Yes, the statistics out of the sciences when leaving out certain variables, with the broken models we have, says CO2 is a problem.
I trust that one day, these sciences will come around. This branch of science still has growing pains.Like I said, if you are so certain that the majority of the earth's experts are wrong on this point, you should publish.
I trust that one day, these sciences will come around. This branch of science still has growing pains.
How can you possible say that?Yes, I'm sure you see the future quite clearly. And the world's experts over the last 60 years are all just really stupid.
How can you possible say that?
I have been consistent in saying the scientists, in general, write good papers, and it's a very small number of them I have a problem with. I wish they could write them with more definite words, but the science isn't very precise. I have a problem with how the pundits lie about what the papers say.
Please don't forget this. Please start learning a thing or two about me instead of your default mode of saying I do something I do not.
Yes, the statistics out of the sciences when leaving out certain variables, with the broken models we have, says CO2 is a problem.
Then why do you repeat reports from government agencies, which are often flawed. How about reading the actual papers instead of the IPCC cherry picked material.Oh, so all along your critiques have been solely aimed at the pundits? My bad! So your insistence that solar and other factors are being "ignored" was that the PUNDITS ignored these things, not the scientists? That makes much more sense because I showed you time and again how the scientists are NOT ignoring your favorite forcings.
Well, then, that's fine! Because I don't much care what the pundits say. I'm far more interested in what the SCIENTISTS say.
First, keep in mind I said "the statistics." Statistics do not make facts. I'm not judging the scientists for leaving out variables they choose to leave out. I am not in their shoes and don't know their reasoning. Their work from what they use is correct. Keep in mind. How many papers go with things like "if we assume...." for the propert of something or a quantity of something. They do an exercise of "what if's" quite frequently. Then a pundit will come around and claim this what if scenario is reality.But I'm curious why you say something like this:
Yes, the statistics out of the sciences when leaving out certain variables, with the broken models we have, says CO2 is a problem.
That doesn't sound like a critique of the "pundits" nor does it sound like you are complaining about a "small number" of the scientists with whom you disagree.
Sounds somewhat, shall we say, "imprecise" in your target.
How about reading the actual papers instead of the IPCC cherry picked material.
First, keep in mind I said "the statistics." Statistics do not make facts.
I don't think I have, but for the record, you misrepresent what I say chronically.Dude, please stop misrepresenting the facts. I have, on this forum itself, provided MULTIPLE PEER REVIEWED CITATIONS when I make a point.
Please.
Naw.I don't think I have, but for the record, you misrepresent what I say chronically.
Was your link in post #105 in this thread a peer reviewed citation?Dude, please stop misrepresenting the facts. I have, on this forum itself, provided MULTIPLE PEER REVIEWED CITATIONS when I make a point.
Was your link in post #105 in this thread a peer reviewed citation?
Geenland Melt Tied to Plume
It means human are having a measurable impact on the climate and the results of which may not be good for us so we should start to act in such a way that we moderate our effect on the climate. In my viewpoint, the largest affect we have on the climate is due to land use changes and pollution...debatepolitics.com
This is about the extent most you guys do. Cite a writing by a journalist that misrepresents a peer reviewed paper.
What a load of crap!!I don't think I have, but for the record, you misrepresent what I say chronically.
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?