Since I know some people struggle with reading comprehension, let me repeat something I said earlier: ANYTHING other than a PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PAPER quality work is UNCONDITIONALLY INADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE. I don't care how much you think it falsifies the theory: Inferior sources have no place in a scientific discussion. So I don't wanna see any news stories, blogs, conspiracy theories, sob stories from current or former scientists who didn't get their studies accepted, etc. You wanna take on science? Then use science. If you see anything in the study or studies that you select that you believe to be wrong, you MUST use SCIENTIFIC methods to falsify the claim. This means you must produce a refutation that is worthy of harsh peer review. Furthermore, you should EXPECT that harsh peer review to happen. You must thoroughly cite your sources and back up your claims according to graduate-level research standards.
Even if you somehow pass all that, there is one more test your attack must survive: It must clearly imply that the anthropogenic climate change theory is completely wrong, or at the very least, highly questionable.
If so many climate scientists are supposedly influenced by political agendas, then the evidence should bear it out. So let's see that evidence. Now.
Specifically, here is what I am looking for: You find a peer-reviewed study published in the last ten years that supports the theory of anthropogenic climate change and proceed to debunk it. But here is the catch: Only peer-reviewed scientific research papers shall be admitted as evidence. Also, the more recent it is, the better; the older, the worse. Hint: You don't have to limit yourself to American-based studies; climate science is studied globally. Note that if you believe that if an climate change science is just a political ploy or a conspiracy, then this allows you access to other sources of information that are not allegedly tainted.
Since I know some people struggle with reading comprehension, let me repeat something I said earlier: ANYTHING other than a PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PAPER quality work is UNCONDITIONALLY INADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE. I don't care how much you think it falsifies the theory: Inferior sources have no place in a scientific discussion. So I don't wanna see any news stories, blogs, conspiracy theories, sob stories from current or former scientists who didn't get their studies accepted, etc. You wanna take on science? Then use science. If you see anything in the study or studies that you select that you believe to be wrong, you MUST use SCIENTIFIC methods to falsify the claim. This means you must produce a refutation that is worthy of harsh peer review. Furthermore, you should EXPECT that harsh peer review to happen. You must thoroughly cite your sources and back up your claims according to graduate-level research standards.
Even if you somehow pass all that, there is one more test your attack must survive: It must clearly imply that the anthropogenic climate change theory is completely wrong, or at the very least, highly questionable. MERELY POINTING OUT THAT THE STUDY HAS ERRORS OR FLAWS IS INSUFFICIENT to your case. You must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this well-established science is likely just a smokescreen.
Good luck! I'll be waiting...and something tells me, for quite some time.
Wrong way round I'm afraid .Skeptics have nothing to prove since they have no hypothesis to defend. Any burden of proof is entirely the alarmist one to establish
Climate changes. It is the one undeniable constant. Climate has gone through heating cycles and cooling cycles long before man and long since man and the industrial ages. Climate...changes. Its what it does.If so many climate scientists are supposedly influenced by political agendas, then the evidence should bear it out. So let's see that evidence. Now.
Specifically, here is what I am looking for: You find a peer-reviewed study published in the last ten years that supports the theory of anthropogenic climate change and proceed to debunk it. But here is the catch: Only peer-reviewed scientific research papers shall be admitted as evidence. Also, the more recent it is, the better; the older, the worse. Hint: You don't have to limit yourself to American-based studies; climate science is studied globally. Note that if you believe that if an climate change science is just a political ploy or a conspiracy, then this allows you access to other sources of information that are not allegedly tainted.
Since I know some people struggle with reading comprehension, let me repeat something I said earlier: ANYTHING other than a PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PAPER quality work is UNCONDITIONALLY INADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE. I don't care how much you think it falsifies the theory: Inferior sources have no place in a scientific discussion. So I don't wanna see any news stories, blogs, conspiracy theories, sob stories from current or former scientists who didn't get their studies accepted, etc. You wanna take on science? Then use science. If you see anything in the study or studies that you select that you believe to be wrong, you MUST use SCIENTIFIC methods to falsify the claim. This means you must produce a refutation that is worthy of harsh peer review. Furthermore, you should EXPECT that harsh peer review to happen. You must thoroughly cite your sources and back up your claims according to graduate-level research standards.
