Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ... 34567891011 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 170

Thread: NASA: peer review science show 97+scientists agree man causes global warming

  1. #91 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    15,288
    Thanks
    3,870
    Thanked 5,011 Times in 3,467 Posts
    Groans
    1,286
    Groaned 494 Times in 452 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lesh View Post
    Total dishonest mischaracterization.
    Look up divergence problem. Mann used real temps. This is old news. You must be really ignorant.

  2. #92 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    85,117
    Thanks
    2,505
    Thanked 16,531 Times in 10,535 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 578 Times in 535 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Micawber View Post
    Absurd. In fact idiotic. The basic science of greenhouse gasses not a scientific theory? That is the theory.
    What you are trying to say is that the apple does not continue to hit Newton on the head. That doesn't mean
    gravity does not force objects to attract, it means the experiment is wrong. You are trying to say
    the evidence does not support the greenhouse gas effect in order to disprove the basic science.

    Concede the basic science. Fool.
    Next concede we are pumping greenhouse gasses into the environment due to industry and cars.
    Then admit the planet is warming.
    Finally, stop being an irrational shill for big oil jerks who wouldn't pay your taxi fair out of town is you decided to
    disagree with them.
    Ignoring science because of belief is not okay. As I said, saying people believe something doesn't make a scientific theory.
    Excellence is an art won by training and habituation. We do not act rightly because we have virtue or excellence, but rather we have those because we have acted rightly. We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
    - -- Aristotle

    Believe nothing on the faith of traditions, even though they have been held in honor for many generations and in diverse places. Do not believe a thing because many people speak of it. Do not believe on the faith of the sages of the past. Do not believe what you yourself have imagined, persuading yourself that a God inspires you. Believe nothing on the sole authority of your masters and priests. After examination, believe what you yourself have tested and found to be reasonable, and conform your conduct thereto.
    - -- The Buddha

    It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
    - -- Aristotle

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Damocles For This Post:

    cancel2 2022 (08-12-2018)

  4. #93 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    15,288
    Thanks
    3,870
    Thanked 5,011 Times in 3,467 Posts
    Groans
    1,286
    Groaned 494 Times in 452 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Micawber View Post
    Absurd. In fact idiotic. The basic science of greenhouse gasses not a scientific theory? That is the theory.
    What you are trying to say is that the apple does not continue to hit Newton on the head. That doesn't mean
    gravity does not force objects to attract, it means the experiment is wrong. You are trying to say
    the evidence does not support the greenhouse gas effect in order to disprove the basic science.

    Concede the basic science. Fool.
    Next concede we are pumping greenhouse gasses into the environment due to industry and cars.
    Then admit the planet is warming.
    Finally, stop being an irrational shill for big oil jerks who wouldn't pay your taxi fair out of town is you decided to
    disagree with them.

    Correlation does not equal causation in metaphisics, but it does equal it in the practical world until you demonstrate an intervening, superseding or alternate proximate cause.
    The alarmist trick: conflate critcism of alarmist failed predictions with the science of radiative energy.

    Nobody doubts basic science when they critique failed predictions

  5. #94 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tinfoil View Post
    Look up divergence problem. Mann used real temps. This is old news. You must be really ignorant.
    He is, without any doubt.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to cancel2 2022 For This Post:

    Bigdog (08-12-2018)

  7. #95 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    1,254
    Thanks
    152
    Thanked 717 Times in 457 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 45 Times in 42 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tinfoil View Post
    Look up divergence problem. Mann used real temps. This is old news. You must be really ignorant.
    Look up..."Denier Bullshit"

    You'll find this nonsense

  8. The Following User Groans At Lesh For This Awful Post:

    cancel2 2022 (08-12-2018)

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Lesh For This Post:

    Micawber (08-12-2018)

  10. #96 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Micawber View Post
    A think-tank that has become the UK's most prominent source of climate-change denial is embroiled in a row about its charitable status. There are also claims that one of its trustees tried to exact "retribution" on the person who complained about it to the charities watchdog.

    The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), set up by the former chancellor Lord Lawson, a Conservative, was accused of publishing "inaccurate and misleading" information about climate science in a formal complaint to the Charity Commission in June last year.

    In his submission to the commissioners, Bob Ward, policy director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, said the "continual activity has damaged the public interest" and was a breach of the rules governing charities.

