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.
I am truly fascinated that you just wasted so much time attacking articles that you haven't even read. That, in your mind, you are so knowledgeable about the subject that you can attack an entire peer reviewed scientific article from a 2 sentence description?
Particularly amusing was how you dismissed the entire journal as irrelevant and the scientists all as clowns, thus dismissing the entire premise of this thread.
No, I'm defending the entire purpose and integrity of this thread against blatant BS and purposeful distortions and deceptions.
Look, I caught you omitting part of the quoted text that you found inconsistent with the premise you were trying to promote. I could only have noticed that had I investigated your linked material. And I also looked at the authors and the editors and the list of advisors and their backgrounds. So what you are accusing me of is just as much untrue as this "bill of goods" you're peddling.
Wanna see what is said at the bottom of the "About Us" page of your reputable source? It's extremely revealing for anyone with an IQ larger than their waist size .... here goes:
Nature Climate Change will publish cutting-edge research on the science of contemporary climate change, its impacts, and the wider implications for the economy, society and policy. Thus, while we certainly appreciate the importance of palaeoclimate research in its own right, we can only consider for publication palaeoclimate studies that shed significant new light on the nature, underlying causes or impacts of current climate change.
Now, reading this ought to give you a clue ....they're telling you in no uncertain terms that they will only publish that which fits their model of "current climate change" ... as in, only what supports their fundamental position which is "Man Made Climate Change". They're saying very directly that people who disagree with the cause of "contemporary climate change" need not point out those pesky little facts and details about historical climate change cycles over that past Million years that could not be caused by man because that's not relevant to the NEW CAUSE of "current climate change". Meaning, they reject and dismiss out of hand Millions of years of climate change and it's causes, in favor of what they contend is the new cause for climate change. Orwell would be proud. If you choose to agree with them ... they'll publish what you have to say ... otherwise, no thanks. That is what that paragraph says in plain English. And it's a plain confession that they have no real interest in truth or factual science, and only interested in publishing mainstream dogma that provides their paychecks.
Now, as for my dismissal of your "Scientists" .... would you like to see an overview of who they are and their "qualifications"?
Chief Editor: Rory Howlett
Rory graduated in zoology from the University of Oxford and was awarded his PhD in ecological genetics from the University of Cambridge.
Senior Editor:
Monica Contestabile
Monica is a quantitative economist by training, with a PhD in environmental economics from the University of Naples Federico II and a Master's degree in economics from Coripe Piemonte. Prior to joining Nature Climate Change, Monica worked with WWF-UK developing research on sustainable consumption. Before that, she was a senior lecturer at the Crichton Carbon Centre in Scotland and a visiting professor at University Institute Tecnologico de Monterrey in Mexico. Monica's research interests cover economic valuation of environmental impacts, market based instruments in climate change policy and carbon accounting.
Now do I really need to spell this out for you? Is anyone really that dense that they cannot see one Zoologist (and since when is a zoologist an expert in climate science?) who is in command of this journal and the second in command, senior editor, who is an "Environmental Accountant" specializing in carbon tax credits and carbon financial instruments?
Good grief .... you people are the first ones to want to challenge someone's sources .... and then you put up this blatantly biased rag and it's tripe as some form of scientific insight? This little self serving gaggle of morons are what you consider "climate scientists"? Really? Want to look as some more names and backgrounds?
EDITORIAL ADVISORY PANEL:
Dr Frank Ackerman
Director, Climate Economics Group
Stockholm Environment Insititute
Somerville, MA USA
Research interests: economics, policy
Professor Thomas Dietz
Professor of Sociology and Environmental Science and Policy
Michigan State University
Dr Riley E. Dunlap
Chair, American Sociological Association Task Force on Sociology and Global Climate Change
Regents Professor
Department of Sociology
Oklahoma State University
Dr Saleemul Huq
International Institute for Development, London
Director, International Centre for Climate Change and Development
Independent University
Dhaka
Bangladesh
Dr Andrew Light
Director, Center for Global Ethics
George Mason University
Dr Malte Meinshausen
Research scientist
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)
Potsdam, Germany
Professor Nick Pidgeon
Director of the Understanding Risk Research Group
School of Psychology
Cardiff University, UK
Do you see climate scientists here? These are climate change bureaucrats for "climate economics" and "climate science policy" and "task force on sociology" and "Global Ethics" (that's a good one .. ethics, as if these con artists would know anything about ethics) and "Climate Impact Research" and "Risk Research" from the School of Psychology.
Do any of these people resemble anyone remotely qualified to be considered experts in actual "climate" ?These fraudsters are in the business of "Man Made Climate Change". And that is what it is ... a business, having nothing whatsoever to do with real science. Just a bunch of career academics turned science bureaucrats to cash in on the scam of the century ..... the climate scam.
Makes me sick to the stomach that we have so many con artists running this world and that many more idiots following them.
One new study that goes against the norm does not kick previous knowledge out the door. It's funny how science hating right wingers will seize upon the work of a few quacks and completely fail all efforts at logical thinking.
I studied climate forty + years ago and was aware the the long tem trend was toward a cooler global climate until about the 1800's when the curve flattened out and began increasing.
Dr. Schambaugh, of the University of Oklahoma School of Chemical Engineering, Final Exam question for May of 1997. Dr. Schambaugh is known for asking questions such as, "why do airplanes fly?" on his final exams. His one and only final exam question in May 1997 for his Momentum, Heat and Mass Transfer II class was: "Is hell exothermic or endothermic? Support your answer with proof."
