Global Warming Update

[Katzndogz]

Oregon has an answer for reducing use of fossil fuels. Burn bodies instead.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Is it your contention that the studies disagreeing with your findings are not
"peer reviewed"?

Is it your contention that ALL of the evidence provided to show you that it isn't happening are wrong?

Is it your contention that emails from the East Anglia folks showing that they knowingly fudged the data not true?

Yes

Maybe, is it peer reviewed for accuracy?

No but that, or Al Gore, Solyndra, Green Tech etc...None of that changes the science and the science says that Global warming is real.

Your turn.

What are you turning to as evidence that Global Warming isnt real? Faith?

I am on an IPAD right now, I have no idea how to post things on it.

There is NO reason to "peer review" for anything OTHER than accuracy.

I'll ask again and maybe its your Ipad preventing you from answering. IDK.

What are you turning to as evidence that Global Warming isnt real?

 

[Mustang]

Believing it does not make it true, claiming the science is "settled" does not make it true.

Were I to post a study showing my view to be true you'd simply discount it out of hand.

Just because you like that 7 out of ten "scientists" agree with you does not make it true.

Consensus is NOT (not that I agree there is a consensus) science.

I didn't say that science proved that humans are causing climate change.

I said that the greenhouse effect is a proven fact. It is.

Some people may be willing to embrace the notion that human activity (and the greenhouses gases we put into the atmosphere) is not significant enough to make a difference in the climate. But it's STILL a fact that the greenhouse effect is real.

So, the REAL question is what level of increased CO2 introduced to the atmosphere is necessary to affect the climate. If that's ever established, it won't make a difference what the source of the CO2 is. Whether it's natural, or caused by humans, it will have the same effect because the atmosphere does not distinguish between the two; it reacts the same way, regardless of the source.

There are many studies showing that Water Vapor is the culprit, not co2.

Not valid studies. Do you know why? I think it's for three reasons, although at this point, I can only remember two of them. But the main reason is because water vapor only exists for a short time. Above or below a certain temperature, it ceases to be a factor. That's why we have rain and or snow. In other words, it doesn't build up over time. There is a saturation point beyond which it can't increase. CO2 can exist regardless of the temperature near the surface of the planet, and it doesn't fall out of the atmosphere.

 

[Antares]

Yes

Maybe, is it peer reviewed for accuracy?

No but that, or Al Gore, Solyndra, Green Tech etc...None of that changes the science and the science says that Global warming is real.

Your turn.

What are you turning to as evidence that Global Warming isnt real? Faith?

I am on an IPAD right now, I have no idea how to post things on it.

There is NO reason to "peer review" for anything OTHER than accuracy.

I'll ask again and maybe its your Ipad preventing you from answering. IDK.

What are you turning to as evidence that Global Warming isnt real?

What part of "I am on an IPAD right now and I do not know how to post things on it" don't you understand?

I can't post them right now, does that help?

 

[frigidweirdo]

There are many studies showing that Water Vapor is the culprit, not co2.

There's more water vapor now than before? Is this what you're saying?

 

[Antares]

I didn't say that science proved that humans are causing climate change.

I said that the greenhouse effect is a proven fact. It is.

Some people may be willing to embrace the notion that human activity (and the greenhouses gases we put into the atmosphere) is not significant enough to make a difference in the climate. But it's STILL a fact that the greenhouse effect is real.

So, the REAL question is what level of increased CO2 introduced to the atmosphere is necessary to affect the climate. If that's ever established, it won't make a difference what the source of the CO2 is. Whether it's natural, or caused by humans, it will have the same effect because the atmosphere does not distinguish between the two; it reacts the same way, regardless of the source.

There are many studies showing that Water Vapor is the culprit, not co2.

Not valid studies. Do you know why? I think it's for three reasons, although at this point, I can only remember two of them. But the main reason is because water vapor only exists for a short time. Above or below a certain temperature, it ceases to be a factor. That's why we have rain and or snow. In other words, it doesn't build up over time. There is a saturation point beyond which it can't increase. CO2 can exist regardless of the temperature near the surface of the planet, and it doesn't fall out of the atmosphere.

When I get home tonight I'll post some studies.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I am on an IPAD right now, I have no idea how to post things on it.

There is NO reason to "peer review" for anything OTHER than accuracy.

I'll ask again and maybe its your Ipad preventing you from answering. IDK.

What are you turning to as evidence that Global Warming isnt real?

What part of "I am on an IPAD right now and I do not know how to post things on it" don't you understand?

I can't post them right now, does that help?

Can you type the source on the Ipad? Does your Ipad have a keyboard?

 

[Antares]

I'll ask again and maybe its your Ipad preventing you from answering. IDK.

What are you turning to as evidence that Global Warming isnt real?

What part of "I am on an IPAD right now and I do not know how to post things on it" don't you understand?

