Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice"

Cypress said:
If true, it tells me that they were avoiding the peer review process.

Anyone who is confident in their research is not afraid to have subject matter experts review it for a refereed scholarly journal.

In general, anyone who is hesitant to run their research through the normal channels of peer review has something to hide, or is not confident in their science.
Click to expand...

Consensus is not used in science.
 
Gonzomin said:
The vast amount of data collected backs Global warming and man's factoring in it.
Click to expand...
What data? Define 'global warming'.
Gonzomin said:
97 percent of climate scientists and over 90 percent of the others are on board with the science and the data.
Click to expand...
Math error. Failure select by randN. Failure to provide raw data. Failure to remove bias from raw data. Failure to normalize by paired randR. Failure to calculate margin of error.

Science isn't scientists, or even people at all. Science doesn't use consensus. Science is simply a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more.

There is no theory about 'global warming' or 'climate change' possible. Not even a nonscientific one. You must first DEFINE these phrases.

Gonzomin said:
If you choose to, you can find a paper written by outsiders to the science and wave their papers as real.
Click to expand...
There is no 'outsiders to science'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Science is not people. Science is not a club. Science is not an academy, society, university, government agency, or people at all.
Gonzomin said:
you can find societies that back flat earth theories too.
Click to expand...
Sure you can. What's that got to do with anything? Non-sequitur fallacy.
Gonzomin said:
They do not change the science.
Click to expand...
You are denying science. Specifically, you deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Gonzomin said:
But they are just as certain as you anti-science people are.
Click to expand...
Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that is anti-science here.
Gonzomin said:
Global warming is real
Click to expand...
Then define it.
Gonzomin said:
and man is a huge contributor.
Click to expand...
To what? You have yet to define 'global warming' or 'climate change'.
Gonzomin said:
However, regardless of what you believe, the only mistake is doing nothing. If all the scientists are correct, we must fight to save the world from disaster. If we do that and they were wrong, we will have to settle for cleaner air, land and water.

Taking a risk with the whole planet because you do not believe in science is just wrong.
Click to expand...
Pascal's Wager fallacy.

Did you know that Pascal tried to use this very same kind of argument to justify Christianity as science?
 
reagansghost said:
I love the way climate change is decimating the south, hurricane season is even 2 months early, wow

let's hope everyone gets out alive and finds work anywhere that will take them in!
Click to expand...

Define 'climate change'. Hurricane season begins in May and ends in November, dumbass.
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
It's weird how they formatted their paper to resemble something that would appear in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal - but as far as I can tell it is just a PDF they wrote and put on the web. It has not been published in a peer reviewed academic journal.

The only thing I could find about the lead author indicates he is a materials scientist with a background in optical physics and spectroscopy. I could find no indication he has any training or expertise in climate science, nor that he has published any original research in climate science in any reputable scholarly peer reviewed journal.

http://users.utu.fi/jyrkau/jyrki kauppinen/
Click to expand...

Consensus is not used in science. Nothing restricts a scientist from publishing a theory in any particular way. They do not have to use any particular journal, magazine, newspaper, or official channel of any kind. Galileo simply published in a small book. Newton published in a rather larger one. Einstein typically used newspapers and letters. Kepler simply taught to any students that would listen as he wandered the countryside. Descartes published in a church journal. Many company scientists publish only in company literature. Faraday published by demonstration. So did Dewar. Wilson used photographs and diagrams, just given to friends and colleagues.

There is no 'climate science'. Climate 'scientists' deny science and mathematics. They are nothing more than high priests in the Church of Global Warming.
 
archives said:
The usual Flat Earther "arguement," they attempt to create a false paradigm, introduce some study from usually a questionable source as if it or dozens like it were going to cancel out the thousands of other studies validating man made climate change. Cook alone surveyed over fourteen thousand research projects to come up with the ninety seven percent, and now this study, or the dozens others like it, are going to negate all of those other studies? Common sense takes precedent

Been there, done that, nothing new
Click to expand...

