Even the Pope sides with Futurecurrents

Discussion in 'Politics' started by nitro, Jun 16, 2015.

  1. Not even one.

    Jem cannot find even one climate scientist that comes straight out and denies that which every science organization and climate scientist in the world says.


    That's pretty amazing.
     
    #1781     Aug 8, 2016
  2. jem

    jem

    you are the one who claims there is science showing man made co2 causes warming. Yet, you have produced no peer reviewed papers or even 10 scientists who state man made co2 causes warming.

    scientists


    1. The co founder of green peace Patrick Moore says no scientific proof co2 causes warming. (which is what I say.) I am not going to say it does not because its possible pizza causes global warming too. But I am not going to ban pizza without science. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ng-says-Greenpeace-founder-Patrick-Moore.html

    2. here is another scientist who says co2 is good for food production and does not cause warming...

    http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/10/07/scientist-carbon-
    dioxide-doesnt-cause-global-warming

    3.
    Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections
    These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

    Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes


    These scientists have said that the observed warming is more likely to be attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

    Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown
    These scientists have said that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural.

    Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences
    These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for society or the environment.

    Deceased scientists
    This section includes deceased scientists who would otherwise be listed in the prior sections.

    See also




     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2016
    #1782     Aug 8, 2016
  3. Not even one publishing climate scientist.
     
    #1783     Aug 8, 2016
  4. gwb-trading

    gwb-trading


    Because futurecurrents is the sole arbitrator of deciding who should be considered a publishing climate scientist.


    Note that not a single one of the people futurecurrents promotes has a degree in climate science. In fact most of the people he quotes don't even have degrees in science. His favorite climate change alarmist is a cartoonist.
     
    #1784     Aug 8, 2016
  5. jem

    jem

    plus he is wrong since humlum is a published climate scientist and his paper explains man made co2 does not even track with co2 in the atmosphere.
     
    #1785     Aug 9, 2016
  6. As for Humdrum et al. Basically, they are jokes.

    We have been very critical of the correspondence of Bye, Humlum, Stordahl. Some might even say harsh. But we must acknowledge that their contributions are very interesting. In fact, their letters provide with a perfect example of the strategies deployed by climate "skeptics" to twist the debate and sow doubt in the minds of the public. BHS articulate their argumentation around the defense of an ideal of scientific method they believe in while clearly violating the rules they pretend to respect. Citing irrelevant quotes or taken out of their context, misunderstanding fundamental concepts, concentrating on precise points without looking at the broad picture, cherry-picking or even inventing scientific facts and data in order to provide with justifications to their hypotheses, etc.

    So we would like to thank them from the heart, because they have chosen to be good examples of how science should not be done, how climate science can be at worst when left to the sole hands of so-called climate "skeptics".

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/humlum-at-it-again.html
     
    #1786     Aug 9, 2016
  7. Jem's list of "deniers"

    first one, A BOTANIST !!!! LOL

    And Judith Curry !!!! She doesn't deny man made global warming.
     
    #1787     Aug 9, 2016
    Ricter likes this.
  8. jem

    jem

    your website is sponsored by al gore and run by a cartoonist. and you can tell by the garbage that substitutes for thought and science.

    Humlum is a real scientists, his paper is peer reviewed and other papers ahve made the same conclusion. its a fact that co2 trails changes in ocean warming and cooling....

    but from your cartoonists website... from your article...

    your guy has a problem with humlum... because humlum properly states the IPCC does not crate a scientifically derived probability for global warming.

    "Their argument is articulated as follows: firstly, they dismiss categorically that a methodology exists which would allow for attributing the current observed global warming to human activities with a confidence of at least 90%. BHS pretend that the IPCC assigns confidence levels to scientific positions based on the outcome of a simple vote. They suggest that the more votes a statement (e.g., “global warming is mostly due to human activities”) receives, the higher confidence the IPCC assigns to it. As discussed below, this is by no means how the IPCC determinesconfidence levels. BHS are criticizing the IPCC for something it does not actually do."


    Then your guy writes the IPCC actually gets is probability this way.. it elicits experts views.

    "The method followed to derive these probabilities that define likelihood “may be based on quantitative analysis or an elicitation of expert views” [2]. In addition, whatever the outcome of the estimation process, sources of uncertainty must be mentioned and discussed"

    --


    What a joke you, your website and the IPCC is.














     
    #1788     Aug 9, 2016
  9. jem

    jem

    In short you sell a gas 2000 times more powerful than co2 for a living and you have never produced any science showing man made co2 is causing warming.

    And on top of that you lie... because every single expert in the world admits co2 levels trail ocean temps in the historical data base. there have been papers by nutters trying to explain that fact but they don't deny it.

    Stop lying your ass off about science.
     
    #1789     Aug 9, 2016

  10. Oh shut up, you crazed asshole. Just shut the fuck up.
     
    #1790     Aug 9, 2016