I can't post them right now, does that help?

Can you type the source on the Ipad? Does your Ipad have a keyboard?

LOL, I'll post some studies when I get home, what makes you think your "insistence" means anything to me?

No, I suck as a typist and I am not typing anything that long.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Sure, you'll post it later I wont hold my breath tho

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Once again, every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University state in policy statements that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger.

So, what you are positing is that there is a massive conspiracy among many millions of scientists from every nation and political system in the world to create the image of a threat that does not exist. Do you even begin to realize how absolutely insane that sounds?

There is a lot of money to be found through government spending on experimenting with green projects and research.... did we forget Solyndra, Nevada Geothermal, First Solar, NextEra Energy - each with their own set of financial problems (to use the term "problems" lightly)? Al Gore seems to be benefiting quite well from all his appearances and promotion surrounding An Inconvenient Truth, or are we only supposed to get upset when it's the CEO that's using their position in making a substantial profit? I'm also quite sure these scientists also receive financial support from their respective governments as ours use their "documented research" to promote this administration's position on Climate Change. Unless, of course, you have some documentation that shows all their financing is made through private donors with no political leanings? Which raises my last point, if you think that ideological politics plays absolutely no part in this research, then they would be open to opposing researched opinions instead of making ridicule efforts in silencing them. Clearly money talks, behind the power of political ideological persuasion.

None of that changes the science tho

It doesn't change the fact that the issue of climate change comes with its own scientific controversy, it's hardly scientific fact that's unequivocal.

Report: 1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against Man-Made Global Warming Alarm | Climate Depot
Estimated 40 Percent of Scientists Doubt Manmade Global Warming |*National Association of Scholars

CLIMATE STUDY: EVIDENCE LEANS AGAINST HUMAN-CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING — Group of 50 international scientists releases comprehensive new 1200-page report

CLIMATE STUDY: EVIDENCE LEANS AGAINST HUMAN-CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING ? Group of 50 international scientists releases comprehensive new 1200-page report | Climate Depot

 

[RDD_1210]

I am on an IPAD right now, I have no idea how to post things on it.

There is NO reason to "peer review" for anything OTHER than accuracy.

I'll ask again and maybe its your Ipad preventing you from answering. IDK.

What are you turning to as evidence that Global Warming isnt real?

What part of "I am on an IPAD right now and I do not know how to post things on it" don't you understand?

I can't post them right now, does that help?

You don't know how to cut and paste a link on an Ipad, yet you "KNOW" that man made global warming is made up.

Is that what you're saying?

 

[RDD_1210]

There is a lot of money to be found through government spending on experimenting with green projects and research.... did we forget Solyndra, Nevada Geothermal, First Solar, NextEra Energy - each with their own set of financial problems (to use the term "problems" lightly)? Al Gore seems to be benefiting quite well from all his appearances and promotion surrounding An Inconvenient Truth, or are we only supposed to get upset when it's the CEO that's using their position in making a substantial profit? I'm also quite sure these scientists also receive financial support from their respective governments as ours use their "documented research" to promote this administration's position on Climate Change. Unless, of course, you have some documentation that shows all their financing is made through private donors with no political leanings? Which raises my last point, if you think that ideological politics plays absolutely no part in this research, then they would be open to opposing researched opinions instead of making ridicule efforts in silencing them. Clearly money talks, behind the power of political ideological persuasion.

None of that changes the science tho

It doesn't change the fact that the issue of climate change comes with its own scientific controversy, it's hardly scientific fact that's unequivocal.

Report: 1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against Man-Made Global Warming Alarm | Climate Depot
Estimated 40 Percent of Scientists Doubt Manmade Global Warming |*National Association of Scholars

CLIMATE STUDY: EVIDENCE LEANS AGAINST HUMAN-CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING — Group of 50 international scientists releases comprehensive new 1200-page report

CLIMATE STUDY: EVIDENCE LEANS AGAINST HUMAN-CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING ? Group of 50 international scientists releases comprehensive new 1200-page report | Climate Depot

Hahah, if anyone wants a good laugh. Click the links above to see the "rebuttals". The 1350+ "peer reviewed rebuttals" are a reference to posts from a single poster on a message board.

And the "40% of scientists doubt global warming" is of course a statement made by one guy and his guess as to how many people he thinks have doubts.

No study, no data. Surprising? Of course not.

 

[ClosedCaption]

There is a lot of money to be found through government spending on experimenting with green projects and research.... did we forget Solyndra, Nevada Geothermal, First Solar, NextEra Energy - each with their own set of financial problems (to use the term "problems" lightly)? Al Gore seems to be benefiting quite well from all his appearances and promotion surrounding An Inconvenient Truth, or are we only supposed to get upset when it's the CEO that's using their position in making a substantial profit? I'm also quite sure these scientists also receive financial support from their respective governments as ours use their "documented research" to promote this administration's position on Climate Change. Unless, of course, you have some documentation that shows all their financing is made through private donors with no political leanings? Which raises my last point, if you think that ideological politics plays absolutely no part in this research, then they would be open to opposing researched opinions instead of making ridicule efforts in silencing them. Clearly money talks, behind the power of political ideological persuasion.