Even if you somehow pass all that, there is one more test your attack must survive: It must clearly imply that the anthropogenic climate change theory is completely wrong, or at the very least, highly questionable. MERELY POINTING OUT THAT THE STUDY HAS ERRORS OR FLAWS IS INSUFFICIENT to your case. You must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this well-established science is likely just a smokescreen.
Good luck! I'll be waiting...and something tells me, for quite some time.
While I've found most of the sceptic's arguments on this forum and on linked pages unpersuasive - and some of them downright absurd or even dishonest - I have to wonder whether this approach is much better. When someone produces a peer-reviewed scientific paper which they claim debunks an earlier pro-AGW paper and/or AGW theory in general, do you have sufficient expertise in mathematics, atmospheric science, oceanography, solar physics and so on to evaluate both papers competently?
Yeah, it is generally not considered a great opener to scientific debate to demand your opponent prove a negative.
But I will present the following anyway to as evidence that current predictions of warming are overstated:
View attachment 67160147
Climate changes. It is the one undeniable constant. Climate has gone through heating cycles and cooling cycles long before man and long since man and the industrial ages. Climate...changes. Its what it does.
You know what else changes though...AGW rhetoric. When Mr Gore was whipping everyone into a panicked frenzy, the correct phrase was 'global warming' (remember that?). But then, sadly, the global warming thing turned out to be rather unreliable, so the rhetoric was abandoned and "climate change" became the phrase dujoir. And good choice too...because now people can rant and rave on about "climate change deniers" when in reality...no one doubts that the climate changes. But what DOES remain in doubt is AGW. And THAT really goes to the crux of your OP.
Even though you cant prove AGW is the cause for client change, YOU want others to prove its NOT the cause. Sorry...doesnt work that way. You have to prove your position, not expect others to disprove your fairy tale position. You cant defend your position with the old "is it true that you are no longer still beating your wife" gimmick. You asking people to disprove the AGW theories is like me asking you to PROVE you are no longer ****ing the neighborhood pets and random farm animals. First, I theoretically...THEORETICALLY now...start of with a probably false premise (though...it COULD easily be true) that you are out violating the neighbors pets, THEN proceed as a given that you ARE and then expect you to PROVE you arent still doing it.
:lamo No. I wont be attempting to disprove your failed theories. Sorry. Burden of proof is at your feet. You offer a theory, you have to support it. Its not incumbent on others to disprove what you CANNOT prove.This is EXACTLY what the OP says will not work. Try again.
:lamo No. I wont be attempting to disprove your failed theories. Sorry. Burden of proof is at your feet. You offer a theory, you have to support it. Its not incumbent on others to disprove what you CANNOT prove.
Wrong way round I'm afraid .Skeptics have nothing to prove since they have no hypothesis to defend. Any burden of proof is entirely the alarmist one to establish
And we have our first flail. You are unable to disprove the theory (you do know what a theory actually means, right?) that humans are by far the number one cause of modern-day climate change. You know why? Because such counter-evidence DOES NOT EXIST. If climate change science were such bunk, or at the very least questionable you could easily find large stashes of studies that refute it. You do know how the scientific method works, right?
:lamo You expect others to DISPROVE your theory that you cant prove and think "I'm Weeeeeeenning!!!"And we have our first flail. You are unable to disprove the theory (you do know what a theory actually means, right?) that humans are by far the number one cause of modern-day climate change. You know why? Because such counter-evidence DOES NOT EXIST. If climate change science were such bunk, or at the very least questionable you could easily find large stashes of studies that refute it. You do know how the scientific method works, right?
The hypothesis I see most deniers put forward is: "All the world's scientists are paid whores, under the control of fat Al Gore and his marxist liberal agenda".
TBH, you seem to be giving the deniers too much deference. They don't realize that for most of us, scientific research is out of our league. It requires a substantial amount of knowledge, research, and understanding. That's part of why we should give scientists the respect that they deserve.
If only a handful of climatologists are sceptical of the alleged "consensus" of 97%, there is room for me to be sceptical of certain issues pertaining to the variable numbers that emanate from various sources.I've been trying to explain this to people for many years now, nobody seems to get it. And I'm not just talking about climate change on this forum. People don't get it that many issues are many factors more complicated than they are capable of understanding. Not because they are stupid, but because they lack the education and many hundreds or thousands of hours of research experience necessary to have an intimate understanding of the entire big picture. Take for instance a picture of a graph showing some data. It is one data point out of thousands that when interpreted as part of the big picture may support one position, but when taken by itself seems to support another.
