20 Jun 18
Originally posted by @metal-brainYou are living in your own little world. You should be on a soap box in Hyde square, you would have more chance of getting converts there.
"Trump didn't have to conspire with the Russians, his buddies did it for him."
So Trump was innocent. Is that what you are saying?
The vast majority of Climate Scientists do not disagree with me. You are repeating a myth.
20 Jun 18
Originally posted by @humyBecause all you have is one flawed study that omits about 3 out of 4 climate scientists and that is just the climate scientists they found with an unimpressive internet search method. Who knows how many climate scientists were overlooked because of a simple low internet presence.
How can that possibly be true when the majority of climate scientists say there is measurable man made global warming and most of the recent warming is probably man made?
There is simply no evidence of a consensus that man is the main cause of global warming. I know you have been mislead by the consensus project and others that imply man is the cause when the 97% only says man is a factor and NOT the main cause as they imply, but you need to acknowledge you have been duped before you can accept what you have been brainwashed into believing something for so very long. It is called cognitive dissonance.
It is true. Accept you have been duped by propagandists looking to tax money out of you. There is no evidence of what you have been mislead into believing!
Originally posted by @sonhousehttps://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
You are living in your own little world. You should be on a soap box in Hyde square, you would have more chance of getting converts there.
Are you angry because I provided the peer reviewed article you didn't think I could post?
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/299/5613/1728
21 Jun 18
Originally posted by @metal-brainAh, you mean this from the abstract:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
Are you angry because I provided the peer reviewed article you didn't think I could post?
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/299/5613/1728
"This record most likely reflects the temperature and accumulation change, although the mechanism remains unclear"
Most likely? Mechanism remains unclear? So a one off event 'proving' your point should be used to characterize all CO2 data taken today?
21 Jun 18
Originally posted by @metal-brainYes there is evidence! There are three studies now that we have discussed. For various reasons you have dismissed them all as flawed. But there is a huge logical distinction between "no evidence" and "flawed evidence". Obviously we have not produced anything yet that has prompted the journals to retract the papers.
There is simply no evidence of a consensus that man is the main cause of global warming.
You can argue that the data is flawed, that the consensus is incorrect, that the CO2 lagging behind temperature in past climates somehow refutes climate modeling data in a scenario where CO2 is artificially added to an existing atmosphere, that the existence of a "scientific consensus" on anything is problematic etc etc. but the argument that no evidence exists is sketchy. It sounds like a toddler arguing for dessert by saying "there are no more carrots on my plate" when everyone in the room can clearly see them.
Originally posted by @wildgrassPredictions based on unreliable climate models is not evidence. I can predict you will die of a heart attack within 3 years. Is that evidence you will die?
Yes there is evidence! There are three studies now that we have discussed. For various reasons you have dismissed them all as flawed. But there is a huge logical distinction between "no evidence" and "flawed evidence". Obviously we have not produced anything yet that has prompted the journals to retract the papers.
You can argue that the data is flawed ...[text shortened]... y saying "there are no more carrots on my plate" when everyone in the room can clearly see them.
What was the other one? Wasn't it scientists but not climate scientists that were polled? Refresh my memory.
What is the criteria for retracting papers? My guess is that it doesn't happen often. Do you support a study that gets at least half of climate scientist's opinions instead of less than 25%? Omitting 3 out of 4 opinions is not evidence. It is faith that the 25% represent the other 75% well. I think it is likely they didn't even poll 10% of all climate scientists since it is unlikely an internet search is a good way of finding them.
Trump got nearly 10% more votes than HRC in Iowa. Is that proof Trump won fair and square? Democrats don't seem to think so, yet they like this logic with a small minority of climate scientists. Why the double standard?
22 Jun 18
Originally posted by @sonhouseI don't know what that means. Accumulation of what? I have to understand it before I evaluate it.
Ah, you mean this from the abstract:
"This record most likely reflects the temperature and accumulation change, although the mechanism remains unclear"
Most likely? Mechanism remains unclear? So a one off event 'proving' your point should be used to characterize all CO2 data taken today?
Do you understand it? If so let me know what it means.
Alarmists have had their cause and effect backwards. Since the ice core samples do NOT prove CO2 drives temps you alarmists now have to establish how much CO2 warms climate. How much CO2 warms the climate is unknown. All I am saying is stop claiming you know how much. Lying or guessing is not science. Any moron can do that.
22 Jun 18
Originally posted by @metal-brainThis is merely parroting of opinions from well-funded and biased contrarians. Again, your inner toddler is saying that the carrots on your plate do not represent all carrots, but instead a small sampling, and therefore we don't really know what carrots are.
