- Joined
- Mar 31, 2013
- Messages
- 63,581
- Reaction score
- 28,948
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Funny. You read on these threads by the local resident fake scientists on how more and more scientists are dissenting from AGW theory. You read how therre is no consensus despite all the studies and common sense telling us all otherwise.
Well, a draft of the IPCC AR5 is out, and the certainty than AGW is real is actually RISING- 95% confidence vs 90%.
Funny how hard the deniers have to fight reality to defend their position
Climate Panel Cites Near Certainty on Warming - NYTimes.com
Do you think the IPCC has people on staff who have a vested interestFunny. You read on these threads by the local resident fake scientists on how more and more scientists are dissenting from AGW theory. You read how therre is no consensus despite all the studies and common sense telling us all otherwise.
Well, a draft of the IPCC AR5 is out, and the certainty than AGW is real is actually RISING- 95% confidence vs 90%.
Funny how hard the deniers have to fight reality to defend their position
Climate Panel Cites Near Certainty on Warming - NYTimes.com
BC the NYTimes is a non-biased reliable source..... :roll:
Funny. You read on these threads by the local resident fake scientists on how more and more scientists are dissenting from AGW theory. You read how therre is no consensus despite all the studies and common sense telling us all otherwise.
Well, a draft of the IPCC AR5 is out, and the certainty than AGW is real is actually RISING- 95% confidence vs 90%.
Funny how hard the deniers have to fight reality to defend their position
Climate Panel Cites Near Certainty on Warming - NYTimes.com
“It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010,” the draft report says. “There is high confidence that this has warmed the ocean, melted snow and ice, raised global mean sea level and changed some climate extremes in the second half of the 20th century.”
Please note the bolded areas. Since The warming between 1895 and 1946 iwas nearly identical to the warming between 1957-2008, what casued the warming between 1895-1946??
Do you think the IPCC has people on staff who have a vested interest
in keeping the alarm bells ringing, weather there is a crises or not?
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
What would be the odds of them saying, " ops, sorry folks we made a mistake,
we don't need our jobs any longer."
While almost all efforts to extend human knowledge are useful,Um, even if AGW were disproven climate science is an important field and climate does continue to change, with major impacts on humanity.
But I guess it's just easier to handwave scientific evidence with conspiracy theories than it is to actually disprove it.
Yep.So global warming has flatlined for over 10 years while carbon emissions have increased. Yet they are MORE confident in the human cause?
Sounds like you're looking for an excuse to ignore the evidence.Sounds like politics is ruling the day rather than science.
While almost all efforts to extend human knowledge are useful,
I feel our monies would be better spent adapting technology to our new reality.
I am a skeptic, I actually read the science papers.
One of the issues currently is the divergent data.
Co2 continues to rise, while the temperatures appear to have flattened out.
The further they get apart, the less connection they appear to have.
It is very difficult to disprove the connection implied in AGW,
as the connection has not been defined in a Scientifically testable way.
BTW, A conspiracy in science would be almost impossible, too much competition!
The problem as I see it is a contamination of the money source.
nsf.gov - Funding - Climate and Large-Scale Dynamics - US National Science Foundation (NSF)
Imagine trying to write a proposal for the above grant, and implying you don't
think the IPCC is on the right track.
The University I worked for had a graduate class called "Research Methods"
I audited the class, because research methodology is an area of interest to me.
It turned out the class was about gathering information and tuning
the RFP wording to improve your odds of winning the grant.
Funny. You read on these threads by the local resident fake scientists on how more and more scientists are dissenting from AGW theory. You read how therre is no consensus despite all the studies and common sense telling us all otherwise.
Well, a draft of the IPCC AR5 is out, and the certainty than AGW is real is actually RISING- 95% confidence vs 90%.
Funny how hard the deniers have to fight reality to defend their position
Climate Panel Cites Near Certainty on Warming - NYTimes.com
And what is this claim based on, exactly?It's not any kind of conspiracy. It's too many like- minded ( poltical ideology) folks who have agendas that compromise good science.
Who?Couple that with the fact that too many scientists have made a name for themselves promoting AGW theory. Do you think Gavin Schmidt or Michael Mann or Kevein Trnberth are ever going to say " Gee we were wrong" .
1) 2000 to 2010 was the warmest decade on record.They are right now furiously trying to come up explanations for the inconvenient fact that global warming has stopped.There is no chance that theory can be wrong.
And what is this claim based on, exactly?
Did you examine the roster of scientists on the panel? Where they studied? Where they work? No. You are looking (barely) at the conclusion, and hunting for reasons to reject it.
.
And what is this claim based on, exactly?
.
Right. So when I ask if you've reviewed the CV of anyone on the panel, the answer is "no." As I expected.“On the one hand we are ethically bound to the scientific method....
I also accept that water is composed of two hydrogen and one oxygen atom, despite not having physically examined every single water molecule in existence.....and you accept it. Without question.
“It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010,” the draft report says. “There is high confidence that this has warmed the ocean, melted snow and ice, raised global mean sea level and changed some climate extremes in the second half of the 20th century.”
Please note the bolded areas. Since The warming between 1895 and 1946 iwas nearly identical to the warming between 1957-2008, what casued the warming between 1895-1946??
Oh, and that quote? Schneider was criticizing soundbites, not the actual practice of science.
nt].
The reason I accept such things (including AGW) without spending decades poring over and/or replicating the relevant experiments is because the evidence ranges from excellent to overwhelming. Scientists are also repeatedly testing each other's data, looking for flaws and alternate theories.
.
Nope... as with Climategate, a handful of phrases were taken out of context, and distorted.Bullshiite. In his first statement he was honestly pointing out the state of the state climate science.
Nope... as with Climategate, a handful of phrases were taken out of context, and distorted.
Again, all we see from deniers is cherry-picking and willful distortions, rather than actual science. Quelle surprise.
So global warming has flatlined for over 10 years
LOL. YEah ok. You forget to add it was investigated by indepenedent panels. ( laff)
Willfull disortions--you mean like Mike's Nature trick?
<brilliantly decribed here>
Mike’s Nature Trick | Debunk House
"There are none so blind as those who will not see"
The late 20th century tree ring data is known to have problems. The instrumental record is better.
.
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?