    After receiving advice from the commission, GWPF announced on Friday that it would create a non-charitable company that would be able "to conduct campaigns and activities which do not fall squarely within the educational remit of the charity".

    Mr Ward, well known for his attempts to hold climate-change deniers to account, said he had submitted the complaint in a private capacity. But he revealed that a trustee of GWPF had written to his employer, the London School of Economics, earlier this year accusing him of making "unacceptable", "ill-informed" and "ranting" comments in the media about global warming and energy policies despite not being an academic.

    In one letter, the trustee said the LSE should be aware that a "distinguished Oxford scientist" had told him: "It's appalling that the LSE employs people like Bob Ward." The trustee, whose identity Mr Ward requested be kept anonymous, did not mention his own link to the GWPF.

    Mr Ward, who is a fellow of The Geological Society, said he had informed the Charity Commission about the letters, only to be told they could not investigate.

    He has now written to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, which oversees the Charity Commission, to complain about the length of time it has taken the commissioners to act and its failure to look into the letters. He noted in his complaint that he believes the letters were "intended, at least partly, as a form of retribution against me for having raised concerns about the foundation with the Charity Commission".

    "This is the way in which the foundation goes about its business, trying to intimidate its opponents into silence," he told The Independent on Sunday. "For someone in a less secure position than [me], this could be extremely damaging."

    Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist who is director of the GWPF, said the foundation was not involved in the actions of the trustee.

    "I don't know anything about this letter …. This has nothing to do with the GWPF, which is unaware of any of this," he said.

    Dr Peiser confirmed the changes to the foundation were made following advice from the Charity Commission, but dismissed the role of Mr Ward, claiming that he "didn't feature at all" in their discussions with the watchdog.

    And he said that setting up the new non-charitable body "just makes us more effective and allows us to be a little bit more outspoken because, under charitable law, you cannot really campaign".

    The GWPF does not dispute the physics of climate change – such as the warming effect of greenhouse gases – but argues that the Earth's atmosphere is less sensitive than thought by the vast majority of scientists and that humans should simply "adapt" to the new conditions, rather than trying to prevent them from occurring by switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy.

    The Charity Commission said that Mr Ward's complaint was still an active case.

    "The commission has been engaging with the trustees of the charity [GWPF] since we received a complaint relating to some of its statements and published material," it said.

    "We advised the trustees that we did not consider that all the contents of the website advanced education, as required of a charity. In addition, we had raised a question with the trustees about whether all the content of the website was in line with our guidance on campaigning and political activity by charities."

    It said it had suggested that parts of the website should be "separated from the charity and hosted by an independent organisation" and the GWPF had submitted its proposals to do this.

    The Charity Commission added that it hoped the plans would be finalised by the end of July.
    https://web.archive.org/web/20140511...t-9350069.html


    Please limit your posts to copy peer review science from high impact scholarly journals. Thanks friend.
    Man you are truly a dopey fucker, that article directly refers to the two papers I posted ffs. I am not wasting my time with you, you are terminally braindead.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to cancel2 2022 For This Post:

    Bigdog (08-12-2018)

  12. #97 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    34,576
    Thanks
    5,715
    Thanked 15,145 Times in 10,539 Posts
    Groans
    100
    Groaned 2,987 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
    Man you are truly a dopey fucker, that article directly refers to the two papers I posted ffs. I am not wasting my time with you, you are terminally braindead.
    I don't care if you post 100 papers that refer to other papers you post, stupid fuck. What is your fucking point?
    It was warmer once? That's it?

  13. #98 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    34,576
    Thanks
    5,715
    Thanked 15,145 Times in 10,539 Posts
    Groans
    100
    Groaned 2,987 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Damocles View Post
    Ignoring science because of belief is not okay. As I said, saying people believe something doesn't make a scientific theory.
    That depends. Saying 97% of global warming scientists believe man introduced greenhouse gasses are causing global climate change is tantamount to confirming a scientific theory.
    If you were talking about 97% of all random people your point would be sharper, I think. I mean, unless you are assuming they are all asshats and don't do any science.
    But if they are indeed scientists doing science and they all believe it? That confirms validity, IMO. It doesn't "make" a theory if you are just making a semantic point.

