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.
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez When you apply the actual data to the models, they don't match what actually occurs which is why they "adjust" the data.
Fake science is fake science.
The waste of time is constantly having to listen to people telling us how the world is coming to a tipping point and if we don't do something we'll all die. Being told the "science is settled" when science by definition can never be settled. When we ask what the solutions are there's never an answer. Dead silence or a complete deflection to some canned talking point.
Look on the first page 3rd post.
Is the climate changing? YES!
Does man have something to do with it? Probably
The so-called Peer-Reviewed science can't tell us exactly how much we are to be blamed yet can tell us that we are? It's a Ponzi scheme.
Is man the primary cause, most certainly not. What is? The damn Sun is the 900lb gorilla when it comes to fire and ice. Please read the Columbia University study which took 3 years, went back 50 million years with soil cores 1500' deep.
Back to the $1M question: What, exactly, can we do to change global temperatures? Nothing! But that's using logic and common sense. In the meantime you want 3B people to send their wealth to the despots who rule the other 5B people living in abject poverty because of those tyrants!!
While you pat yourselves on the backs and tout your moral superiority in the name of a corrupted meme, the rest of us only see a bunch of fools that haven't a clue and couldn't care less about being played by corrupted scientists who only care about the billions they will make off their BS! THAT will fix everything and if it doesn't at least you blowhards will feel all warm and fuzzy even as the world spirals into the same abject poverty as the 3rd world. YAY for equality!
OH, here you go again. It's a bogus site!!!
All they did was republish the study by The Earth Institute at Columbia University - zero bogus and plenty for you to drool over.
If we REALLY wanted to start solving the warming problem the first thing we would do is stop pouring black asphalt over everything. The streets and dark roofs are causing urban areas to be 7-12 degrees warmer than they should be.
There ya go, that was hard, I'm beat. Time for a nap.
You know Fishel was talking about people like you in his post right? “Self appointed Internet experts who post junk on the Internet”. Could not have said it better myself.��
I show some of these posts to my sister. Her being into science and finishing her masters, she finds it hilarious. And depressing..
I show some of these posts to my sister. Her being into science and finishing her masters, she finds it hilarious. And depressing..
Your sister is still in school, she's still green. She has no clue what's actually happening and just listening to what she's been told. Get back to us when she actually does an honest study and experiments and comes up with her OWN results.
1. CO2 does correlate with temps, however, CO2 rises AFTER temps increase. Why? More CO2 released from the oceans with increased temps.
2. Models- models do not connote evidence
3. Taken into account other possibilities? BS- earth's orbit, sun spots, volcanic activity, and the reduction in the earth's magnetic field have all been ignored.
4. Statistical analysis? You mean like the fake statistics that Mann used in his "hockey stick" article?
5. What other valid hypothesis requires its proponants to fake data? Remember climate gate?
6. Why has average barometric pressure not increased if temps have increased?
7. Why have the oceans not risen 6ft- the expected rise if the temps were accurate?
8. Why didn't reduced CO2 output in the Depression result in lower temps?
9. Why does snow still melt at high altitudes, where CO2 levels are under 300 ppm?
10. Why have four different temp measurements used for comparison in the AGW "studies"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomC23
You know Fishel was talking about people like you in his post right? “Self appointed Internet experts who post junk on the Internetâ€. Could not have said it better myself.👍
I show some of these posts to my sister. Her being into science and finishing her masters, she finds it hilarious. And depressing..
Ask her what percentage of climate change is natural and what percentage is man made. Also, how will the "fixes" of more taxes, and higher costs for all goods and services reduce climate change? Wil it reduce both man's and nature, or just man's?
Most times it seems that the warmer(s) to whom I'm posing the questions have never considered what I would think are the first and most fundamental questions to be asked.
For example, at present, to what degree of accuracy can we model current and past surface temperatures and to what degree of certainty can we be sure our speculation matches up to reality?
If the range of accuracy is within 1.71 degrees F, why are we having a conversation about warming that may or not really be happening?
Moreover, if we are claiming to be able to assess past temperatures to such a degree of accuracy, how do we know that we are correct?
If the real range of accuracy were 1.79 degrees F instead of 1.71 degrees F, or some other claimed range of accuracy, how could we know for sure?
Real science is testable.
Real science is measurable.
Real science is falsifiable.
CAGW is pseudoscience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo58
Well the whole point of this thread is what Greg Fishel said:
If you have evidence that temperature measurements are so inaccurate, and models so unreliable, that they would discredit AGW theory, then publish that in a peer-reviewed journal.
If you believe that CAGW is pseudoscience, please tell us what your credentials are for determining what is science and what is "pseudoscience", specifically as it relates to climate.
As Fishel said, put up or shut up.
I don't need Greg Fishel to ask simple questions that anyone claiming to have a valid scientific theory should be able answer off the top of their head without a ridiculous appeal to authority.
The manner in which measurements are taken and the level of confidence that can be placed in those measurements is fundamental to any theory involving a relatively small temperature change.
The fact that these measurements were not collected in all the places where warming is now alleged to have occurred is my first clue that the Ts aren't crossed.
To the climate deniers on this thread not putting forth any peer-reviewed research to validate their claims that current warming is natural...
Thanks for validating the OP's point.
What it comes down to for them is belief that God controls the weather and that humans are too insignificant in the grand scheme of things to impact it. Their pastors told them that the warming planet and changing weather patterns are simply signs of the End Times and for them, that settles it. They already believe that evolution is a big conspiracy to lead people away from the "truth" of the Bible and to cause people to doubt the "power of God" and they typiaclly apply the same logic to climate science.
The earth's climate has been changing for 4+ billion years, nearly all without human influence. Pseudo-science proclaiming climate change is man-made won't convince any intelligent being.
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.
