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.
So I went 15 pages, and you have absolutely nothing to give. All you have done is tell everyone that they don't understand science, they don't have a "functioning brain", state that you are not "scientifically illiterate", yet you have proven absolutely ZERO in 15 pages. You've only thrown out insults, nothing more. Other people have given graphs, charts, and other types of evidence. What do you give? A laughable piece of "proof" is from the NY Slimes. Please. You may as well have given us a wikipedia "reference" that's what utter garbage that rag is.
Why does he have to 'give' anything? It's mainstream science. Look it up in a textbook.
It's the climate science rejectors who have to prove they even know anything at all about the science involved, let alone show how 1000's of scientists, research going back over 100 years, a massive amount of empirical evidence, and the laws of physics are all 'wrong'.
So are you saying that India is considering opening a bunch of new coal mines proves AGW is wrong?
Yeah that's what I'm saying...
I don't know how many times I have to state my position. AGW is real. We will warm the earth by adding Co2, and changing the landscape by clearing forests, and building huge urban heat islands.
However, climate models are overcooking the earth in the time frames given. On past threads I posted ridiculous climate model projections for my region such as this put out by the EPA. Yes a government agency
No serious person with any knowledge of the climate history of Illinois or Michigan would agree this climate model. No, my summer will not look like Memphis or Oklahoma in 35 years (under low emissions scenario).
Ahhh but wait! The same EPA put out in 2003 this! (click on the link to see)
In 2003 they said our summers would look like this by 2030? What gives?
They pushed back the time frame of which our climate was to migrate south by 20 years... And guess what, in 20 years, they will push it back another 20 years
I also believe that 7.5 billion of us need energy to survive. And no, the sun and wind are not free energy which is why nations like India (and the US) will continue to burn fossil fuels until they run dry.
I took a look at your Forbes link (shocker, Forbes would be disproving climate change, right?) and who was one of their examples as being in disagreement with the conclusions of the 11,944 scientists examined?
Well, there was this guy, he was one of those mentioned. And there were three others who said that their viewpoint was misrepresented.
Now out of almost 12,000 scientists who published research over a period of 20 years, you don't think a handful could be bought off? And of that handful who can be bought off, this guy was one of the examples the author of Forbes used.
You really think you have discredited the 97% conclusion? And you have a scientific background, right? Yikes.
Apparently the poster's idea of the "scientific method" and "research" is to find a propaganda piece in a business mag by layperson spin-doctor James Taylor (of the industry funded Heartland Institute), who parroted the opinion of a layperson conspiracy blogger about a study he clearly didn't even bother to read himself.
Strange, if he's claiming a scientific background, all he would have to do is a literature search of all the peer-reviewed science Journals himself and find just how papers there are 'rejecting' anthropogenic climate change (out of 10,000s). They're not easy to find and are usually in Journals with a low impact factor or open-access with little peer review and usually poor quality (as in they are not often original research, ignore a lot of the evidence and do a lot of cherry-picking).
It's the climate science rejectors who have to prove they even know anything at all about the science involved, let alone show how 1000's of scientists, research going back over 100 years, a massive amount of empirical evidence, and the laws of physics are all 'wrong'.
Like Freeman Dyson? He must be completely clueless on the laws of physics.... Or industry funded...
No serious person with any knowledge of the climate history of Illinois or Michigan would agree this climate model. No, my summer will not look like Memphis or Oklahoma in 35 years (under low emissions scenario).
Let's get another opinion from someone who has lived in the Midwest for over 40 years, and remembers the great blizzards of the late 70's.
