Page 51 of 97 FirstFirst ... 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 ... LastLast
Results 1,251 to 1,275 of 2416
  1. #1251
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,193
    "Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A review found them all flawed"

    It’s often said that of all the published scientific research on climate change, 97% of the papers conclude that global warming is real, problematic for the planet, and has been exacerbated by human activity.

    But what about those 3% of papers that reach contrary conclusions? Some skeptics have suggested that the authors of studies indicating that climate change is not real, not harmful, or not man-made are bravely standing up for the truth, like maverick thinkers of the past. (Galileo is often invoked, though his fellow scientists mostly agreed with his conclusions—it was church leaders who tried to suppress them.)

    Not so, according to a review published in the journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology. The researchers tried to replicate the results of those 3% of papers—a common way to test scientific studies—and found biased, faulty results.

    Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech University, worked with a team of researchers to look at the 38 papers published in peer-reviewed journals in the last decade that denied anthropogenic global warming.

    “Every single one of those analyses had an error—in their assumptions, methodology, or analysis—that, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus,” Hayhoe wrote in a Facebook post.

    One of Hayhoe’s co-authors, Rasmus Benestad, an atmospheric scientist at the Norwegian Meteorological Institute, built the program using the computer language R—which conveniently works on all computer platforms—to replicate each of the papers’ results and to try to understand how they reached their conclusions. Benestad’s program found that none of the papers had results that were replicable, at least not with generally accepted science.


    Broadly, there were three main errors in the papers denying climate change. Many had cherry-picked the results that conveniently supported their conclusion, while ignoring other context or records. Then there were some that applied inappropriate “curve-fitting”—in which they would step farther and farther away from data until the points matched the curve of their choosing.

    And of course, sometimes the papers just ignored physics altogether. “In many cases, shortcomings are due to insufficient model evaluation, leading to results that are not universally valid but rather are an artifact of a particular experimental setup,” the authors write.

    Those who assert that these papers are correct while the other 97% are wrong are holding up science where the researchers had already decided what results they sought, the authors of the review say. Good science is objective—it doesn’t care what anyone wants the answers to be.

    The review serves as an answer to the charge that the minority view on climate change has been consistently suppressed, wrote Hayhoe. “It’s a lot easier for someone to claim they’ve been suppressed than to admit that maybe they can’t find the scientific evidence to support their political ideology… They weren’t suppressed. They’re out there, where anyone can find them.” Indeed, the review raises the question of how these papers came to be published in the first place, when they used flawed methodology, which the rigorous peer-review process is designed to weed out.

    In an article for the Guardian, one of the researchers, Dana Nuccitelli points out another red flag with the climate-change-denying papers: “There is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming,” he writes. “Some blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital cycles of other planets, others on ocean cycles, and so on. There is a 97% expert consensus on a cohesive theory that’s overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence, but the 2–3% of papers that reject that consensus are all over the map, even contradicting each other.”

    The Galileo example is also instructive, Nuccitelli points out. The “father of observational science,” championed the astronomical model that the earth and other planets in our solar system revolve around the sun—a view that was eventually accepted almost universally as the truth. “If any of the contrarians were a modern-day Galileo, he would present a theory that’s supported by the scientific evidence and that’s not based on methodological errors,” he writes. “Such a sound theory would convince scientific experts, and a consensus would begin to form.”
    https://qz.com/1069298/the-3-of-scie...re-all-flawed/

  2. #1252
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    410
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    Your analysis, once again, misses the mark. Through 2009 there were regions with less significant warming compared with other regions but unlike in the past any cooling is extremely limited. This is a direct quote from the paper:
    The warming and cooling rates are shown in Fig. 2. Before 1950, there were both moderate warming and weak cooling regions. The cooling regions shrank and most of them turned into warming regions with an accelerated pace of warming over the next three decades. By 1980, except for the weak cooling in the northern tip of Greenland and in the vicinity of the Andes, almost all the global land had been warming.

    The spatial structure of the warming rate in later decades resembles that obtained from straight line fitting over the whole temporal domain (Fig. 2h). However, the later warming is much stronger than that determined by the method of straight line fitting.