None of that changes the science tho

It doesn't change the fact that the issue of climate change comes with its own scientific controversy, it's hardly scientific fact that's unequivocal.

Report: 1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against Man-Made Global Warming Alarm | Climate Depot
Estimated 40 Percent of Scientists Doubt Manmade Global Warming |*National Association of Scholars

CLIMATE STUDY: EVIDENCE LEANS AGAINST HUMAN-CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING — Group of 50 international scientists releases comprehensive new 1200-page report

CLIMATE STUDY: EVIDENCE LEANS AGAINST HUMAN-CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING ? Group of 50 international scientists releases comprehensive new 1200-page report | Climate Depot

So? Thats the best part about a theory they are constantly being checked and rechecked for accuracy. This "study" hasnt been peer reviewed for accuracy so why or what makes you believe this study over any other?

You guys keep ignoring the "peer review" portion of it. I can put out a study saying I'm Awesome (which I am) but if no one checks it to verify will you believe it just because its a "study"? No...Well whats the diff?

Also that link is a link to Brietbart lol....just sayin

 

[Antares]

I'll ask again and maybe its your Ipad preventing you from answering. IDK.

What are you turning to as evidence that Global Warming isnt real?

What part of "I am on an IPAD right now and I do not know how to post things on it" don't you understand?

I can't post them right now, does that help?

You don't know how to cut and paste a link on an Ipad, yet you "KNOW" that man made global warming is made up.

Is that what you're saying?

LOL, you folks are pretty dense aren't you?

No, I have no idea how to cut and paste on an IPAD.

Here is what will happen when I post studies tonight.

You guys will simply scream "NUH-UH" and claim MY scientists are not "reputable", this ain't my first rodeo.

The next this thing you'll do is say "follow the money", never mind that ALL of the "scientists" doing your "approved" studies live off of the Gov tit.

It will turn into a "my studies are better than your studies" circus and I'll just laugh at you (I already am) because that's the way ALL of these discussions go.

There is NO definitive "proof" either way and therefore NO definitive reason to change the economy of the entire World because YOU are afraid your children may roast if it gets too hot, or drown because Obama didn't keep his promise about stopping the rising seas.


It really is just that simple spanky.

 

[RDD_1210]

What part of "I am on an IPAD right now and I do not know how to post things on it" don't you understand?

I can't post them right now, does that help?

You don't know how to cut and paste a link on an Ipad, yet you "KNOW" that man made global warming is made up.

Is that what you're saying?

LOL, you folks are pretty dense aren't you?

No, I have no idea how to cut and paste on an IPAD.

Here is what will happen when I post studies tonight.

You guys will simply scream "NUH-UH" and claim MY scientists are not "reputable", this ain't my first rodeo.

The next this thing you'll do is say "follow the money", never mind that ALL of the "scientists" doing your "approved" studies live off of the Gov tit.

It will turn into a "my studies are better than your studies" circus and I'll just laugh at you (I already am) because that's the way ALL of these discussions go.

There is NO definitive "proof" either way and therefore NO definitive reason to change the economy of the entire World because YOU are afraid your children may roast if it gets too hot, or drown because Obama didn't keep his promise about stopping the rising seas.


It really is just that simply spanky.

I can't wait to see your studies then. I'm sure they will be definitive, unbiased and peer reviewed.

 

[Mustang]

There is a lot of money to be found through government spending on experimenting with green projects and research.... did we forget Solyndra, Nevada Geothermal, First Solar, NextEra Energy - each with their own set of financial problems (to use the term "problems" lightly)? Al Gore seems to be benefiting quite well from all his appearances and promotion surrounding An Inconvenient Truth, or are we only supposed to get upset when it's the CEO that's using their position in making a substantial profit? I'm also quite sure these scientists also receive financial support from their respective governments as ours use their "documented research" to promote this administration's position on Climate Change. Unless, of course, you have some documentation that shows all their financing is made through private donors with no political leanings? Which raises my last point, if you think that ideological politics plays absolutely no part in this research, then they would be open to opposing researched opinions instead of making ridicule efforts in silencing them. Clearly money talks, behind the power of political ideological persuasion.

None of that changes the science tho

It doesn't change the fact that the issue of climate change comes with its own scientific controversy, it's hardly scientific fact that's unequivocal.

