"global warming petition project" peer reviewed and everything???

UncleBuck · Feb 22, 2014

jahbrudda said:
So you would have to ask, what is wrong in saying, we just don't know as yet?

9,136 peer reviewed studies disagree with you.

1 doesn't.

you are an idiot.

UncleBuck · Feb 22, 2014

NLXSK1 said:
The sea rose 6 CENTIMETERS???

yep, exactly as the models predicted.

heckler73 · Feb 22, 2014

jahbrudda said:
So you would have to ask, what is wrong in saying, we just don't know as yet?

There is a lot of physics in climate science that is ignored...hell, there's a lot of physics that is ignored in physics!
We may know everything, but it has yet to be compiled into a holistic model or hypothesis. As these anomalies crop up, they will be studied and their data, crunched. Eventually, the pieces of information will work their way into the various models and hopefully give more accurate forecasts.

Nevertheless, I am of the opinion (based on study of contrasting research) we don't know enough. Early warnings become false alarms too easily in this field, still.
In many ways, climate science suffers from similar problems to economics; excessive reliance on abstract regression models, funding bias, ill-conceived assumptions, etc.
I think science will figure this stuff out eventually, perhaps not in our lifetimes, though.

jahbrudda · Feb 22, 2014

UncleBuck said:
9,136 peer reviewed studies disagree with you.

1 doesn't.

you are an idiot.

That's a blatant lie, there are no peer reviewed studies supporting the accuracy of the computer models being inaccurate in the last 17 years, it just doesn't exist.
Just about every model was found to be way off it's predicted projection, you just refuse to believe you are wrong.

UncleBuck · Feb 22, 2014

jahbrudda said:
That's a blatant lie, there are no peer reviewed studies supporting the accuracy of the computer models being inaccurate in the last 17 years, it just doesn't exist.

next time, try putting your sentences in english.

jahbrudda said:
Just about every model was found to be way off it's predicted projection, you just refuse to believe you are wrong.

jahbrudda · Feb 22, 2014

heckler73 said:
There is a lot of physics in climate science that is ignored...hell, there's a lot of physics that is ignored in physics!
We may know everything, but it has yet to be compiled into a holistic model or hypothesis. As these anomalies crop up, they will be studied and their data, crunched. Eventually, the pieces of information will work their way into the various models and hopefully give more accurate forecasts.

Nevertheless, I am of the opinion (based on study of contrasting research) we don't know enough. Early warnings become false alarms too easily in this field, still.
In many ways, climate science suffers from similar problems to economics; excessive reliance on abstract regression models, funding bias, ill-conceived assumptions, etc.
I think science will figure this stuff out eventually, perhaps not in our lifetimes, though.

You are spot on with that honest assessment.
You touched on one the main reasons I am such bitter cynic, it's the lack of funding by the federal government on the study of the natural causes.
I've read where over 90% of government grant money goes to research geared towards man made climate change exclusively.

jahbrudda · Feb 22, 2014

UncleBuck said:
next time, try putting your sentences in english.

Buck, you are so far off, it doesn't even warrant another try.
Go put your kkk hood on and role play with your new friends, hopefully, you will be much better at that.

Padawanbater2 · Feb 22, 2014

NoDrama said:
That's not how science works

Where is the missing link?

jahbrudda said:
Buck, you are so far off, it doesn't even warrant another try.
Go put your kkk hood on and role play with your new friends, hopefully, you will be much better at that.

What would you accept as irrefutable proof of anthropogenic climate change?

UncleBuck · Feb 22, 2014

jahbrudda said:
over 90% of government grant money goes to research geared towards man made climate change exclusively.

citation needed.

try not to cite any creationists, rush limbaugh proteges, politicians funded by politicos, or white supremacy organizations like you have done so far in your stay here, socko.

Padawanbater2 · Feb 22, 2014

UncleBuck · Feb 22, 2014

Red1966 · Feb 23, 2014

kpmarine said:
A review of that website does not impress me. No scientific article that appeals to "31,487 Americans with university degrees in science including 9,029 PhD..." as it's premise, and fails to state how they are qualified, should be taken as informed. Business administration is a university science degree; as is journalism, food science, hospitality management, pharmacy, psychology, nutrition science, mechanical engineering, and software engineering. The list of doctorates is even broader. This whole premise is based on an appeal to authority, not expertise. I'd like to know how much research a person with a PhD in journalism has done regarding global warming for his/her doctorate thesis and beyond. Your site may have valid points somewhere, but they're buried under a shitty premise.

Yet you try to pretend that 97% of all eco-nuts writing articles about man-made global warming somehow translates to 97% of all scientists supporting your "consensus".

Rob Roy · Feb 23, 2014

UncleBuck said:
yep, exactly as the models predicted.

I dated a model once. Man what a pain in the ass, always eating salad and worrying about her hair and stuff.

Red1966 · Feb 23, 2014

Padawanbater2 said:
What's funny is the only people who deny the science behind climate change and the overwhelming consensus in support of it are older than 40 years old and have little to no basic understanding of how modern science works. Can someone younger than 40 be found who denies climate change is happening? That should tell you old folks something..

That young people. lacking experience, are gullible? If you think wisdom declines with age and experience, you are an idiot.

Red1966 · Feb 23, 2014

Padawanbater2 said:
Myself and 98% of It's a common theme among that demographic, science and education is not something they value. They don't accept the theory of evolution for similar political reasons, is that just a coincidence?

How did "97% of articles written about global warming agree that man causes it" become 98% of the worlds leading scientists?

NLXSK1 · Feb 23, 2014

Half the graphs you show have already been admitted by the IPCC to have been rendered false due to manipulation of data...

But they look cool!! And the internet is forever!! So you show those cool discredited graphs till you pass out in your own vomit... You go boy!

Red1966 · Feb 23, 2014

Padawanbater2 said:
Then no, you don't accept the theory of evolution.. Evolution happens, but not to humans? wut..

Humans are de-evolving.

Red1966 · Feb 23, 2014

Padawanbater2 said:
Well, while you sit around and wait for the missing link, the rest of the scientific community will continue to innovate in the field of renewable energy Where's the controversy? Is it from the hundreds of thousands of independent researchers and dozens of national academies of science all reaching the same conclusion independent of one another or the scientifically ignorant obviously politically biased back country hicks who didn't know the latest years on record have been the hottest since we began keeping track?

" the hundreds of thousands of independent researchers " Now you're just making shit up. It was warmer during the Renaissance than it is now.

kpmarine · Feb 23, 2014

Red1966 said:
Yet you try to pretend that 97% of all eco-nuts writing articles about man-made global warming somehow translates to 97% of all scientists supporting your "consensus".

Did I do that? I seem to recall pointing out how shitty a particular premise was.

kpmarine · Feb 23, 2014

Red1966 said:
Humans are de-evolving.

Since evolution is not dictated by what you consider to be advancement. You need to explain how we are currently failing to follow the path of natural selection.

"global warming petition project" peer reviewed and everything???

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member