    Are we supposed to accept your (faulty) analysis or the paper's authors?
    No, it doesn't miss the mark. I don't see the relevance of the sentence you bolded. Have I been denying that recent warming is stronger than previous decades?

    Look at Fig. 2e,f,g. Those years have the most warming, and you can see areas of cooling or no warming for nearly all latitudes. Thus, "a warming period is NOT affecting the whole planet at the same time for the first time."

  3. #1253
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    3,876
    Every time rj open his pie hole the bigger hole he digs. Doubling down on stoopid

  4. #1254
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    1,665
    Quote Originally Posted by k2skier112 View Post
    Every time rj open his pie hole the bigger hole he digs. Doubling down on stoopid
    No kidding. RJ can't read a chart and he can't read a paragraph. RJ did get that, "recent warming is stronger than previous decades" this time around even though he reached the opposite conclusion about the paper on the previous page.

    Unfortunately, RJ completely failed to analyze yet another key takeaway from his own source. Maybe if I shorten the source material and then bold another section:

    "Before 1950, there were both moderate warming and weak cooling regions. The cooling regions shrank and most of them turned into warming regions with an accelerated pace of warming over the next three decades. By 1980, except for the weak cooling in the northern tip of Greenland and in the vicinity of the Andes, almost all the global land had been warming."




    RJ losing an argument with himself from one page to the next:

    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    "The global climate has been experiencing significant warming at an unprecedented pace in the past century" statement is not a conclusion from the paper. They are relying on the IPCC for that statement.
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    I don't see the relevance of the sentence you bolded. Have I been denying that recent warming is stronger than previous decades?

  5. #1255
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    4,382
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    No kidding. RJ can't read a chart and he can't read a paragraph. RJ did get that, "recent warming is stronger than previous decades" this time around even though he reached the opposite conclusion about the paper on the previous page.

    Unfortunately, RJ completely failed to analyze yet another key takeaway from his own source. Maybe if I shorten the source material and then bold another section:

    "Before 1950, there were both moderate warming and weak cooling regions. The cooling regions shrank and most of them turned into warming regions with an accelerated pace of warming over the next three decades. By 1980, except for the weak cooling in the northern tip of Greenland and in the vicinity of the Andes, almost all the global land had been warming."




    RJ losing an argument with himself from one page to the next:


    He's living proof that contradicts evolution, at least on a personal intellectual level. Only God can change him or his view of what are and aren't facts..
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  6. #1256
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    410
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    No kidding. He can't read a chart and he can't read a paragraph. He did get that, "recent warming is stronger than previous decades" but completely failed to analyze yet another key takeaway from his own source. Maybe if I shorten the source material and then bold another section:
    "Before 1950, there were both moderate warming and weak cooling regions. The cooling regions shrank and most of them turned into warming regions with an accelerated pace of warming over the next three decades. By 1980, except for the weak cooling in the northern tip of Greenland and in the vicinity of the Andes, almost all the global land had been warming."

    RJ can't even analyze what he wrote from one page to the next:

    Apparently you can't read a chart, because none of the charts support your statement that "a warming period is now affecting the whole planet at the same time for the first time."

    The quotation you bolded does not support your statement that "a warming period is now affecting the whole planet at the same time for the first time." Almost all =/ the whole planet.

    You used "the global climate has been experiencing significant warming at an unprecedented pace in the past century" statement to say that my analysis of that paper was wrong. I was using that paper as evidence that their were areas of cooling throughout the past century.

    Again, where have I denied that recent warming is stronger than previous decades? My quote about the IPCC and that statement has no relevance.

  7. #1257
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    1,665
    Quote Originally Posted by SumJongGuy View Post
    He's living proof that contradicts evolution, at least on a personal intellectual level. Only God can change him or his view of what are and aren't facts..
    I'm trying to give RJ the benefit of the doubt. In fairness to him, and everyone else, these discussions can get pretty far into the weeds.

    The problem is he keeps cherry-picking what he considers facts, probably because on the surface they appear to support his position, while ignoring the truth.

