, we are in an Ice Age. This is just a brief respite from an Earth that is normally heavily glaciated and cool and dry 80% of the time.
When the Antarctic Plate reached a tipping point with its entry into the Antarctic Circle 42 Million years ago, the climate started to get cooler and drier.
Global temperatures which averaged 92°-96°F started dropping and destroying the lush tropical forests all over Earth, including those in present-day Alaska and Canada driving primates south to their present location in the jungles of Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, and Belize, and the Amazon rain forest. Primates in Europe were driven to the Mediterranean, and in Asia to the southeast.
By 23 Million years ago, the entire Antarctic Continent was well within the Antarctic Circle and a huge chunk of water vapor that used to be in the atmosphere was now locked up as snow/ice in glaciers and ice sheets on the continent.
Milankovitch Cycles have nothing to do with anything. The 25,600 year precessional cycle is just Earth's position relative to certain constellation.
Prior to the Mid-Pleistocene Event, glacial periods were 40,000 years and inter-glacial periods were 12,000 to 15,000 years but not one of them lines up with the 41,000 year axial tilt cycle or the 100,000 year periodicity cycle.
After the Mid-Pleistocene Event, glacial periods started lasting 80,000 to 120,000 years and inter-glacial periods 15,000 to 32,000 years, but again, there is zero evidence that Milankovitch Cycles cause or end glacial periods.
Part of the sleight-of-hand game global warming nutters play is revising the date of the start of this inter-glacial period from 12,000 years ago to 25,000 years ago in order to claim that we ought to be moving back into a glacial period.
In any event, global warming is far preferable than global cooling.
The mini-Ice Age only killed a few 10s of Millions of people, but if it happens again, it will kill more than 2 Billion people.
- a summary of several research papers that lead to the conclusion that 90% of the GHG Effect is due to water vapor in clear skies, and 99% in cloudy skies--- co2 accounting for the almost all of the remaining 10% & 1% respectively, the combined effect of all remaining GHGs together being negligible.
Even if someone were to believe that a 'research' paper from a website called 'notrickszone.com' were reliable......so what? The article does not dispute that climate change exists, merely the causes of it.
So no matter how you slice it, we have to live with the consequences. Blame doesn't really an issue either--who cares at this point? The only real question is whether or not we can change it with our behavior, in order to save our own species. The idea that we cannot do anything about it.....is terrifying.
Technique rebuttals are a particularly effective and economic tool, according to Betsch, because methods used by science deniers tend to be very similar. One such technique, called selectivity, involves cherry-picking isolated papers that support an unconventional viewpoint or discrediting a few flawed papers to cast doubt on an entire field of science. Another method raises impossible expectations for science—arguing, for example, that rejecting vaccination is acceptable because vaccines are not 100 percent safe, although science can never guarantee that certainty for any medical product. Even routinely used medications such as aspirin come with potential risks.
Good read and you can see some of the techniques by the climate science deniers used here. Also, I've noticed the deniers tend to have far right views. If you look at their posting history, clear themes emerge.
The question is why do conservatives try to deny climate change? Good article here.
That scientific consensus was enough to pull virtually all of the major nations along. Conservative-leaning governments in Britain, France, Germany and Japan all signed on to successive climate change agreements.
Those divisions did not happen by themselves. Republican lawmakers were moved along by a campaign carefully crafted by fossil fuel industry players, most notably Charles D. and David H. Koch, the Kansas-based billionaires who run a chain of refineries (which can process 600,000 barrels of crude oil per day) as well as a subsidiary that owns or operates 4,000 miles of pipelines that move crude oil.
Here are the some of groups that study and claim climate change is happening.
American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Medical Association, American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, The Geological Society of America, International Academies, and U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
You have to believe that these highly trained scientists are wrong despite having the education and studies that give support to the climate change position. That some keyboard warrior, without the education requirements to get a PHD in that area of study, has some insight and ability to prove that climate change is a hoax. It is both amusing and sad to see this in action.
It covers many myths that conservatives are pushing as fact. At this point the debate is the world scientific committee and most of the world's population vs. The United States small subset of republicans/conservatives.
Yes, every major scientific organization has made clear statements that:
1. The climate is warming
2. The warming is being driven by man's activities, and in particular, primarily by increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
So these conspiracy cranks would have us believe that millions of scientists, around the world are all part of this grand conspiracy. Even if one is completely ignorant of the data and mechanisms, that defies common sense - that recruiting all these people into the secret plot and keeping them all quiet would be possible.
Here are a few important links to such statements:
That scientific consensus was enough to pull virtually all of the major nations along. Conservative-leaning governments in Britain, France, Germany and Japan all signed on to successive climate change agreements.
I am not a conservative. What I want to know is how we know that taking even Draconian steps will change the future. Particularly if China doesn't go along fort he ride with the suicide jockeys.
I am not a conservative. What I want to know is how we know that taking even Draconian steps will change the future. Particularly if China doesn't go along fort he ride with the suicide jockeys.
The earth is warming due to the increasing greenhouse gases that we generate, which trap radiant solar energy here. The more we increase these gases, the greater the warming.
.... The idea that we cannot do anything about it.....is terrifying.
That statement is exactly why these lies must be exposed.
The "climate" isn't changing until its effects are seen in the living world-- and that cannot be demonstrated recently--All the forests, plains, tundra, deserts etc that were around 2000 years ago are still forests, plains, tundra and deserts today. Their borders may expand & shrink by a few miles periodically as the weather cycles itself every 60 yrs or so, imposed upon a broader 1000 yr cycle, imposed on an even broader 22,000 year cycle.
The way these cycles (and there are others) interact determines how extreme the local and general maxima & minima play out.
That statement is exactly why these lies must be exposed.
The "climate" isn't changing until its effects are seen in the living world-- and that cannot be demonstrated recently--All the forests, plains, tundra, deserts etc that were around 2000 years ago are still forests, plains, tundra and deserts today. Their borders may expand & shrink by a few miles periodically as the weather cycles itself every 60 yrs or so, imposed upon a broader 1000 yr cycle, imposed on an even broader 22,000 year cycle.
The way these cycles (and there are others) interact determines how extreme the local and general maxima & minima play out.
You absolutely have that right. All that the alarmists can do is reel off a list of disasters. If there were hundreds of thousands living in the disaster areas centuries ago there would have been a like number of disasters. This we know for certain.
We are being to ask to speculate that if we commit economic suicide the disasters will stop. That is unlikely.
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.