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law or some variant. One student, however, wrote the following:
"First, We postulate that if souls exist, then they must have some mass. If they do, then a mole of souls can also have a mass. So, at what rate are souls moving into hell and at what rate are souls leaving? I think we can safely assume that once a soul gets to hell, it will not leave.
Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for souls entering hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, then you will go to hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all people and souls go to hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in hell to increase exponentially.
Now, we look at the rate of change in volume in hell. Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in hell to stay the same, the ratio of the mass of souls and volume needs to stay constant. Two options exist:
If hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter hell, then the temperature and pressure in hell will increase until all hell breaks loose.
If hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until hell freezes over.
So which is it? If we accept the quote given to me by Theresa Manyan during Freshman year, "that it will be a cold night in hell before I sleep with you" and take into account the fact that I still have NOT succeeded in having sexual relations with her, then Option 2 cannot be true...Thus, hell is exothermic."
No, I'm defending the entire purpose and integrity of this thread against blatant BS and purposeful distortions and deceptions.
Look, I caught you omitting part of the quoted text that you found inconsistent with the premise you were trying to promote. I could only have noticed that had I investigated your linked material. And I also looked at the authors and the editors and the list of advisors and their backgrounds. So what you are accusing me of is just as much untrue as this "bill of goods" you're peddling.
Wanna see what is said at the bottom of the "About Us" page of your reputable source? It's extremely revealing for anyone with an IQ larger than their waist size .... here goes:
Nature Climate Change will publish cutting-edge research on the science of contemporary climate change, its impacts, and the wider implications for the economy, society and policy. Thus, while we certainly appreciate the importance of palaeoclimate research in its own right, we can only consider for publication palaeoclimate studies that shed significant new light on the nature, underlying causes or impacts of current climate change.
Now, reading this ought to give you a clue ....they're telling you in no uncertain terms that they will only publish that which fits their model of "current climate change" ... as in, only what supports their fundamental position which is "Man Made Climate Change". They're saying very directly that people who disagree with the cause of "contemporary climate change" need not point out those pesky little facts and details about historical climate change cycles over that past Million years that could not be caused by man because that's not relevant to the NEW CAUSE of "current climate change". Meaning, they reject and dismiss out of hand Millions of years of climate change and it's causes, in favor of what they contend is the new cause for climate change. Orwell would be proud. If you choose to agree with them ... they'll publish what you have to say ... otherwise, no thanks. That is what that paragraph says in plain English. And it's a plain confession that they have no real interest in truth or factual science, and only interested in publishing mainstream dogma that provides their paychecks.
Now, as for my dismissal of your "Scientists" .... would you like to see an overview of who they are and their "qualifications"?
Chief Editor: Rory Howlett
Rory graduated in zoology from the University of Oxford and was awarded his PhD in ecological genetics from the University of Cambridge.
Senior Editor:
Monica Contestabile
Monica is a quantitative economist by training, with a PhD in environmental economics from the University of Naples Federico II and a Master's degree in economics from Coripe Piemonte. Prior to joining Nature Climate Change, Monica worked with WWF-UK developing research on sustainable consumption. Before that, she was a senior lecturer at the Crichton Carbon Centre in Scotland and a visiting professor at University Institute Tecnologico de Monterrey in Mexico. Monica's research interests cover economic valuation of environmental impacts, market based instruments in climate change policy and carbon accounting.
Now do I really need to spell this out for you? Is anyone really that dense that they cannot see one Zoologist (and since when is a zoologist an expert in climate science?) who is in command of this journal and the second in command, senior editor, who is an "Environmental Accountant" specializing in carbon tax credits and carbon financial instruments?
Good grief .... you people are the first ones to want to challenge someone's sources .... and then you put up this blatantly biased rag and it's tripe as some form of scientific insight? This little self serving gaggle of morons are what you consider "climate scientists"? Really? Want to look as some more names and backgrounds?
EDITORIAL ADVISORY PANEL:
Dr Frank Ackerman
Director, Climate Economics Group
Stockholm Environment Insititute
Somerville, MA USA
Research interests: economics, policy
Professor Thomas Dietz
Professor of Sociology and Environmental Science and Policy
Michigan State University
Dr Riley E. Dunlap
Chair, American Sociological Association Task Force on Sociology and Global Climate Change
Regents Professor
Department of Sociology
Oklahoma State University
Dr Saleemul Huq
International Institute for Development, London
Director, International Centre for Climate Change and Development
Independent University
Dhaka
Bangladesh
Dr Andrew Light
Director, Center for Global Ethics
George Mason University
Dr Malte Meinshausen
Research scientist
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)
Potsdam, Germany
Professor Nick Pidgeon
Director of the Understanding Risk Research Group
School of Psychology
Cardiff University, UK
Do you see climate scientists here? These are climate change bureaucrats for "climate economics" and "climate science policy" and "task force on sociology" and "Global Ethics" (that's a good one .. ethics, as if these con artists would know anything about ethics) and "Climate Impact Research" and "Risk Research" from the School of Psychology.
Do any of these people resemble anyone remotely qualified to be considered experts in actual "climate" ?These fraudsters are in the business of "Man Made Climate Change". And that is what it is ... a business, having nothing whatsoever to do with real science. Just a bunch of career academics turned science bureaucrats to cash in on the scam of the century ..... the climate scam.
Makes me sick to the stomach that we have so many con artists running this world and that many more idiots following them.
if you are going to make any argument supporting your case, or disproving someone elses case, you have to go back as far into the past as possible, and see what the climate was doing then, and how it changed going forward. otherwise you are limiting your argument.
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.