    The paper he and I are currently discussing goes into detail about how the statistical emperical straight line fitting in figure 1 (the item he's focusing on) doesn't match how the actual trend has evolved figure 2 & 3 (the items he should be focusing on).

    Figure 2 part "g" clearly shows, for example, that except for the weak cooling in the northern tip of Greenland and in the vicinity of the Andes, almost all the global land is warming. Yet somehow he seems to think 98% of the planet, per the original claim, is not enough.

    And Figure 3 clearly shows the evolution of the warming trend.


    I don't think he's being dishonest, he's just seeing what he wants to see. On the other hand, it's easy to see how a dishonest actor might post figure 1 and ignore the rest even though the paper is saying the exact opposite.

  8. #1258
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The Cone of Uncertainty
    Posts
    47,040
    Ron's gettin' a bit frantic. A change of heart is in the offing. So Ron, what planet do your kids plan on inhabiting? If it's this one, you might want to start thinking harder.

  9. #1259
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The Cone of Uncertainty
    Posts
    47,040
    If you guys are successful it might cause me to rethink my personal ban on talking about politics and (disputed) science on the internet, which is in place because no matter how hard you try nobody ever changes their mind. The ban has been quite relaxing, so I'm not sure who i'm rooting for here.

  10. #1260
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    410
    WMD, the 97% consensus is made up, and already been discussed in the thread.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environm...global-warming
    "Most of the papers they studied are not about climate change and its causes, but many were taken as evidence nonetheless. Papers on carbon taxes naturally assume that carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming – but assumptions are not conclusions. Cook’s claim of an increasing consensus over time is entirely due to an increase of the number of irrelevant papers that Cook and co mistook for evidence."

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta.../#3bfa119b485d
    "The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action. Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both, global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed."

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2.../#2d8a131e205a
    "My friend Will Happer believes that humans do affect the climate, particularly in cities where concrete and energy use cause what is called the “urban heat island effect.” So he would be included in the 97% who believe that humans affect climate, even though he is usually included among the more intense skeptics of the IPCC. He also feels that humans cause a small amount of global warming (he isn’t convinced it is as large as 1 degree), but he does not think it is heading towards a disaster; he has concluded that the increase in carbon dioxide is good for food production, and has helped mitigate global hunger. Yet he would be included in the 97%."



    The section you bolded in your last post:
    "He said that at the end of his 20-year study period there was more agreement than at the beginning: “There was 99% scientific consensus in 2011 that humans are causing global warming.” With ever stronger research since then and increasing heatwaves and extreme weather, Cook believes this is likely to have risen further and is now working on an update.

    Shows what a biased hack Cook is since there is no increasing heatwaves and extreme weather.

  11. #1261
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The Cone of Uncertainty
    Posts
    47,040
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    there is no increasing heatwaves and extreme weather.

    nelsonlaugh

    "are" btw

  12. #1262
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    410
    Quote Originally Posted by rideit View Post
    Which makes us question, what is Ron's motive for being a denialist?
    Just contrarian by nature?
    I don't have a motive. I got interested in it because I saw a skeptic argument which made a lot more sense than I was expecting. Since then I started following the debate closely and came to the conclusion that the skeptic side deserves more merit than it receives. After following along for a couple years, it became alarming to me how much blatant lying and propaganda gets pushed from the alarmist side. This has probably pushed me further to the skeptic side because I have a hard time believing anything they say at this point.

    I guess you could say I have a financial interest in this because I'd rather not see the economy collapse, which is a near certainty if any of the 2020 dems get elected and implement their plans. Just a few days ago Warren tweeted "On my first day as president, I will sign an executive order that puts a total moratorium on all new fossil fuel leases for drilling offshore and on public lands. And I will ban fracking—everywhere." This would be total insanity and guarantee an immediate recession.

  13. #1263
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    On Vacation for the Duration
    Posts
    11,257
    A troll alias who joined and only posts in this thread. Interesting. Is it real or is it Memorex?
    A few people feel the rain. Most people just get wet.

