So this is a great opportunity to unequivocally demonstrate why forming your opinion on any science based on something from Breitbart is idiotic. Let's go to the very first actual paper they reference in this article. Presumably this was the best of the 400 alleged scientific papers that "Say ‘Global Warming’ Is a Myth". If you can get over your intellectual laziness to actually click through the link to that paper, you will find it is entitled "Quantifying climatic variability in monsoonal northern China over the last 2200 years and its role in driving Chinese dynastic changes"! If you actually go further and read the paper, it is indeed focused on what drove Chinese dynastic changes; it in no way whatsoever says "Global Warming is a Myth". The second article is entitled "The Influence of Solar System Oscillation on the Variability of the Total Solar Irradiance" and again if you actually bother to read the paper, which clearly no-one at Breitbart has (or probably even has the capability to do) you will see that it in no way supports anything claimed in the article. At this point I gave up reading the actual papers; it takes time for me to go look them up on my ebsco account and read them. However it's clear that EVERYTHING IN THE ARTICLE IS A COMPLETE LIE! It's not a misdirection, a misquote, or even a purposeful omission of important information, it's a complete fabrication. How could any semi-intelligent even partially rational person form opinions based on this total crap? Have you all lost your f*%&ing minds?
Basically, you've admitted to being a libtard Keep going. I'm sure somewhere in the 400 papers you might wise up https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2997420
This is a 19 page non peer reviewed paper by a professor emeritus in the business school at Sonoma State. The actual paper reflects that; you've read it before pontificating on it right? Remember, Ted Kaczynski has a PhD, those three letters don't mean you don't question what they say, quite the opposite if you really understand the scientific method. Would I expect a few good peer reviewed papers to come out in any given year questioning parts of the current global warming models? Absolutely, that's how science works. Would I claim that 400 academic papers "Say Global Warming is a Myth" when that's absolutely false? Obviously no rational person would, would you? But let's get back to "Quantifying climatic variability in monsoonal northern China over the last 2200 years and its role in driving Chinese dynastic changes". You've read that too, right? That paper in no way shape or form attempts to even determine if "‘Global Warming’ Is a Myth", let alone does it come to that conclusion as Brietbart falsely claimed. That's literally the first article in the list! If you can't admit that glaring but oh so convenient truth, then you have to question what you've given up in allegiance to an ideology? Come on, you're better than that! These guys are feeding you a line of crap and you're not questioning it. You're not that kind of sheeple person, and you certainly aren't someone who has to lower themselves to third grade name calling (har har, I combined the first three letters of liberal with the last three letters of retard, aren't I clever....seriously?)
Sorry but once again you've put your foot in it. Your offhanded dismissal of Mr. Munshi encouraged some digging. These are his credentials. What are yours? I await the list with baited breath Jamal Munshi Job Title: Professor Emeritus Department: Business Administration School/Division: School of Business and Economics Field/Specialization Finance Applied statistics Chemistry Chemical engineering Numerical methods Energy efficiency Current Areas of Research and/or Community Work Financial markets Market microstructure Capital structure Bank management Applied statistics Numerical methods Monte Carlo simulation Chaos theory Ozone depletion chemistry Climate change statistics Chess openings Contact Information Office Phone: (707) 664-2377 Email: munshi@sonoma.edu Additional Information Degrees: BS Chemical Engineering, San Jose State Univ, 1971 MS Chemical Engineering, Colorado School of Mines, 1975 PhD Business Administration, University of Arkansas Fayetteville, 1991
So the guy does everything, from markets microstructure to climate change statistics By that token, I have a PhD in physics (from a good school, unlike this guy), maybe I will write some papers on behavioral psychology or defense policy. PS. PhD from "University of Arkansas Fayetteville, 1991" while his masters was done in 1975. Something does not compute
Once again (you are making a habit of it) you're totally screwed. Typical liberal . Wrong 100% of the time and proud of it . You're likely wrong about Global warming too. San José State University (commonly referred to as San Jose State or SJSU) is a comprehensive public university located in San Jose, California, United States. It is the founding school of the 23-campus California State University (CSU) system, and holds the distinction of being the oldest public institution of higher education on the West Coast of the United States.[10][11] More San José State University alumni are hired by Silicon Valley firms than graduates of any other college or university,[18][19] and philanthropic support of SJSU is among the highest in the CSU system.[20]
Here's a guy bashing Munshi, just to show I'm not a liberal. https://667-per-cm.net/2016/06/05/on-munshi-mush/
Would not say anything bad about it - maybe not the top name school, but looks solid. I was mostly referring to the fact that he got his PhD late in life and his desire to do everything under the sun without any experience in the field. PS. My school is still better than his
I'm glad we agree that "Quantifying climatic variability in monsoonal northern China over the last 2200 years and its role in driving Chinese dynastic changes" in no way says that " ‘Global Warming’ Is a Myth" as the article incorrectly asserted. Your failure to answer on that is an answer itself, loud and clear. It's actually kind of funny, as I scroll through the articles in order of presentation I see in addition to the two I already listed... -"A staircase signal in the warming of the mid-20th century" which in no way claims that " ‘Global Warming’ Is a Myth" and in fact supports current global warming theory by pointing out a reason for the non-linearity of the warming. -"The combined influence of Pacific decadal oscillation and Atlantic multidecadal oscillation on central Mexico since the early 1600s" which again supports current global warming theory. The second sentence of the abstract is in fact "The impacts of future droughts are likely to become even more severe as the current global warming trend increases potential evaporation and moisture deficits." -"The primacy of multidecadal to centennial variability over late-Holocene forced change of the Asian Monsoon on the southern Tibetan Plateau", again in no way claims that " ‘Global Warming’ Is a Myth" ....and on and on until I finally get to the paper you referenced, the first that actually in any way asserts even part of what the article falsely claims all 400 articles assert, that " ‘Global Warming’ Is a Myth". And I realize you did this too. You saw what I posted, instantly said to yourself "I'll show this libtard he's wrong" and went through paper after paper that showed the Breitbart assertion to be a sham until you finally found one that comported to the article's claim, which then allowed you to somehow declare victory. Why would you do something like that? You're an otherwise intelligent and rational person judging from your posts here. Why would you go through paper after paper that clearly even to you didn't show that " ‘Global Warming’ Is a Myth" even though Breitbart lied and said they did. And you somehow came away from that experience not questioning why Breitbart blatantly lied to you, but deciding that anyone who pointed out those Breitbart lies deserved more of your third grade level "put your foot in your mouth" insults (not terribly effective, by the way, that's why most of us abandoned them around the 4th grade). Professor Munchi may very well have uncovered a valid point. I've initiated email correspondence with him to discuss his paper and how he drew his conclusions, you see that's how intelligent, well meaning people who believe in the scientific method proceed when they encounter information that disagrees with their previous hypotheses. Regardless of the outcome of that conversation, it in no way changes the fact that Brietbart out and out lied in that article, over and over. Why do you accept that, and even worse tie yourself to them by defending what is clearly indefensible? Again, you're better than that! And please, no false equivalence about a retracted CNN stories or complaints about "lamestream media". The difference is that people like me are pissed they say something that turns out to be false. You, on the other hand, are presented with clear evidence of a blatently false story and your response is to double down and hurl childish insults at the person pointing out what was false about it! Why? What drives you to do that, again when you seem so otherwise intelligent and rational? This is an extreme case of confirmation bias, which I know is a real thing, but I usually see it in those less educated or without any training in how to think, which doesn't appear to be you. Why?