So much for Global Warming

a reply to: StoneCircles

Your evidence is in process... I have not yet seen an offer to support it, so you'll just have to wait. If you continue with unsupported demands, I will refuse to listen to any offers from you, assuming you expect others to do your bidding for free.

A good deal of the evidence studied shows that carbon dioxide levels lag temperature; others are inconclusive. Now, unless you are stating that the physical universe is not causative, that would seem to go against your conclusion.

Are you stating that the physical universe is non-causative?

TheRedneck

a reply to: StoneCircles

"show me a climatologist who disagrees with AGW who is NOT on the payroll of an oil company. Go ahead, I am legit interested"

here you are.
paradigm change time.

www.youtube.com...

heres the supporting background

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: StoneCircles

show me a climatologist who disagrees with AGW who is NOT on the payroll of an oil company. Go ahead, I am legit interested

Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University.



Atmospheric Physicist Dr. John Reid,who worked with Australia’s CSIRO’s (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) Division of Oceanography and worked in surface gravity waves (ocean waves) research.

...
My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field."
...

Dr. John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). He has also been Alabama's State Climatologist since November 2000.



Apart from that many other scientists also disagree with the religion that is AGW.

www.amherst.edu...

Such as...

Professor Ivar Giaever, 'the 1973 Nobel Prizewinner for Physics trashes the global warming/climate change/extreme weather pseudoscientific clap-trap and tells Obama he is "Dead Wrong".'



The above are just "some" of the real scientists who disagree in part, or completely with the AGW claim. BTW, there are tens of thousands of scientists from many diverging fields, apart from atmospheric physicists, climatologists, but also including geology, physics, astrophysicists (which in case you didn't know is a very important field since climate change on Earth is also influenced by sources outside the Earth...) etc, etc.

Just bear in mind what happened to the lemmings.

It might not happen you personally, but you might need to consider your posterity.

originally posted by: angeldoll
Just bear in mind what happened to the lemmings.

It might not happen you personally, but you might need to consider your posterity.

You mean how the lemmings jump off to their deaths as they follow each other en mass? Similar to how AGWers blindly believe in the fake religion known as AGW claiming "consensus" despite all the evidence, and the tens of thousands of scientists, which shows the contrary to the belief of AGW?

The "fate of the Lemmings" is a similar fate to what AGWers want humans to go through, imposing high taxes and policies which would be suicidal not only for nations, but for people too...

originally posted by: blueman12
...

I'm skeptical too, but when a ton of scientists are all agreeing on something, we should probably listen.

But you want to dismiss/ignore the tens of thousands of scientists who disagree with AGW? POTUS Trump has made it clear that "deals like the Paris accord" will be bad for the U.S. meanwhile favoring many other polluters.

Again, to reiterate the fact of what AGW is in part being used as an excuse for:

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Dr. Giaever has not published any work in the area of climate science.

Dr. Reid has not published any work in the area of climate science.

that leaves Dr. John Christy, I'll get to him later

tens of thousands of scientists who disagree with AGW? really? gimme a break.

"POTUS Trump has made it clear" LOL! yeah, listen to a guy who cant string 4 coherent word together at a time and thinks that forest fires can be conquered by raking. I mean really lets leave this in the realm of scientists and not bring in geriatric delusional narcissists into the converstation.

originally posted by: StoneCircles
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Dr. Giaever has not published any work in the area of climate science.

Dr. Reid has not published any work in the area of climate science.

that leaves Dr. John Christy, I'll get to him later

How about you learn to counter-argue their arguments?... Unless you want me to point out that the "majority of the "thousands of experts that were part of the IPCC and agree with AGW don't even have degrees in any environmental sciences..." Most of them were/are policymakers, and as an example one of them wrote a paper on helmet security on motorcycles...

Instead most of the real scientists experts in the IPCC have argued against the AGW claim, and have pointed out how the IPCC has been turned into nothing more than a political tool to further the left-wing agenda.

originally posted by: StoneCircles

tens of thousands of scientists who disagree with AGW? really? gimme a break.

"POTUS Trump has made it clear" LOL! yeah, listen to a guy who cant string 4 coherent word together at a time and thinks that forest fires can be conquered by raking. I mean really lets leave this in the realm of scientists and not bring in geriatric delusional narcissists into the converstation.

I guess then that leaves you out and your excuses to dismiss actual scientists.

As for the tens of thousands of scientists who are against AGW. Here is one such list.

www.petitionproject.org...

But then again, with your big mouth and total ignorance about the topic you will continue to dismiss any and all evidence which contradicts your love for your religion known as AGW.

a reply to: StoneCircles

Oh, I see now. Thank you for the clarification.

What I need to do is start up a scientific journal named... let's see... "Journal of Carbon Dioxide Studies" sounds good... and only accept articles from people who hold degrees and promote the same political agenda I do. Then, everyone who disagrees with me can be ignored because they have obviously not published any articles in the field of Carbon Dioxide Studies. Then I can claim there is a 'consensus' for whatever I want. I like that!