  14. #1264
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    1,665
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    I challenge you to show me how the 1 degree of warming in the past 150 years is happening much faster, let alone unprecedented, compared to the past.

    Edit: I guess you edited your post after I responded? I'm pretty sure the NASA GISS comment wasn't in there before.

    In any case, take a look at the GISS data yourself. It doesn't even show what they are saying. It has steady temps 1880-1920, ~.6' warming 1920-1945, steady temps 1945-1980, then ~.5' warming 1980-today.

    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    "The global climate has been experiencing significant warming at an unprecedented pace in the past century" statement is not a conclusion from the paper. They are relying on the IPCC for that statement.
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Again, where have I denied that recent warming is stronger than previous decades? My quote about the IPCC and that statement has no relevance.
    lol.

    1 - You wrote in response to me saying most of the global warming occurred in the past 35 years by cherry picking GISS data purportedly showing the warming was greater from 1920-1945 than it was from 1980-today, which is clearly an attempt at denying that recent warming is stronger than previous decades.

    2 - You wrote the paper's authors "are relying on the IPCC for that statement" when in fact the warming rate, the pace of change, is a key component of their data set.

  15. #1265
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The Cone of Uncertainty
    Posts
    47,040
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    I don't have a motive. I got interested in it because I saw a skeptic argument which made a lot more sense than I was expecting. Since then I started following the debate closely and came to the conclusion that the skeptic side deserves more merit than it receives. After following along for a couple years, it became alarming to me how much blatant lying and propaganda gets pushed from the alarmist side. This has probably pushed me further to the skeptic side because I have a hard time believing anything they say at this point.

    I guess you could say I have a financial interest in this because I'd rather not see the economy collapse, which is a near certainty if any of the 2020 dems get elected and implement their plans. Just a few days ago Warren tweeted "On my first day as president, I will sign an executive order that puts a total moratorium on all new fossil fuel leases for drilling offshore and on public lands. And I will ban fracking—everywhere." This would be total insanity and guarantee an immediate recession.
    Look man, you have reservations about politics, don't transfer them to science. Just because people you don't like believe this shit doesn't make it false.

    As a lifelong democrat I share some of your concerns but not your doubts about the science. Compartmentalize. Figure out what goes with what. Science is not political, it speaks for itself, and you are misunderstanding it.

  16. #1266
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,193
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    WMD, the 97% consensus is made up, and already been discussed in the thread.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environm...global-warming
    "Most of the papers they studied are not about climate change and its causes, but many were taken as evidence nonetheless. Papers on carbon taxes naturally assume that carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming – but assumptions are not conclusions. Cook’s claim of an increasing consensus over time is entirely due to an increase of the number of irrelevant papers that Cook and co mistook for evidence."

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta.../#3bfa119b485d
    "The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action. Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both, global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed."

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2.../#2d8a131e205a
    "My friend Will Happer believes that humans do affect the climate, particularly in cities where concrete and energy use cause what is called the “urban heat island effect.” So he would be included in the 97% who believe that humans affect climate, even though he is usually included among the more intense skeptics of the IPCC. He also feels that humans cause a small amount of global warming (he isn’t convinced it is as large as 1 degree), but he does not think it is heading towards a disaster; he has concluded that the increase in carbon dioxide is good for food production, and has helped mitigate global hunger. Yet he would be included in the 97%."



    The section you bolded in your last post:
    "He said that at the end of his 20-year study period there was more agreement than at the beginning: “There was 99% scientific consensus in 2011 that humans are causing global warming.” With ever stronger research since then and increasing heatwaves and extreme weather, Cook believes this is likely to have risen further and is now working on an update.

    Shows what a biased hack Cook is since there is no increasing heatwaves and extreme weather.
    Oh yes, I trust known Heartland Institute climate denier James Taylor over NASA any day. He's not even a scientist. You win.

  17. #1267
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    410
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    I'm trying to give RJ the benefit of the doubt. In fairness to him, and everyone else, these discussions can get pretty far into the weeds.

    The problem is he keeps cherry-picking what he considers facts, probably because on the surface they appear to support his position, while ignoring the truth.