Predictions based on unreliable climate models is not evidence. I can predict you will die of a heart attack within 3 years. Is that evidence you will die?
What was the other one? Wasn't it scientists but not climate scientists that were polled? Refresh my memory.
What is the criteria for retracting papers? My guess is that it doesn't happen often. ...[text shortened]... , yet they like this logic with a small minority of climate scientists. Why the double standard?
Come back to reality, please. We don't require every citizens' vote to decide an election (in fact, it's less than half). We similarly don't require every scientist to weigh in before declaring a consensus. The data supporting the IPCC consensus is overwhelming. The evidence for a consensus is clear as day. Moreover, anthropogenic climate change is obvious if you take the time to look around at the world, and has been for a long time.
23 Jun 18
Originally posted by @wildgrassDo you support a study that gets at least half of climate scientist's opinions instead of less than 25%?
This is merely parroting of opinions from well-funded and biased contrarians. Again, your inner toddler is saying that the carrots on your plate do not represent all carrots, but instead a small sampling, and therefore we don't really know what carrots are.
Come back to reality, please. We don't require every citizens' vote to decide an election (in fa ...[text shortened]... hange is obvious if you take the time to look around at the world, and has been for a long time.
Originally posted by @metal-brainEvery climate scientist in the world could personally tell you their view, and you still wouldn't believe there is a consensus.
Do you support a study that gets at least half of climate scientist's opinions instead of less than 25%?
23 Jun 18
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraIf you could contact every climate scientist in the world you would neglect to contact the known skeptics in the style of Samuel George Morton.
Every climate scientist in the world could personally tell you their view, and you still wouldn't believe there is a consensus.
Do you support doing a poll that gets the opinions of at least half of climate scientists or are you happy with flawed studies as long as you get the result you want?
24 Jun 18
Originally posted by @metal-brainSo where is your paper published to show the world of climate science they are wrong and you are right?
If you could contact every climate scientist in the world you would neglect to contact the known skeptics in the style of Samuel George Morton.
Do you support doing a poll that gets the opinions of at least half of climate scientists or are you happy with flawed studies as long as you get the result you want?
BTW, what do you think is causing the obvious rise in temps world wide for the last 40 years? You think this is a cycle and we can breathe easy because in another 20 years the trend will reverse and all will be well?
24 Jun 18
Originally posted by @sonhousePolls are too expensive for me to do by myself. Are you going to fund me?
So where is your paper published to show the world of climate science they are wrong and you are right?
BTW, what do you think is causing the obvious rise in temps world wide for the last 40 years? You think this is a cycle and we can breathe easy because in another 20 years the trend will reverse and all will be well?
If the alarmists are right why are they afraid of a better study without all of the flaws? Don't you think they would embrace a real poll if it would support their position? One poll is not a good sign for your side. If you were right there would be several with much the same result. You should be embarrassed by that fact.
Obvious rise in temps world wide for the last 40 years? If it was obvious there would be no skeptics at all. We have been over this topic so many times I can't believe you don't remember. You always point to cherry picked data using surface temp data. The heat island effect is not representative of real warming world wide.
Once again, it is not enough to show there is warming alone. This warming trend started before the automobile was invented. All that proves is naturally caused warming is real, NOT anthropogenic warming.
Remember? You need to prove man is the main cause. That is what this is all about. You have NEVER done that.
Do you support a poll that gets at least half of all climate scientist's opinions of the ratio between natural and man made causes?
24 Jun 18
Originally posted by @metal-brainThat is YOUR mission, everyone else agrees we are in human caused climate change.
Polls are too expensive for me to do by myself. Are you going to fund me?
If the alarmists are right why are they afraid of a better study without all of the flaws? Don't you think they would embrace a real poll if it would support their position? One poll is not a good sign for your side. If you were right there would be several with much the same re ...[text shortened]... least half of all climate scientist's opinions of the ratio between natural and man made causes?
You putting that off on me just means you don't have to do any work, just unload you BS on us.
It doesn't work that way, you are the one making extraordinary claims so YOU have to provide the proof.
25 Jun 18
All the alarmists are avoiding my question. I asked them if they support a poll of at least more than half of climate scientists and none will answer. They are all clearly afraid of what the result will be since they have all failed to answer the question.
Remember Bush v. Gore and how James Baker didn't want certain counties in Florida to be recounted? Bush and Baker obviously were afraid of the results of the recount of those counties. Same thing with a better poll. Alarmists don't want another poll that is more thorough. They are fearful of the result much like republicans were fearful of a complete recount.
Yet another pathetic double standard!