Actually, no I don't. Despite what I call it, that journal would not be a scientific journal in the truest sense of the word, because it would not be inclusive of dissenting opinions. It would in reality be just a propaganda tool... but it would make for good ammunition for people to argue that my particular agenda was 'established science.'

Science is science. There is in reality no 'climate science' or 'quantum physics' or 'theoretical physics' or 'medical science'... all these are just specialized branches that attempt to categorize scientific reasoning as it pertains to a particular subject. Physical laws still apply to all. If I publish a paper on Optimal Control, to use an example I am quite familiar with, I cannot just ignore the principles used in Digital Communication, or Power Distribution, or any other branch of electrical engineering. Science, in its most basic form, still applies. I have simply applied those principles to a specific area of study.

A 'scientist' is simply someone who knows, usually due to education but sometimes due to self-study and experience, the principles surrounding physics. There's no secret club; no magic doorway one must walk through; no conferred title to obtain. Just as the kid behind the counter at McDonalds might have a knack for getting orders right and dealing with an aggravating public or might be a goof-off that can't figure out how to put a Big Mac together using both hands, so too a 'scientist' can be someone who has a firm grasp on scientific theory and procedures, or might be someone who was able to coast through school just enough to manage to graduate. Luckily for the field, the latter tend to wash out more often than not, but a few do still get through.

And of course, with enough money floating around in the form of grants, dependent on specific outcomes, more folks want to get their little share of the pie. That's the real tragedy of this silly Global Warming mess. It was started by politicians with money in an attempt to make even more money from fear, and promoted by finding people who would sell out science. Some good scientists are now being used as well, since there's so much money involved... many work producing the models we hear about so much. None of them have proved accurate, and no scientist would ever honesty say they have any bearing on reality until they are proven accurate, but the politicians can still use them to try and promote their fear. After all, a 'scientist' developed it!

The truth is that the models are nothing more than computer algorithms developed using theoretical equations in order to test a hypothesis. An inaccurate model is a negative result, a failure, although the results can and often do yield clues to help develop a more successful model. They are the test stage in "observe, study, consider, formulate, test, repeat as necessary" methodology that dominates scientific thought... nothing more.

This is an Internet forum. As such, it is not a scientific journal, and never will be. The people you meet on here come from all walks of life; we have scientists, engineers, medical professionals, attorneys, fast food workers, janitors, stock boys, and everything in between. You can dismiss everything I just wrote above as the ravings of a fool... it certainly wouldn't be the first time. I do urge you to remember that just because something does not support your particular viewpoint, it never means that something is wrong. It is entirely possible that the next person you speak with knows quite a bit more about the subject than you do.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: tabularosa
Global warming is a misnomer when applied for people that want to deny climate change. Mankind is pummeling the environment causing great damage. All one has to do is see how quickly climate has changed since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. The Earth has experienced this same thing before, but it took tens of thousands of years to reach the tipping point that killed many species and gave rise to mammals, thus homo sapiens. Ironic, isn't it? You might want to buckle in, CryHavoc, things are about to get really crazy. Why? Because mankind will deny his role in the problem and will inadvertently push the Earth towards a tipping point we will have no ability to mitigate any deleterious effects of climate change. Enjoy the ride.

Climate never changed, until recently!! But, today, the climate always changes, and that's a bad thing, folks!

We need your money, to make the climate stop changing, or else the planet is doomed! And we sure don't want that, right?


Soon, we'll need more of your money to stop the climate from changing, because it's getting even worse than ever!!


As your leaders, we only want to help save our planet. Sure, we also like to bomb the planet into specks of dust, but we don't count that, it's a different issue!

a reply to: turbonium1

Obvious troll is obvious.

As you well know, the science indicating that the climate is changing is based on past evidence that the climate has changed. Try googling 'ice ages' and the origin of coal.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

Obvious troll is obvious.

As you well know, the science indicating that the climate is changing is based on past evidence that the climate has changed. Try googling 'ice ages' and the origin of coal.

Yes, the evidence suggests that climate change has always existed, before, as today.

Thanks for making my point, bozo.

a reply to: TheRedneck
big changes on the other planets
www.youtube.com...

a reply to: angeldoll

you know the lemmings jumping off cliffs was not true.
www.businessinsider.com...
disney lies again.

a reply to: StoneCircles

why dont you have the whole thing explained to you
right here click the link, just do it
www.youtube.com...

a reply to: TheRedneck
CO2
0.04 %
400 parts per million by volume.
see, if people knew that then not so many would fall for it.
it would clear the way for people to see part of what a sinister agenda they are fooled into backing.
deindustrialisation and depopulation of europe and anglosphere and destruction of certain genetic factors.

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: angeldoll

you know the lemmings jumping off cliffs was not true.
www.businessinsider.com...
disney lies again.

Disney faked lemmings, NASA faked landings. Perhaps lemmings will land on the moon, as well! Everything else they've faked has worked like a charm, so why not try a 'combo-fake'?

a reply to: turbonium1

beat me to it lol