    The paper he and I are currently discussing goes into detail about how the statistical emperical straight line fitting in figure 1 (the item he's focusing on) doesn't match how the actual trend has evolved figure 2 & 3 (the items he should be focusing on).

    Figure 2 part "g" clearly shows, for example, that except for the weak cooling in the northern tip of Greenland and in the vicinity of the Andes, almost all the global land is warming. Yet somehow he seems to think 98% of the planet, per the original claim, is not enough.

    And Figure 3 clearly shows the evolution of the warming trend.


    I don't think he's being dishonest, he's just seeing what he wants to see. On the other hand, it's easy to see how a dishonest actor might post figure 1 and ignore the rest even though the paper is saying the exact opposite.
    Figure 2g is what I have been looking at. Look at my post #1254 where I said, "look at Fig. 2e,f,g. Those years have the most warming, and you can see areas of cooling or no warming for nearly all latitudes. Thus, "a warming period is NOT affecting the whole planet at the same time for the first time."

    The white areas do not count as "warming." Eyeball estimate looks like 10-15% of the surface of the planet is not warming, its unclear if Antarctica is included in their analysis. I think not, but if it is then that number is higher. Once again, this paper does not show that "a warming period now affecting the whole planet at the same time for the first time."

  18. #1268
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    1,665
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Figure 2g is what I have been looking at. Look at my post #1254 where I said, "look at Fig. 2e,f,g. Those years have the most warming, and you can see areas of cooling or no warming for nearly all latitudes. Thus, "a warming period is NOT affecting the whole planet at the same time for the first time."

    The white areas do not count as "warming." Eyeball estimate looks like 10-15% of the surface of the planet is not warming, its unclear if Antarctica is included in their analysis. I think not, but if it is then that number is higher. Once again, this paper does not show that "a warming period now affecting the whole planet at the same time for the first time."
    Per the paper itself the white areas count as less significant warming, a noisy pattern, but they do count as warming.

    And while I did write "a warming period now affecting the whole planet at the same time for the first time" a reasonable person would admit that I previously and repeatedly qualified the statement by writing 98% of the planet or writing nearly the entire planet. In the context of the previous posts (plural) it should be clear that the whole planet is shorthand for 98%:

    "Over the last 2000 years the only time the global climate has change synchronically has been in the last 150 years when over 98% of the surface of the Planet has warmed."

    Also, your paper which clearly shows a warming trend approaching 98% uses 2009 data, while the paper I've been referencing for the 98% number is from 2019.

    Your argument against the 2019 paper here is picayune at best because when you began arguing against the 2019 paper you were arguing against the 98% number.

  19. #1269
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    410
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    lol.

    1 - You wrote in response to me saying most of the global warming occurred in the past 35 years by cherry picking GISS data purportedly showing the warming was greater from 1920-1945 than it was from 1980-today, which is clearly an attempt at denying that recent warming is stronger than previous decades.

    2 - You wrote the paper's authors "are relying on the IPCC for that statement" when in fact the warming rate, the pace of change, is a key component of their data set.
    1. I don't know what post you took that quote by me from, but I don't know how you can cherry pick GISS data. The quote from the IPCC, "The global climate has been experiencing significant warming at an unprecedented pace in the past century" includes the warming of the first half of the 20th century, which is largely natural.

    2. I'm saying that the paper's authors are deferring to the IPCC for that statement. It is not a conclusion from their study. The goal of the study, from the abstract: "This warming [of the past century] is spatially and temporally non-uniform, and one needs to understand its evolution to better evaluate its potential societal and economic impact. They conclude, "We find that the noticeable warming (>0.5 K) started sporadically over the global land and accelerated until around 1980. Both the warming rate and spatial structure have changed little since."

  20. #1270
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,751
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    There is nothing wrong with my climatechangedispatch linkm.
    https://web.archive.org/web/20190417...sAZChPfmctah5w

    This is what the actual author of the study referenced says about this:

    “As the lead author of the paper published in Science Advances on which this article is based on, I would like to state that it is a misrepresentation of the findings published in Willeit et al (2019)*. Our paper does not in any way disprove the human origin of current climate change. On the contrary, our model, which is able to reproduce the last 3 million years of natural climate variability, clearly shows that the rise of atmospheric CO2 concentration since the industrial revolution can not be explained by natural climate processes.”

