A look at the science behind climate change

a reply to: gortex

I'm all for clean air and a better environment.

I'm also for better data accumulation and honest science.

The two aren't mutually excusive.

Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t. The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested: “Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”

Forbes

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: rickymouse

The way science is supposed to be conducted is to eliminate personal bias, bigotry, prejudice, and superstition.

The problem is one side of the issue just refuses to believe in the science no matter what:

The 97% consensus on global warming

Listen to Greta's talk. She's very compelling. How can you possibly argue with her little girl logic:

97% (some 40 odd scientists) that could finally agree, out of the original group of roughly 5000 that couldn't all agree on how much humans contributed.

so really, 0.8% of climate scientists agree...

Too bad consensus is not scientific.

a reply to: DBCowboy

So I would like to have you read this exerpt from a portion of your source you added to the OP and tell me how trustworthy you think their science is...

A field experiment was performed in Oak Ridge, TN, with four instrumented towers placed over grass at increasing distances (4, 30, 50, 124, and 300 m) from a built-up area

Wouldn't that be 5 towers? I mean if you cant get those numbers right...well...

By the way I still agree with the premise of your OP but damn if that wasn't a funny catch!

The biggest problem with the "science behind climate change" is the politics behind the science behind climate change.

imo

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: rickymouse

You are in the 3% then:

The 97% consensus on global warming

Are you a climate scientists? I'm just wondering where the authority of your credentials about speaking on the topic are coming from? Or are you just an amateur like me?

You leftists just can't help yourselves when it comes to parroting lies.

Some kind of battered wife thing there. No matter how much you're lied to, you will defend them.

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: DBCowboy

So I would like to have you read this exerpt from a portion of your source you added to the OP and tell me how trustworthy you think their science is...

A field experiment was performed in Oak Ridge, TN, with four instrumented towers placed over grass at increasing distances (4, 30, 50, 124, and 300 m) from a built-up area

Wouldn't that be 5 towers? I mean if you cant get those numbers right...well...

By the way I still agree with the premise of your OP but damn if that wasn't a funny catch!

Does one count the control in that scenario? Not entirely sure myself.

a reply to: RickyD

Perhaps it's the 4 additional towers used to measure the variance in temperatures.

I believe it is real and the main factor changing things is burning fossil fuel.

I also believe that we do not have a viable alternative to replace fossil fuel at this time. We need a replacement energy source. Fusion may be the answer- no it will be the answer at some point but we are still not there. Kasper Moth Pulson may have the answer with new solar storage technology. The group developing graphene cables to transport geothermal heat to the surface may be the answer. It is likely there are several answers but they are not ready now so we are stuck with fossil fuels. I am against carbon tax as they pitch it now. If that money was diverted to developing energy technologies then I might change my mind.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Well...if its the control would it not be at 0? And in addition...is it not a tower?

originally posted by: Grimpachi
I believe it is real and the main factor changing things is burning fossil fuel.

I also believe that we do not have a viable alternative to replace fossil fuel at this time. We need a replacement energy source. Fusion may be the answer- no it will be the answer at some point but we are still not there. Kasper Moth Pulson may have the answer with new solar storage technology. The group developing graphene cables to transport geothermal heat to the surface may be the answer. It is likely there are several answers but they are not ready now so we are stuck with fossil fuels. I am against carbon tax as they pitch it now. If that money was diverted to developing energy technologies then I might change my mind.

Big Green Energy dumped a lot of money in the anti-nuclear power campaign. Thorium reactors would be the best option economically and environmentally until fusion is achieved on a commercial scale.

a reply to: DBCowboy

You very well may be correct I don't know. I just thought it was funny.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I am pretty sure we have had global warming since the last ice age.

originally posted by: highvein
a reply to: DBCowboy

I am pretty sure we have had global warming since the last ice age.

SCIENCE!

a reply to: DBCowboy

Yep. Science.

That pesky Sun better get it's thermostat better calibrated... it's causing humans to think they're the center of creation more and more as time rolls along.

Be a thermostat people... being a thermometer has shown to cause the same symptoms that political exposure creates.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: DBCowboy

I'm pretty sure all the gasoline we are burning everyday is causing a pollution problem.

It absolutely is, but that's not the point. "Pollution" and "climate change" aren't the same thing.

I'm of the mind that there are problems we are not being told about and the true reason we are being sold a faulty model.

The military-industrial complex (and I include NASA in that statement because the weaponization of space is a given) have been poking holes and heating stuffs up and all kind o' things for many decades now. We exploded atomic devices up there thanks to (D)ARPA. Raise your hand if you knew that. I've come to believe they've seriously effed up our magnetosphere not to mention the ozone layer and no telling what else.

Any cataclysmic environmental issues probably would have a lot more to do with that than my truck and cow toots.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Bottom line, if you accumulate bad data, you'll get bad conclusions.

Bottom line if you pick and choose which data to draw your conclusions from based on preexisting personal bias you'll get bad conclusions.

originally posted by: underwerks

Bottom line if you pick and choose which data to draw your conclusions from based on preexisting personal bias you'll get bad conclusions.

Um...that's what this thread is about. With examples. Hope you've learned your lesson.