Into the Night (07-17-2019)
Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Theories are explanatory arguments. An argument is a set of predicates and a conclusion. A falsifiable theory means there is a test available the is specific an produces a specific result to try to break the theory.
Do YOU want to take a crack at defining 'global warming' or 'climate change'?
Revealing the impact of cosmic rays on the Earth’s climate
New evidence suggests that high-energy particles from space known as galactic cosmic rays affect the Earth’s climate by increasing cloud cover, causing an “umbrella effect”.
When galactic cosmic rays increased during the Earth’s last geomagnetic reversal transition 780,000 years ago, the umbrella effect of low-cloud cover led to high atmospheric pressure in Siberia, causing the East Asian winter monsoon to become stronger. This is evidence that galactic cosmic rays influence changes in the Earth’s climate. The findings were made by a research team led by Professor Masayuki Hyodo (Research Center for Inland Seas, Kobe University) and published on June 28 in the online edition of Scientific Reports.
http://www.kobe-u.ac.jp/research_at_..._07_03_01.html
The operations manager for the website that hosted the paper -- arXiv.org -- confirmed to Lead Stories in an email that there was no peer review and the simple posting of the short paper (11 pages) is not the same as being "published."
Did a peer-reviewed and published scientific study in Finland conclude that "man-made climate change doesn't exist in practice"? No, that's not true: A draft of a short research paper that has not been reviewed by scientific peers or published in an accredited scientific journal did make the claim, however, it has been called "deeply flawed" and discredited by other climate change scientists.
The proliferation of questionable "academic journals" that publish papers for a fee is a concern if they do not include a legitimate peer review process. Scientific studies are usually published in peer-reviewed journals relevant to the topic before journalists write about their conclusions. This is basic and important so that the reader has more confidence a research paper is valid.
https://hoax-alert.leadstories.com/3...snt-exist.html
domer76 (07-18-2019)
Forget it, you are wasting your time, one will tell you you don't know what you are talking about and include some obscure study by some equally obscure denier, and the other, will just dismiss anything you post cause he has his own "understanding" of Science that you can't comprehend
As I've said, they have both bought into the false paradigm and do their best to promote it as invalidating anything else regardless
Until you voluntarily stop breathing and emitting the CO2 you claim is causing the problem you say exists, you're a denier. When those that say a problem exists won't do their part to solve it, that tells me there is no problem and they have other motives for supporting such a stupid concept.
To me, there is always valuable pointing out that the Climate Deniers are unable to use, point to, or leverage a large body of peer-reviewed scientific literature from trained climate science experts with a track record of original research and publication.
They are left to grasp at blogs written by stock market analysts, blogs by mentally deranged "mushroom farmers", and in this case a non-peer reviewed article written by a materials scientist who specializes in optical spectroscopy and has no training or expertise in climate.
The few legitimate experts they can point to, aka Judith Curry, do not deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that human additions of CO2 to the atmosphere should result in global warming - though they question how well the impacts are understood and how severe they will be.
cancel2 2022 (07-18-2019)
cancel2 2022 (07-18-2019), Into the Night (07-17-2019)
Step (1) call them deniers! Despite no one actually denying climate or changes to it.
Step (2) Appeal really really really hard to authority. Call them 'experts'. Pretend they have track records that are actually good.
Step (3) belittle the actual scientists that debunk the cultist AGW morons with facts rather than emotional nonsense
Yes moron... the question is what is the impact. Why do the cultists continue to find ways to adjust data from the 1870-1950 range down and data is adjusted up for more recent 1950-current time frames? Why do their computer models continue to fail? Why have we seen no significant warming for almost 20 years, despite CO2 continuing to increase?
Bottom line, lemmings like Cypress will believe anything his masters tell him to believe. He is incapable of rational thought.
cancel2 2022 (07-18-2019), Into the Night (07-17-2019), tinfoil (07-17-2019)
Bookmarks