Report: 1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against Man-Made Global Warming Alarm | Climate Depot
Estimated 40 Percent of Scientists Doubt Manmade Global Warming |*National Association of Scholars

CLIMATE STUDY: EVIDENCE LEANS AGAINST HUMAN-CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING — Group of 50 international scientists releases comprehensive new 1200-page report

CLIMATE STUDY: EVIDENCE LEANS AGAINST HUMAN-CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING ? Group of 50 international scientists releases comprehensive new 1200-page report | Climate Depot

I can't say as I think much of the NAS as a scientific organization when I see that Dennis Prager and his "Prager U" is listed on their front page when I access it.

 

[Antares]

None of that changes the science tho

It doesn't change the fact that the issue of climate change comes with its own scientific controversy, it's hardly scientific fact that's unequivocal.

Report: 1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against Man-Made Global Warming Alarm | Climate Depot
Estimated 40 Percent of Scientists Doubt Manmade Global Warming |*National Association of Scholars

CLIMATE STUDY: EVIDENCE LEANS AGAINST HUMAN-CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING — Group of 50 international scientists releases comprehensive new 1200-page report

CLIMATE STUDY: EVIDENCE LEANS AGAINST HUMAN-CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING ? Group of 50 international scientists releases comprehensive new 1200-page report | Climate Depot

So? Thats the best part about a theory they are constantly being checked and rechecked for accuracy. This "study" hasnt been peer reviewed for accuracy so why or what makes you believe this study over any other?

You guys keep ignoring the "peer review" portion of it. I can put out a study saying I'm Awesome (which I am) but if no one checks it to verify will you believe it just because its a "study"? No...Well whats the diff?

Also that link is a link to Brietbart lol....just sayin

The "peer review" thing is your sides canard, now how do you know his posted studies aren't peer reviewed? One of the posts is titled "Peer Reviewed Studies?

 

[Antares]

You don't know how to cut and paste a link on an Ipad, yet you "KNOW" that man made global warming is made up.

Is that what you're saying?

LOL, you folks are pretty dense aren't you?

No, I have no idea how to cut and paste on an IPAD.

Here is what will happen when I post studies tonight.

You guys will simply scream "NUH-UH" and claim MY scientists are not "reputable", this ain't my first rodeo.

The next this thing you'll do is say "follow the money", never mind that ALL of the "scientists" doing your "approved" studies live off of the Gov tit.

It will turn into a "my studies are better than your studies" circus and I'll just laugh at you (I already am) because that's the way ALL of these discussions go.

There is NO definitive "proof" either way and therefore NO definitive reason to change the economy of the entire World because YOU are afraid your children may roast if it gets too hot, or drown because Obama didn't keep his promise about stopping the rising seas.


It really is just that simply spanky.

I can't wait to see your studies then. I'm sure they will be definitive, unbiased and peer reviewed.

As stated above it really won't matter who did the studies, you'll just say nope.

Like I said , that is the way it ALWAYS is with people like you.

 

[ClosedCaption]

What part of "I am on an IPAD right now and I do not know how to post things on it" don't you understand?

I can't post them right now, does that help?

You don't know how to cut and paste a link on an Ipad, yet you "KNOW" that man made global warming is made up.

Is that what you're saying?

LOL, you folks are pretty dense aren't you?

No, I have no idea how to cut and paste on an IPAD.

Here is what will happen when I post studies tonight.

You guys will simply scream "NUH-UH" and claim MY scientists are not "reputable", this ain't my first rodeo.

The next this thing you'll do is say "follow the money", never mind that ALL of the "scientists" doing your "approved" studies live off of the Gov tit.

It will turn into a "my studies are better than your studies" circus and I'll just laugh at you (I already am) because that's the way ALL of these discussions go.

There is NO definitive "proof" either way and therefore NO definitive reason to change the economy of the entire World because YOU are afraid your children may roast if it gets too hot, or drown because Obama didn't keep his promise about stopping the rising seas.


It really is just that simply spanky.

I actually wanted to know if they are peer reviewed for accuracy. Are they?

 

[RDD_1210]

It doesn't change the fact that the issue of climate change comes with its own scientific controversy, it's hardly scientific fact that's unequivocal.

Report: 1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against Man-Made Global Warming Alarm | Climate Depot
Estimated 40 Percent of Scientists Doubt Manmade Global Warming |*National Association of Scholars

So? Thats the best part about a theory they are constantly being checked and rechecked for accuracy. This "study" hasnt been peer reviewed for accuracy so why or what makes you believe this study over any other?

You guys keep ignoring the "peer review" portion of it. I can put out a study saying I'm Awesome (which I am) but if no one checks it to verify will you believe it just because its a "study"? No...Well whats the diff?

Also that link is a link to Brietbart lol....just sayin

The "peer review" thing is your sides canard, now how do you know his posted studies aren't peer reviewed? One of the posts is titled "Peer Reviewed Studies?

You obviously didn't even bother reading your own links. If you had you would have seen his "peer reviewed studies" were posts on a message board.