Laymen are not climate scientists and we'd be better off to listen to the entire body of expert opinion but many don't trust scientists if they don't like their conclusions. Further muddying this issue are tv "experts" that are often laymen pretending to know what they're talking about.
I'm sorry, did you read the OP? It does not ask for a drive-by posting of one's favorite study. It clearly asks for an analysis of not just the results but the methods. Where did that chart come from? How do we know its methods are reliable? Do they coincide with other studies? If they do, what are the implications, not just imagined but actual?
Yeah, it is generally not considered a great opener to scientific debate to demand your opponent prove a negative.
But I will present the following anyway to as evidence that current predictions of warming are overstated:
View attachment 67160147
Furthermore, here is the IPCC scenario projections of CO2 rise:
View attachment 67160148
They did a pretty good job with their high prediction of CO2 increase over that time.
Only trouble is that the actual warming didn't follow their High CO2 scenario... it actually fell below their low CO2 scenario.
Obvious conclusion: Their CO2 forcing model is junk. They can argue, as they are now, that there were unforeseen natural drivers that are acting against the CO2 warming. At this point I would like to scream WELCOME TO THE SKEPTICS WHOLE POINT YOU NIT WITS.
If the theory of anthropogenic climate change were actually stated, perhaps someone could debunk it.If so many climate scientists are supposedly influenced by political agendas, then the evidence should bear it out. So let's see that evidence. Now.
Specifically, here is what I am looking for: You find a peer-reviewed study published in the last ten years that supports the theory of anthropogenic climate change and proceed to debunk it. But here is the catch: Only peer-reviewed scientific research papers shall be admitted as evidence. Also, the more recent it is, the better; the older, the worse. Hint: You don't have to limit yourself to American-based studies; climate science is studied globally. Note that if you believe that if an climate change science is just a political ploy or a conspiracy, then this allows you access to other sources of information that are not allegedly tainted.
Since I know some people struggle with reading comprehension, let me repeat something I said earlier: ANYTHING other than a PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PAPER quality work is UNCONDITIONALLY INADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE. I don't care how much you think it falsifies the theory: Inferior sources have no place in a scientific discussion. So I don't wanna see any news stories, blogs, conspiracy theories, sob stories from current or former scientists who didn't get their studies accepted, etc. You wanna take on science? Then use science. If you see anything in the study or studies that you select that you believe to be wrong, you MUST use SCIENTIFIC methods to falsify the claim. This means you must produce a refutation that is worthy of harsh peer review. Furthermore, you should EXPECT that harsh peer review to happen. You must thoroughly cite your sources and back up your claims according to graduate-level research standards.
Even if you somehow pass all that, there is one more test your attack must survive: It must clearly imply that the anthropogenic climate change theory is completely wrong, or at the very least, highly questionable. MERELY POINTING OUT THAT THE STUDY HAS ERRORS OR FLAWS IS INSUFFICIENT to your case. You must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this well-established science is likely just a smokescreen.
Good luck! I'll be waiting...and something tells me, for quite some time.
Fail.And we have our first flail. You are unable to disprove the theory (you do know what a theory actually means, right?) that humans are by far the number one cause of modern-day climate change. You know why? Because such counter-evidence DOES NOT EXIST. If climate change science were such bunk, or at the very least questionable you could easily find large stashes of studies that refute it. You do know how the scientific method works, right?
Ah I see, you are another climategate denier.
Anyone who has read the climategate e-mails that wikileaks released in 2009 and understands their implications knows that those charts are bunk. The IPCC is a corrupt political body, not a scientific body.
Those charts you posted are not based on sound science.
I'm sure you could post a link to at least one comment similar to that?The hypothesis I see most deniers put forward is: "All the world's scientists are paid whores, under the control of fat Al Gore and his marxist liberal agenda".
Argumentum ad ignorantiam.You are unable to disprove the theory (you do know what a theory actually means, right?) that humans are by far the number one cause of modern-day climate change. You know why? Because such counter-evidence DOES NOT EXIST.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?