I had to add this, people like Bob Carter are many times the source of debunked points that, just before that debunking takes place, all blogessors had already cut and paste in their never ending efforts to confuse people.
Always go for the source, the warnings they give are very important.
Fortunately you do see the blogessors posting corrections to their “This shows once and for all AGW is not happening” articles mentioned in the video, right?
Right, I did not think so, virtually all those debunked to death points are **still **pushed in the sites you are pointing there.
Then they do not need to lie, they need to work together to publish their ideas or modify the CERN experiment to deal with the hypothesis that they are mistakenly or misleadingly telling their readers is the correct conclusion or a fact. The blind telling the blind how to science is not science.
Unfounded accusation, what it is clear is that it is more likely that they, just like geneticists having to add specific warnings in their papers about not using their research to make racist policies, so do have the climate researchers and physicists getting the notice that throwing a bone to the deniers does more harm than good.
Gore’s family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residence, including signing up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch, installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology.
Gore has had a consistent position of purchasing carbon offsets to offset the family’s carbon footprint — a concept the right-wing fails to understand. Gore’s office explains:
What Mr. Gore has asked is that every family calculate their carbon footprint and try to reduce it as much as possible. Once they have done so, he then advocates
that they purchase offsets, as the Gore’s do, to bring their footprint down to zero.
Gore has a 10,000 square foot mansion in TN-with an indoor (heated basketball court). I wonder how many CFL bulbs it will take to offset that carbon?
Gore has a fleet of 11 MPG SUVs-which he likes to tool around in.
For a guy who is so concerned about AGW, he seems to have strarnge habits …but heck, he loves to lecture us "little people"about our evil energy habits.
The purveyors of Global Warming want control-that is the real object of this scam.
Far from me to defend the really stupid guys in the sceptic camp, especially those with little or no grasp of science.
However, the pont is that there has never been such a warning (that I know of) in the case of a AGW-affirming study.
Why shoudln’t we use science to help people? If the theory of CO2-fueled-AGW wer wrong whoudln’t we know it? shoudln’t we use the knowledge? shouldn’t we know if all the carbon-credit or CO2-abatement schemes are a waste fo time?
Loonies are loonies and fuck them hard, but I still think that “don’t draw conclusions” is wrong, always, for anything that is published.
So once again, you do need to stop relying on sources that are scamming you, but I’m not having many hopes for that, usually the ones getting scammed never demand better from their sources, I will always wonder why.
Again, you completely missed what I said. We are not doing everything possible nor should we do everything possible because it’s not an emergency problem and viable technologies are already on the cusp of making huge gains. Beyond that future technologies will replace those soon to be released today. It’s stupid to invest large sums of money in solar cell technology when we could build coal plants that scrub CO2 significantly cheaper.
It’s pointless to build cars like the Volt that nobody will buy when high mileage cars already exist. Better to have real cars on the road doing something good.
There are certainly things that government agencies can do to nudge things in the right direction but they need to be well thought out and held to some kind of standard if they fail to achieve a cost benefit break-even point. Wishing something will happen after spending large sums of money is not the way to accomplish it.
Gee, I thought you were making just a point about having a head in the clouds.
Anyhow, I pointed you at this source before that refers to the scientific papers published, the reality is that ever since scientists like Plass in the 50’s showed to be more accurate and the warming took place then that is what science does, it demonstrated with evidence that AGW is the best explanation for the current warming we are experiencing.
You are ignoring the big elephant in the room (Usually Republican ), denier sites do not look for knowledge, they have false conclusions or deny the evidence, very unlikely that good solutions will come from them since they star by claiming that there is no problem.
Sorry, but you wrought the loonies in, that can make me and others draw our own conclusion on who we should rely on.
Since researchers have investigated and began to give the alarm since the 50’s what we see now is the result of more than 60 years of confirming and improving the science. It is the main reason why scientists that were involved or related to climate research in the 60’s and 70’s were divided like this: 7 papers from those days predicted cooling but there where 44 articles that predicted global warming, 6 times more than the now becoming minority researchers.
Today among climate researchers the number of scientists that agrees that AGW is a problem has reached even higher levels, the biggest problem is that most deniers even deny that this progress has taken place or think that it all started with Al Gore.
Since I’m Peruvian, I don’t really give a house-rodent-pest’s anal orifice about stupid Republican-voting not-big-on-science guys on loonie blogs.
Science, gimme the hot science.
Funny thing is that most of the cites you brought came from looney Americans. But they were a couple good science ones that contradicted even the loonies, did you pay attention to the cites or did you get them from a Google Vomit?
Not, I got them form Bing Binges.
Can you point out a couple of specifically loonie stuff (unless loonie means being a denier or sceptic).
Cite 1 come from a libertarian.
Cite 2 from the Institute of Physics
Cite 3 is from the BBC (not a denier hotbed). I provided it for the phrase “If he is right, then we are going down the wrong path of taking all these expensive measures to cut carbon emissions; if he is right, we could carry on with carbon emissions as normal” by an AGWer scientist.
Cite 4 comes from a not-loonie looking place.
Cite 5 comes from a guy who wrote for New Scientist.
Cite 6 is from the same guy reporting on the CLOUD find.
