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 big clue is that the entire agenda is a scheme designed and implemented by the United Nations ...
The underlying phobia in the anti science crowd like yourself is paranoia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
I swear ... the depth and magnitude of ignorance of the general public is frightening. It's beyond definition.
Frightening is the paranoia and ignorance of those who dispute basic science in favor of conspiracy theories, and like most denialists, change the argument from one of science to one of economics.
bottom line here, is the graph published (Before peer review has even gotten started, and with objections from Judith Curry who is listed second on the list of researchers on the BEST paper) is smoothed using a 10 year average and goes over 200 years. It totally gets rid of the last 10 year actual numbers.
when those are looked at, there is ZERO warming over the last 10 years. period.
That is what the numbers say. Not some biased guy who makes his living off AGW panic freakout ohmygawdtheoceansareboiling insanity.
Then there is also the problem that BEST has not released the actual data and methodology they used in many aspects of the their work. So arguing over the work is rather pointless as until they do release such, determining a kludge or the like in their process will simply be speculation and those attempting to defend it are simply speculating the validity of it as well.
This is why the whole thing being released as it was is pure political antics. If they were actually looking to have an open peer review before the "peer review", they would release all of their raw data, methodology, and process. Instead, this turned into yet another "claim" of vindication by AGW proponents to which has no means of properly establishing its position as nobody can fully evaluate the work (which is the point if you are pushing politics, speculation without verification is king).
But how many of these "academics" are involved in CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH? How many have published PEER REVIEWED RESEARCH?
Almost none of them you say? Math, Physics, Biology, Chemistry, "Earth", etc....again, few of these people are qualified as a legitimate voice in the field of climate change.
You seem to be tacking on more and more requirements to insist that only those who are "specifically" and "currently working, publishing, etc..." can even begin to understand the work being presented with this research. By the way, many of these professionals work in areas of the industry to which deal with nearly the same level and application of study (for different purposes) that climate research does. Many object because they see aspects of their specialty being used in various research to which they find major errors.
Where do you think McIntyre came from? He worked in industry for many years doing mineral study and analysis, the math was his specialty and his objections were pertaining directly to the fact that specific "climate researchers" were using unheard of methods that were extremely poor and sloppy means of statistical analysis in order to establish a specific conclusive means to their work.
Climate science requires many areas of study, to which many of those listed are more than capable of evaluating various aspects of the research. To claim that since some may not be actually producing work in the field specifically related to climate change research is simply a fallacious means of attempting to dismiss their questions and objections to some of the research being released.
That is, you seem to be making an massive appeal to authority to which keeps moving the goal post to proclaim only "your" experts are truly qualified to comment on the topic. That is, you are pushing political garbage, but then... you have been doing that from the start.
The underlying phobia in the anti science crowd like yourself is paranoia.
Frightening is the paranoia and ignorance of those who dispute basic science in favor of conspiracy theories, and like most denialists, change the argument from one of science to one of economics.
Phobia? We see the greed for money and power that is directly linked to the AGW scam.
We have corporations being given billions of taxpayer dollars, in the name of the green energy movement to combat global warming.
We have scientists, research groups and individuals being given millions of dollars, in the name of the green energy movement to combat global warming.
We have third world countries demanding billions of taxpayer dollars from western nations as a form of payment for climate debt. guess whose idea this was..... wait for it..... the United Nations:
Climate debt is a theoretical concept which has been submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change by over fifty countries including Bolivia, Bhutan, Malaysia, Micronesia, Sri Lanka, Paraguay, Venezuela and the Group of Least Developed countries, representing 49 of the world's poorest and most vulnerable countries.
The climate-debt concept incorporates two distinct elements:
Adaptation debt - which represents the compensation owed to the poor for the damages of climate change they have not caused.
Emissions debt - which is compensation owed for their fair share of the atmospheric space they cannot use if climate change is to be stopped.
Climate science requires many areas of study, to which many of those listed are more than capable of evaluating various aspects of the research. To claim that since some may not be actually producing work in the field specifically related to climate change research is simply a fallacious means of attempting to dismiss their questions and objections to some of the research being released.