From your link:
Quote:
In the Midwest, average annual temperatures increased over the last several decades. Heat waves are becoming more frequent and cold periods are becoming rarer. Snow and ice are arriving later in the fall and starting to melt earlier in the spring. Heavy downpours now occur twice as frequently as they did a century ago. [1] These trends are likely to continue under future climate change: average summer temperatures are projected to increase by 3°F over the next few decades and could increase by over 10°F by the end of this century. This range would make summers in Illinois and Michigan feel like those in present-day Texas and Oklahoma, respectively. [1]
Everything in bold is 100% true. The past three years have seen the polar vortex affect the entire continent, but everything else is still true. Before the polar vortex, there were warm winters throughout the 00's, I know because I enjoyed riding my bike during the winter of that decade. Winter is still beginning later, on average, over the past thirty years. And summers are undoubtedly getting hotter every year. And downpours are indeed heaver than anything I've ever seen before. Two years ago, we received 7 inches of rain in a little over 24 hours. These events will become more commonplace.
I can only guess you are using the polar vortex as proof that winters are not getting warmer, but this is an anomaly when looking for averages over time.
Will summer look like those in present day Texas or Oklahoma in the coming decades? Of course it will, because avg. temperatures are continuing to climb.
Your opinion is duly noted, but statistical averages would say you are wrong.
He readily admits that he is not a climate sciences expert and that he doesn't know the "technical facts" (His words). Any basic knowledge about climate science he had is about 40 years out of date, although he agrees that CO2 from fossil fuels causes warming. He's not an atmospheric physicist or a solar physicist either or any other type of physicist involved in climate sciences. He's an aged mathematician/theoretical physicist who was brilliant in his own field (quantum electrodynamics, solid-state physics, nuclear engineering).Yet climate science rejectors cling to his uninformed opinion about climate science and keep trotting it out. It's sad really.
I took a look at your Forbes link (shocker, Forbes would be disproving climate change, right?) and who was one of their examples as being in disagreement with the conclusions of the 11,944 scientists examined?
Well, there was this guy, he was one of those mentioned. And there were three others who said that their viewpoint was misrepresented.
Now out of almost 12,000 scientists who published research over a period of 20 years, you don't think a handful could be bought off? And of that handful who can be bought off, this guy was one of the examples the author of Forbes used.
You really think you have discredited the 97% conclusion? And you have a scientific background, right? Yikes.
In fact there has been no scientific, statistically sound poll or survey that has been conducted that supports this, or for that matter that even purports to support this claim.
There is a study that sampled articles on climate change and presented the results of that analysis, which most AGW supporters have adopted as a proxy for what either "all scientists" or "all climate scientists" believe. We discussed that study in post 241 of this thread, as you are very well aware.
However, this study does not even purport to support the conclusion that 97% of climate scientists support the left's AGW alarmism hypothesis, as you and the other environmental extremists baselessly claim that it does. I will repost the contents of post 241 if you or any other AGW alarmists try to pretend any further that you somehow missed that.
Of course if you can produce a scientific, statistically sound poll or survey that has been conducted showing that 97% of either "all scientists" or "all climate scientists" support the AGW alarmism hypothesis, we would all like to see it.
Or for that matter, if you could even produce a statistically sound poll or survey that even PURPORTS to show that 97% of either "all scientists" or "all climate scientists" support the AGW alarmism hypothesis, that would be unprecedented as well.
Let's get another opinion from someone who has lived in the Midwest for over 40 years, and remembers the great blizzards of the late 70's.
From your link:
Everything in bold is 100% true. The past three years have seen the polar vortex affect the entire continent, but everything else is still true. Before the polar vortex, there were warm winters throughout the 00's, I know because I enjoyed riding my bike during the winter of that decade. Winter is still beginning later, on average, over the past thirty years. And summers are undoubtedly getting hotter every year. And downpours are indeed heaver than anything I've ever seen before. Two years ago, we received 7 inches of rain in a little over 24 hours. These events will become more commonplace.
I can only guess you are using the polar vortex as proof that winters are not getting warmer, but this is an anomaly when looking for averages over time.
Will summer look like those in present day Texas or Oklahoma in the coming decades? Of course it will, because avg. temperatures are continuing to climb.
Your opinion is duly noted, but statistical averages would say you are wrong.
Heatwaves are becoming more frequent in the Midwest? Really? Ok back that up with data
Or maybe it's because you don't know how to research anything?
You keep quoting it, but with no citation.
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.
(click on the link to see)