Intriguing. What specific predictions about mean global temperatures were they making in, say, '98? Did papers from those days likewise split along a better than 6-to-1 ratio in predicting warming?
That link doesn’t actually say anything about whether they agree that AGW is a problem.
The title is Did CLOUD Just Rain on the Global Warming Parade? Just the old FOX question mark at end on a title that shows where the bias is.
There is a big gap on replicating previous results from a lab and assuming they apply to real clouds. This was indeed Smith’s point and this article supports his and my points in the thread.
So that was a binge search? For all purposes it is then a vomit, I was not sure before but now I am, because it is clear that on the way to making an automatic “Gish Gallop” you are missing what they really say:
If it is not loony, then it is a lying place as noticed already by Smith.
That is an opinion, nothing to do with the science.
Can not take him seriously after he titles another article “The global warmists’ dam breaks” by ignoring the fact that the effect in real clouds is minimal. On top of that it is clear that AGW has many other factors and forcings involved that are more important.
No, he is accusing the CERN researchers of minimizing the results (for political reasons) to conform to the well researched points that show that the effect on real clouds is minimal.
That is also an opinion piece.
The point remains that 2 of the articles do take perspective into account and show that the effect of cosmic rays is not really important to the overall issue. The rest are just opinions that show either lies or distortions about what the science really says.
Really, you are already on the record ignoring the evidence of what Plass predicted back in the 50’s, as mentioned before, the attempts of trying to make a mountain of this mole hill of a point of starting from '98 would mostly produce scientists just dealing with noise issues on the way to the continued warming that we are experiencing, unlike Bob Carter, they do not ignore the previous decades.
The A in AGW is from Anthropomorphic, that is human made, one question was: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”
As many other research papers of today show, and a super majority of scientists and scientific organizations agrees that (on the science academic organizations statement):
I’m not ignoring what Plass predicted in the '50s; I merely don’t want anyone to ignore predictions made in '98. You’re currently ignoring that request for information, is all.
Well, sure. But an answer to that question doesn’t reflect whether it’s a problem, as you said it did – only whether it’s a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures. I could readily answer “yes” to that one even if I thought changing mean global temperatures were (a) unproblematic, or (b) cooling.
Yes, as other research papers show. But you were for some reason describing the study you linked to.
Nope, I already posted the last video mentioning that Bob Carter was the one that came with that silly point. The experts report that Carter misrepresented the information from CRU, NASA and others. Carter misunderstood how warming trends are analyzed. Watch the video. As on a previews thread, I have to mention that the '95 year was chosen by deniers before because it leads to scientists to be precise and report that there was no significant warming trend. We can now on '95 and we will soon on '98 but it is painfully obvious that this was almost a literal moving of the goal posts, ****after ****the goal from the 50’s the 60’s, 70’s 80’s 90’s was already scored.
I’m referring to the whole cite, scroll down to see the scientific organizations mentioned that they agree with the consensus, and the conclusion is that that delayed action will increase the risk of adverse environmental effects and will likely incur a greater cost.
So, just to clarify: you’ll briskly post that “scientists that were involved or related to climate research in the 60’s and 70’s were divided like this: 7 papers from those days predicted cooling but there where 44 articles that predicted global warming” – but, when asked, won’t likewise post a quick sentence or two when asked to follow up about predictions made in the '90s? Just so we’re all clear.
Ah. So the poll itself doesn’t spell it out, but the link goes on to spell out that “The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that ‘most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities’”, and that “A letter from 18 scientific organizations to US Congress states: ‘Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science’”, and so on…
…but while I see multiple references to a consensus about whether climate change is occurring and why, the specific backup for your claim that "the number of scientists that agrees that AGW is a problem has reached even higher levels " isn’t actually reflected on that site itself, but might be found by following yet other links from the site, which (a) may or may not go further than saying that projected changes in climate will have both beneficial and adverse effects – but which (b) won’t actually specify whether the number of scientists who agree with said claim has reached even higher levels?
Just so we are clear, you promised all that you would deal with predictions posted, Plass made one, and many others in the 60’s and 70’s, but it is clear that your game is to really ignore it. You still think it is better to continue with a point that even skeptical scientists think is silly.
You are just protesting too much, and with the intention of not dealing with the conclusion that it is linked and referred to in the cite itself.
Pardon? I’ve stated that my primary concern with any scientific claim involves dealing with predictions that can currently be falsified; I’ve stated that I’m mildly interested in predictions that have already come to pass, but AFAIK only ever while adding that I’m more interested in predictions that can falsify it.
It’s the first question I usually ask about a scientific claim: not whether it’s tested well so far – because, had it already been falsified, there presumably wouldn’t even be a question – but how it can hypothetically be falsified going forward.
The cite itself makes no reference to what you claimed it did; without clicking on the links, no statements regarding whether it’s a problem can be found. The site admittedly provides links to other sites, and clicking on them can lead one to vague statements about how predicted climate change will have both beneficial and adverse effects – but still without specifying the change in number you claimed. You’re, like, protesting too much, is all; simply provide a better cite when linking to ostensible support for such a claim.
The same way, but it takes time, and this was explained many times before, it is clear you do not like the answer, too bad, but it is not a big deal when the record shows you would not be able to convince even skeptical scientists that this is a big deal.
The cite is there regardless, you were wrong, not a biggie.