That certainly counts you out.
 
If the man-made global warming enthusiasts went with the idea to keep our planet clean "because it's the smart thing to do", rather than "the sky is falling" message, much more people would have gotten on board.
But, nope, they had to be fear mongering power grabbing zealots.
 
Overall, we rate Science Daily a Pro-Science Source based on proper scientific sourcing and a clean fact check record.
Detailed Report

Factual Reporting: HIGH
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180

History

Founded in 1995 by married couple Dan and Michele Hogan, Science Daily is an American news website for topical science articles. It features articles on a wide variety of science topics including: astronomy, exoplanets, computer science, nanotechnology, medicine, psychology,sociology, anthropology, biology, geology, climate, space, physics, mathematics, chemistry, archaeology, paleontology, and others.

Funded by / Ownership

Science Daily is held by Science Daily LLC, which is owned by Dan and Michele Hogan. The website generates revenue through online advertising.

Analysis / Bias

In review, Science Daily is primarily a science news aggregation and curation site. The articles are selected from news releases submitted by universities and other research institutions. There is little bias exhibited as they tend to only publish pro-science information. In general, this is a popular science site that summarizes reports in one paragraph and then links to the full article. They never skew data and summarize properly, based on our numerous reviews.

A factual search reveals they have not failed a fact check.

Overall, we rate Science Daily a Pro-Science Source based on proper scientific sourcing and a clean fact check record. (D. Van Zandt 8/20/2016) Updated (4/19/2019)
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/science-daily/
 
Havana Moon said:
That John Cook study has been thoroughly discredited, Arsecheese. Of course I wouldn't expect a partisan hack like you to be aware of that!

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming
Click to expand...

Now in addition to the usual dozen or so "studies" we have a dozen or so "reviews" of the preponderance of climate studies, as I noted, it is always about creating a false paradigm, here " fogcatcher" introduces a newspaper article supposedly negating Cook's work, love the part about twelve thousand studies isn't a representative number

By the way, Cook wasn't the only review done, there were a dozen others pretty much confirming his findings, and when the likes of NASA or the US Defense Dept concurs, common sense prevails
 
dukkha said:
I'm trying to get this stuff/ but it seems to me peer review is just getting a blessing from the already indoctrinated.

2 pages of disagreement, but you are the only poster to actually discuss the subject mater- shows how that goes
Click to expand...

That's like saying cause no one commented on the content of two pages on the geocentric theory that the geocentric theory is valid
 
CookieCrusher said:
If the man-made global warming enthusiasts went with the idea to keep our planet clean "because it's the smart thing to do", rather than "the sky is falling" message, much more people would have gotten on board.
But, nope, they had to be fear mongering power grabbing zealots.
Click to expand...

Thanks Rush
 
Truth be told, the whole Flat Earther movement is financed by those who stand the most to lose if the problem is addressed by creating a "opposing Science" to muddle the waters for those afraid that it is all going to cost them their F350 dually
 
archives said:
Now in addition to the usual dozen or so "studies" we have a dozen or so "reviews" of the preponderance of climate studies, as I noted, it is always about creating a false paradigm, here " fogcatcher" introduces a newspaper article supposedly negating Cook's work, love the part about twelve thousand studies isn't a representative number

By the way, Cook wasn't the only review done, there were a dozen others pretty much confirming his findings, and when the likes of NASA or the US Defense Dept concurs, common sense prevails
Click to expand...

Of course you're are too stupid to know that Prof. Richard Tol, the author of the piece in the Guardian, has been a contributor to the IPCC over the years. John Cook's methodology has been roundly condemned by many for its shoddiness. You do have to ask why he was so reluctant to reveal how it was conducted claiming it to be privileged information. Naturally climate alarmists like Arsecheese don't care about that, it's way beyond their ken.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html?m=1#Update2
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top