    Scientists make scientific theories, right?
    So 97% of them "making one" aka ratifying or adopting one pretty much makes one, I thinK

  14. #99 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    85,117
    Thanks
    2,505
    Thanked 16,531 Times in 10,535 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 578 Times in 535 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Micawber View Post
    That depends. Saying 97% of global warming scientists believe man introduced greenhouse gasses are causing global climate change is tantamount to confirming a scientific theory.
    If you were talking about 97% of all random people your point would be sharper, I think. I mean, unless you are assuming they are all asshats and don't do any science.
    But if they are indeed scientists doing science and they all believe it? That confirms validity, IMO. It doesn't "make" a theory if you are just making a semantic point.

    Scientists make scientific theories, right?
    So 97% of them "making one" aka ratifying or adopting one pretty much makes one, I thinK
    There is no "tantamount", either the pieces are in place or they are not. Science isn't about what any group of people believes. Especially when the belief is what gives you a paycheck.

    Tons of people believe in God, it doesn't mean your pastor preaches science.
    Excellence is an art won by training and habituation. We do not act rightly because we have virtue or excellence, but rather we have those because we have acted rightly. We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
    - -- Aristotle

    Believe nothing on the faith of traditions, even though they have been held in honor for many generations and in diverse places. Do not believe a thing because many people speak of it. Do not believe on the faith of the sages of the past. Do not believe what you yourself have imagined, persuading yourself that a God inspires you. Believe nothing on the sole authority of your masters and priests. After examination, believe what you yourself have tested and found to be reasonable, and conform your conduct thereto.
    - -- The Buddha

    It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
    - -- Aristotle

  15. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Damocles For This Post:

    anonymoose (08-12-2018), Bigdog (08-12-2018), cancel2 2022 (08-12-2018), Sailor (08-12-2018)

  16. #100 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    11,073
    Thanks
    2,622
    Thanked 2,773 Times in 2,207 Posts
    Groans
    326
    Groaned 970 Times in 889 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Micawber View Post
    Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*:
    Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

    In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

    Official NASA statement here:


    https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
    Why don't you perverts ever lead by example? Just shut the fuck up and move to the forests.

    And PLEASE!! don't disturb the trees!!
    Free speech is cool as long as it jibes with our program.

    -- The Left


  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Granule For This Post:

    Bigdog (08-12-2018)

  18. #101 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    324
    Thanks
    272
    Thanked 79 Times in 62 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 21 Times in 19 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tinfoil View Post
    The alarmist trick: conflate critcism of alarmist failed predictions with the science of radiative energy.

    Nobody doubts basic science when they critique failed predictions
    Alarmist? Just look at what is going on in California. Is that my imagination?

    Some of it was arson, but that's nothing new.

  19. The Following User Groans At tff For This Awful Post:

    cancel2 2022 (08-12-2018)

  20. #102 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Micawber View Post
    I don't care if you post 100 papers that refer to other papers you post, stupid fuck. What is your fucking point?
    It was warmer once? That's it?
    Fuck, you are one stupid mofo!

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to cancel2 2022 For This Post:

    Bigdog (08-12-2018)

  22. #103 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,840
    Thanks
    13,241
    Thanked 40,785 Times in 32,151 Posts
    Groans
    3,660
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lesh View Post
    Look up..."Denier Bullshit"

    You'll find this nonsense
    science no longer agrees with you......

  23. #104 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,840
    Thanks
    13,241
    Thanked 40,785 Times in 32,151 Posts
    Groans
    3,660
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tff View Post
    Alarmist? Just look at what is going on in California. Is that my imagination?
    you can't blame lib'ruls on global warming.......

  24. The Following User Says Thank You to PostmodernProphet For This Post:

    Bigdog (08-12-2018)

  25. #105 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    1,509
    Thanks
    246
    Thanked 442 Times in 356 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 73 Times in 64 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Micawber View Post
    Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*:
    Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

    In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

    Official NASA statement here:


    https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
    The majority of scientists used to believe the world is flat. Just saying. The simple truth is that the scientific community has become politicized. They are all worried about funding. Those who go against the the majority do not receive funding. The ones who control the purse strings control the narrative. That's the simple truth.

  26. The Following User Says Thank You to Grugore For This Post:

    cancel2 2022 (08-12-2018)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-22-2014, 03:15 AM
  2. Democrats, NASA Scientists And Global Warming
    By cancel2 2022 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-16-2014, 11:31 AM
  3. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 09-07-2013, 04:50 PM
  4. NASA: nuclear war to fight global warming
    By tinfoil in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-28-2011, 04:47 AM
  5. Peer review climate science revealed
    By tinfoil in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 11-23-2009, 11:45 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •