Even the Pope sides with Futurecurrents

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

  1. stu

    stu

    No scientific paper on any scientific subject explicitly states something exists beyond all doubt. You should first understand how science works. Science is proof without certainty.

    The fundamental basic scientific principles that support AGW have not been made false by any other scientific principles, theories or proposals. Nor is it going to be by 1350 pieces of skeptical commentary sometimes claiming it is science, when often it is no such thing.

    So like the great man said and it remains so, one would be enough.
     
    #2331     Nov 27, 2016
    futurecurrents and Ricter like this.
  2. piezoe

    piezoe

    I don't know anything about this relativity business you mention. In the scientific business, my racket, it is completely accepted as correct. But Hansen's hypothesis is a completely different matter. In the scientific community opinion is very divided regarding whether or not there is positive feedback and whether anthropomorphic CO2, at certain levels, is going to lead to catastrophic warming. There are highly respected atmospheric physicists and meteorologists on both sides of the issue. The media is mostly on one side and the politicians are on two sides depending on their party, and of course corporations come down on what ever side is best for profits. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks. Scientific matters are decided by mother nature, and man's job is to find out what mother nature has decided. I just wish that the Hansen hypothesis had never become "climate change". That's actually ridiculous. Climate is never completely static. This shows you the extreme politicization of this issue. That's no way to do science.
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2016
    #2332     Nov 27, 2016
  3. piezoe

    piezoe

    I sent a physicist colleague the citation to Ferenc Miskolczi's paper. If he as an opinion on it, I'll let you guys know what it is.
     
    #2333     Nov 27, 2016

  4. No, among the scientific community opinion is NOT divided about the feedback being positive. Virtually everything you say about this matter is either obfuscation, half truth or outright lie. If you really are a scientist you are a particularly clueless one on climate change.

    Have you ever read this book ?

    Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming

    It tells the story of how a loose-knit group of high-level scientists and scientific advisers, with deep connections in politics and industry, ran effective campaigns to mislead the public and deny well-established scientific knowledge over four decades. The same individuals who claim the science of global warming is "not settled" have also denied the truth about studies linking smoking to lung cancer, coal smoke to acid rain, and CFCs to the ozone hole. "Doubt is our product," wrote one tobacco executive. These "experts" supplied it.

    In particular, they say that Fred Seitz, Fred Singer, and a few other contrarian scientists joined forces with conservative think tanks and private corporations to challenge the scientific consensus on many contemporary issues.[2]
     
    #2334     Nov 27, 2016
  5. jem

    jem

    If you are going to cite some debunked studies... before you post it here... make sure it says man made co2 causes warming. That is very different than saying man is causing warming.


    31000 scientists are skeptical.
    Nasa rocket scientists are skeptical



    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
    [​IMG]
    Graph showing the ability with which a global climate model is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record, and the degree to which those temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. It shows the effects of five forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, and volcanic emissions.[74]
    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.




     
    #2335     Nov 27, 2016
    WeToddDid2 likes this.
  6. jem

    jem

    you did not even attempt to read the papers. otherwise you would have known many of the papers were doing research on solar cycles or el nino - la nino cycles... etc.

    so no... one would not have been enough as these were peer reviewed scientific papers.

     
    #2336     Nov 27, 2016
  7. jem

    jem

    that was la nina
     
    #2337     Nov 27, 2016

  8. And still, not a single quote from a single publishing climate expert saying man made global warming is not true. Or even anything close to that. Amazing.

    For instance, a randomn pick from above

    In his lectures, Legates has acknowledged that humans have a direct impact on the environment. However he has disputed large scale climatological studies where he claims that researchers fail to incorporate sufficient data involving increased solar activity, water vapor as a greenhouse gas, data contamination through expansion of the urban heat island effect surrounding data collection points, and many other key variables in addition to the human chemical emissions that are the sole focus of many climatological studies.

    and

    Legates is a signatory of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation's "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming".[10]

    The declaration states:

    "We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."

    nuff said



    And what do you think about those merchants of doubt which piezoe quite obviously is.

    https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome-psyapi2&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8&q=Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming&oq=Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming&aqs=chrome..69i57.954j0j4

    How do you feel about those scientists that lied about the effects of tobacco? How many cases of lung cancer did their lying cause? I think that they are evil.

    You seem to be avoiding this question.
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2016
    #2338     Nov 28, 2016
  9. jem

    jem

    I have given you dozens of articles and papers showing its the sun or the tides doing some or most of the climate change.

    what the hell are you lying about talking about? some red herring? or a strawman argument?


     
    #2339     Nov 28, 2016
  10. Ricter

    Ricter

    [​IMG]
     
    #2340     Nov 28, 2016
    futurecurrents likes this.