That is, you seem to be making an massive appeal to authority to which keeps moving the goal post to proclaim only "your" experts are truly qualified to comment on the topic. That is, you are pushing political garbage, but then... you have been doing that from the start.
Whatever their disagreements, by signing a petition they either, directly or inadvertently, are allowing their academic backgrounds to be used for political and economic reasons in the larger effort to discredit mankind's contribution to climate change. The irony is climate change denialists accuse peer reviewed researchers of a vast conspiracy to defraud the world of money by secretly agreeing to conspire this massive, worldwide scientific fraud while denialists use these exact same tactics to try and dispel basic science.
It's a proven fact that American's are largely clueless about climate change, just like it's a proven fact their country has long been the worlds worst polluter. Furthermore, it is a proven fact that the fossil fuel industry is the worlds most lucrative and profitable industry, yet these same forces, with unlimited funds at their disposal, are accusing scientific researchers of every religious, political, and economic background of a giant conspiracy?
For rational minds, we find such assertions ridiculous.
science shows that humans use oxygen and expele (exhale) co2
science shows that greenery (plantlife) uses co2 and expeles o2
science shows that co2 levels have been 3 times HIGHER than they are today, in the past (ie the co2 325 of today is is much lower than the 750-10000 that co2 levels were 100,000 years ago
science shows us that the earth has warmed AND cooled many times
science shows us that ANTARTICA was once a lush furtile land, not covered in ice
science shows us that greenland was once a green lush furtile land, not covered with ice
science shows us that GLACIERS created many of the geographical features that we look at today (ie Long Island was made by the lower reaching of graciers, the great lakes were created by glaciers, the grand canyon was created by glacial melting)
science shows us that plants would grow much better, and use less water if the co2 was HIGHER...around 700-1500ppm compared to the current 320ppm
more co2 is actually GREENER...its not theroy, its scientific fact
common sense states that as the earths polulation expands, so does the need for more plantlife...to keep our oxygen levels up.......yet the global warming liberals (like odanny) only want to talk about car/industry exaust; man created co2,.... and how to tax it[/quote]
"Global Warming" is the left's version of religion. A handy myth to keep the unquestioning followers living in fear and living their lives as they dictate. All the while enriching the powerful leaders of the movement, giving them a lifestyle far above anything their followers can even dream of.
Whatever their disagreements, by signing a petition they either, directly or inadvertently, are allowing their academic backgrounds to be used for political and economic reasons in the larger effort to discredit mankind's contribution to climate change. The irony is climate change denialists accuse peer reviewed researchers of a vast conspiracy to defraud the world of money by secretly agreeing to conspire this massive, worldwide scientific fraud while denialists use these exact same tactics to try and dispel basic science.
Kind of like administrations doing a broad claim that their members all agree with the conclusion that CAGW is conclusive and indisputable? Kind of like the IPCC being the basis for a political movement?
As for the "fraud" and "conspiracy", I don't think it is some major thing like that (though a few may have such intentions and this is strongly suggested by climategate emails). I think that it is a chain reaction of many using climate change for their own desires. You have politicians using it to gain power and tax revenue, agenda groups using it to assert their demands, researchers doing it to gain monetary means for their projects, companies doing it because it is another cash opportunity to profit of a fad. Collusion at some high level doesn't have to exist to achieve such.
Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny
It's a proven fact that American's are largely clueless about climate change, just like it's a proven fact their country has long been the worlds worst polluter. Furthermore, it is a proven fact that the fossil fuel industry is the worlds most lucrative and profitable industry, yet these same forces, with unlimited funds at their disposal, are accusing scientific researchers of every religious, political, and economic background of a giant conspiracy?
For rational minds, we find such assertions ridiculous.
Actually, it is a proven fact that you are rather clueless on the subject. That isn't an insult, just a simple observation of the years of you posting on the subject. You rarely discuss the science and stay firmly within the political spectrum while you aggressively attack any who do not share the CAGW conclusion through name calling and accusations of ulterior motives.
The fact is Odanny, you have no idea what you are talking about.
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.