    So yeah Climatechangedispatch is out as a legitimate source. So what do you have?

    0


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    Quote Originally Posted by Benny Profane View Post
    Keystone is fucking lame. But, deadly.

  21. #1271
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    410
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    Per the paper itself the white areas count as less significant warming, a noisy pattern, but they do count as warming.

    And while I did write "a warming period now affecting the whole planet at the same time for the first time" a reasonable person would admit that I previously and repeatedly qualified the statement by writing 98% of the planet or writing nearly the entire planet. In the context of the previous posts (plural) it should be clear that the whole planet is shorthand for 98%.

    Also, your paper which clearly shows a warming trend approaching 98% uses 2009 data, while the paper I've been referencing for the 98% number is from 2019.

    Your argument against the 2019 paper here is picayune at best because when you began arguing against the 2019 paper, you were arguing against the 98% number.
    I can't see the paper, but if the white areas count as warming, then the graph should show the temperature scale for white as 0'-.5', not -.5'-.5'. If some areas of the globe were cooling beyond -.5', then surely some must have been in the -.5'-0' zone.

    It does not clearly show a warming trend approaching 98% from 2009 data.

    Just because there has been more warming this decade, that does not mean that even more of the globe is warming. Just for example, the best US data set (USCRN) started in 2005, does not show a warming trend in the US over that time frame:
    Name:  uscrn.png
Views: 70
Size:  215.2 KB

  22. #1272
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    410
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    Oh yes, I trust known Heartland Institute climate denier James Taylor over NASA any day. He's not even a scientist. You win.
    What about the other two then? There is endless info on this...

  23. #1273
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    3,876
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    I can't see the paper, but if the white areas count as warming, then the graph should show the temperature scale for white as 0'-.5', not -.5'-.5'. If some areas of the globe were cooling beyond -.5', then surely some must have been in the -.5'-0' zone.

    It does not clearly show a warming trend approaching 98% from 2009 data.

    Just because there has been more warming this decade, that does not mean that even more of the globe is warming. Just for example, the best US data set (USCRN) started in 2005, does not show a warming trend in the US over that time frame:
    Name:  uscrn.png
Views: 70
Size:  215.2 KB
    the talk is about GLOBAL warming and dumb cunt posts an altered graph with no link about US temps, for fucts sake just stop

  24. #1274
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    3,876
    Quote Originally Posted by iceman View Post
    Look man, you have reservations about politics, don't transfer them to science. Just because people you don't like believe this shit doesn't make it false.

    As a lifelong democrat I share some of your concerns but not your doubts about the science. Compartmentalize. Figure out what goes with what. Science is not political, it speaks for itself, and you are misunderstanding it.
    but but but Fox News said it was fake news....

  25. #1275
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    410
    Quote Originally Posted by Kinnikinnick View Post
    https://web.archive.org/web/20190417...sAZChPfmctah5w

    This is what the actual author of the study referenced says about this:

    “As the lead author of the paper published in Science Advances on which this article is based on, I would like to state that it is a misrepresentation of the findings published in Willeit et al (2019)*. Our paper does not in any way disprove the human origin of current climate change. On the contrary, our model, which is able to reproduce the last 3 million years of natural climate variability, clearly shows that the rise of atmospheric CO2 concentration since the industrial revolution can not be explained by natural climate processes.”

    So yeah Climatechangedispatch is out as a legitimate source. So what do you have?

    0


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    You aren't following me. Perhaps climatechangedispatch lacks reliability, but the only link I provided from them in this thread is legitimate: https://climatechangedispatch.com/97...-97-consensus/ It is merely a conglomeration of links to studies, articles and blogs about the "97% consensus." I could just post the links on my own like I did in response to WMD, but I preferred to use that link to show just how many places have debunked the "97% consensus."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •