Global Warming Hoax |
 |
Replies
(1 - 19)
|
|
|
|
Mar 26 2016, 02:33 PM
|
|
Anybody with even a passing familiarity with Cook's study would see this Molyneux guy the video is full of shit. He completely misrepresents how the study was performed and how the numbers were computed. His preposterous position that climate change must be explicitly stated in an abstract to be anthropogenic or otherwise the author doesn't agree with the consensus opinion is hilarious. By that logic, the observation that scientific papers rarely state: "the earth is round" would mean most scientists believe the earth is flat
 . Further, he ignores the second method in the study where, instead of parsing the papers, they consulted the authors. This quote from the consensus project is a good summary: QUOTE Climate contrarians everywhere protest there is no scientific consensus. If that were true, they should easily be able to show there is indeed a significant body of work that challenges mainstream science. Yet they haven’t and can’t, because a robust and coherent denial of man-made global warming does not exist. Our study describes the state of expert opinion, it does not define scientific truth nor does it tell people what to think. Climate scientists today overwhelmingly endorse the consensus view that humans are the cause of most of recent global warming. That’s a fact. Probably the more interesting topic is why so many people deny manmade climate change. Here's some reading on that: https://www.opendemocracy.net/conspiracy/su...-climate-change -------------------- Cyber-industrial music and video animations:
https://vimeo.com/channels/thedignitymachine https://vimeo.com/channels/somewheretohide Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/RodrigoSpacecraft |
 |
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 26 2016, 04:38 PM
|
|
QUOTE (Rammikin @ Mar 26 2016, 02:33 PM)  Probably the more interesting topic is why so many people deny manmade climate change. Here's some reading on that: https://www.opendemocracy.net/conspiracy/su...-climate-change I will tell you why, not have some guy in the above study tell you why he thinks I don't believe man might contribute (but so little it is of insignificance) first that story starts with them describing these models , but these models can't even accurately predict warming as compared with balloons that are actually taking temperatures , and when your whole ideology starts with something that does not make sense to me , it nullifies all the conclusions http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=222 I am a carpenter , if I told you i built your house with no foundation to save money , you would run out of it , in the same , I have to run from a study whose foundation i believe is faulty second.Consensus is not science , and the fact that even three percent disagrees leads me to be skeptic , even more so the first law of thermal dynamics says you can't get something from nothing yet science breaks this first law for their model of the big bang , again leading to my skepticism I am a slow typer so this is taking forever , so to cut it short . As i have gotten older , I have been slow to coming to a steadfast conclusion , as from experience I have seen so many things change( during my stay ) that mankind has argued as fact . Al gore said (20 years ago) we would be flooding Islands by now , katrina like storms would happen more often, in the eighties the earth was starting to freeze and look , all of this has changed, here is some food for thought . I hate the term christian scientist as well as atheist scientist, to me , both these ( by definition have to make their evidence fit their world view ) and if you have to make evidence fit your world view (which has nothing to do with science)is that really science. I believe the best scientist should be skeptical of everything and be willing to be lead where the evidence takes them and be willing to change once new data has arrived . but if you could answer one question for me , is it possible that we could get new information that shows everyone on both sides is wrong ? This post has been edited by jstcrsn: Mar 26 2016, 04:53 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 26 2016, 05:32 PM
|
|
totaly agree !
Laurent --------------------    |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 26 2016, 10:07 PM
|
|
QUOTE (fkalich @ Mar 26 2016, 08:27 PM) Actually the frozen methane could possibly be used as an a cleaner energy sources, if we could figure out how to get it out (before it melts as ocean and world temperatures rise due to global warming). There is much more frozen methane out there than there is natural gas. this not about methane , but co2 , i did not want your whole post http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/ This post has been edited by jstcrsn: Mar 26 2016, 10:09 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 27 2016, 06:10 PM
|
|
It's good to have an opinion, but at the end of the day, scientific consensus is a rational basis for public policy. Unsubstantiated conspiracy theories are not
.
-------------------- Cyber-industrial music and video animations:
https://vimeo.com/channels/thedignitymachine https://vimeo.com/channels/somewheretohide Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/RodrigoSpacecraft |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 29 2016, 02:08 AM
|
|
follow the billions of dollars people , that scientists get for feeding politicians who in turn feed them
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Lye5liWuZw...ekNCbtXHeq1iFsA This post has been edited by jstcrsn: Mar 29 2016, 02:18 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 29 2016, 07:36 PM
|
|
Have gotten some very good chuckles and enjoyed the back and forth here
That's what forums are for. Time will tell though right?BTW here is a link to those "Hoaxers" at NASA talking about climate change just for reference They just want more money though, greedy buggers  Also links many of the Scientific organizations studying climate change and whether it's caused by us and whether it's good or bad. You guys be the judge http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ This post has been edited by Todd Simpson: Mar 29 2016, 08:34 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 30 2016, 03:08 PM
|
|
QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Mar 29 2016, 02:36 PM) This. /thread --------------------  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 31 2016, 04:57 PM
|
|
This quote from the consensus project is a good summary:
"Climate contrarians everywhere protest there is no scientific consensus. If that were true, they should easily be able to show there is indeed a significant body of work that challenges mainstream science. Yet they haven’t and can’t, because a robust and coherent denial of man-made global warming does not exist. Our study describes the state of expert opinion, it does not define scientific truth nor does it tell people what to think. Climate scientists today overwhelmingly endorse the consensus view that humans are the cause of most of recent global warming. That’s a fact." Not so fast. This list of over 1350 peer reviewed papers that support skeptic's arguments was compiled in 2014 and there have been even more peer reviewed papers written since then that challenges the AGW hypothesis. http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/p...ng.html#Preface The fact is, there is no consensus. And even if there was , It wouldn't necessarily mean anything since the majority of scientists believing one thing have ended up being wrong on many occasions. There are far too many problems with the hypothesis of AGW to warrant sweeping regulation and policy in my opinion. And when you have folks suggesting that deniers should be punished, which has been discussed with, and considered by the AG of the USA, and reported on in the media recently, well that should be a giant red flag right there, at least it is for me. This post has been edited by AK Rich: Mar 31 2016, 05:25 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 31 2016, 05:15 PM
|
|
That's why the consensus figure is 97% and not 100%. If there was no disagreement, that would be suspicious
. -------------------- Cyber-industrial music and video animations:
https://vimeo.com/channels/thedignitymachine https://vimeo.com/channels/somewheretohide Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/RodrigoSpacecraft |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 31 2016, 07:27 PM
|
|
QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Mar 29 2016, 08:36 PM) Seems like pretty scientific proof to me. And Im a science man. Until I see such powerful proof on the contrary, I know who I believe. This post has been edited by Fran: Mar 31 2016, 07:28 PM -------------------- Guitars:
Fender American Deluxe Stratocaster, Ibanez RG2570MZ, Epiphone SG G-400 Amp: Vox AC4TVH head + V112TV cab Effects: Vox Satchurator, Vox Time Machine, Dunlop CryBaby, Boss MT-2, Boss CE-5, Boss TU-2, Boss ME-70 Recording: Line-6 POD X3 + FBV-Express, Pandora PX5D GMC wants YOU to take part in our Guitar-Wikipedia! Have a good time reading great articles and writing your own with us in our GUITAR WIKI! Share your playing and get Pro-advice from our Instructors: Join REC |
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
