- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
10 Feb 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainHah. you didn't read the link.
I have stated before that man made causes are a factor. I have also said that an estimate of 97% man made is an overestimate. If man could tell the difference between natural and man made warming that accurately it would be nice, but the reality is that nobody really knows with any accuracy as you would like to believe. What I do know is that some think ...[text shortened]... g the right to explain anything with any degree of confidence.
You want to have it both ways.
97% is the percentage of climate scientists who accept man made global warming as being true.
110% is the likely total percentage of observed warming caused by us.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jan/22/oceans-warming-so-fast-they-keep-breaking-scientists-charts
You just read the url, not the page I linked itself.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/sep/15/97-vs-3-how-much-global-warming-are-humans-causing
10 Feb 15
10 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainWrong. -And continuously repeating the same falsehood doesn't make it right. There are people that know vastly more about it than you and I (and that is not even to mention their likely higher IQ ).
nobody really knows
Are you a qualified climate scientist? -answer, no. So they know more about it than you do. How would you know that “nobody really knows” -answer, you can't. It is just pure delusional arrogance to baselessly assume you must know better than the vast majority of experts on something given they know a lot more about it than you do.
The default assumption should be that, until if or when you have reason or evidence to the contrary, if the experts say/imply they know, they probably do.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
10 Feb 15
Originally posted by humyIt's all explained in detail in the linked article.
Careful not to confuse him with that "110%"!
It may not occur to him that you can mathematically have a minus 10% of observed warming caused by other causes!
If he's not going to read it that's his problem.
11 Feb 15
Originally posted by humy"Are you a qualified climate scientist?"
Wrong. -And continuously repeating the same falsehood doesn't make it right. There are people that know vastly more about it than you and I (and that is not even to mention their likely higher IQ ).
Are you a qualified climate scientist? -answer, no. So they know more about it than you do. How would you know that “nobody really knows” -answer, you can' ...[text shortened]... u have reason or evidence to the contrary, if the experts say/imply they know, they probably do.
Singer is, but predictably you reject that qualified climate scientist as you do anybody who doesn't agree with you. I have a high IQ, but that means nothing anyway. People with high IQs can be foolish followers with a strong herd instinct. Do you think Joseph P. Kennedy had a low IQ? What about the doctors that thought that lobotomy was a great option?
http://www.people.com/article/rosemary-kennedy-timothy-shriver-fully-alive
I'm curious, are all of your opinions formed by the majority opinion you observe? Herd instinct does have a down side ya know. It prevents some people from thinking for themselves. They rely on the majority of idiots who have the same herd instinct and fool themselves into thinking they know best because of "group think". I have seen a lot of that here. The exaggerations about global warming are so bad on here that it defies the very science you and others hold so dear.
11 Feb 15
9 edits
Originally posted by Metal Brain
"Are you a qualified climate scientist?"
Singer is, but predictably you reject that qualified climate scientist as you do anybody who doesn't agree with you. I have a high IQ, but that means nothing anyway. People with high IQs can be foolish followers with a strong herd instinct. Do you think Joseph P. Kennedy had a low IQ? What about the doctors tha ...[text shortened]... t global warming are so bad on here that it defies the very science you and others hold so dear.
you reject that qualified climate scientist as you do anybody who doesn't agree with you.
No, I reject anyone's denial of the scientific facts regardless of their qualifications scientific or otherwise. I just agree with whatever the scientific facts are and fortunately one doesn't have to be particularly smart nor an expert to find out from the experts what they are.
In addition, the vast majority of qualified climate scientists claim there is harmful amounts of man made global warming. You reject all those qualified climate scientist's claims and yet criticize me for rejecting only a tiny minority of them that disagree with that vast majority. Why do you reject the claims from the vast majority of climate scientists that know more about it than you do? Is that because you reject anybody who doesn't agree with you?
I have a high IQ
Sorry, don't believe you. This is because I don't have a 'high' IQ in particular (110 for general; higher for non-verbal but don't remember how much ) but yet clearly post more intelligently than you do.
Anyway, my criticism here of you is not your IQ as I guess most people cannot do much about their IQ, but you, with no rational bases, disbelieve and rejecting the claims made by the majority of people that both know more about it than you do and are more intelligent than you.
People with high IQs can be foolish followers with a strong herd instinct.
So now you resort to just dishing out pure insults to all people more intelligent than you that don't agree with you.
Now that is not a nice thing to do, is it?
You evidently feel the need to just insult them rather than give counterarguments. Presumably this is because you have no counterarguments to give so you resort to attack their character rather than their claims -their claims still stand.
11 Feb 15
Originally posted by humy"No, I reject anyone's denial of the scientific facts regardless of their qualifications scientific or otherwise."you reject that qualified climate scientist as you do anybody who doesn't agree with you.
No, I reject anyone's denial of the scientific facts regardless of their qualifications scientific or otherwise. I just agree with whatever the scientific facts are and fortunately one doesn't have to be particularly smart nor an expert to find out f ...[text shortened]... give so you resort to attack their character rather than their claims -their claims still stand.
You have not shown that Singer is lying about anything. All you do is rely on a website posted by one of those intellectually challenged people you claim others are simply because they don't agree with you. You will not use another climate scientist to show anything about Singers claim to be inaccurate, you just point to poorly done links that a grade school kid could make. You have avoided explaining the 1900-1940 warming and you will not give an example of a single climate scientist that will address it. It seems that the 97% will always conveniently lose the pages of that history. Warming graphs will start at 1950 instead of 1900 and they will hope nobody asks why like I do. If they are not biased and deliberately misleading why do they omit the other 50 years when it exists? Why do some people on here claim that ocean temp data was omitted from 1900-1940 when it does not exist according to you?
Singer explains that bias and how it works in detail. Try reading it. You might learn something.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/singer.html
Since you will not read the whole thing I will post this excerpt of it:
"Anything else? . . .
Let me say something about this idea of scientific consensus. Well, you really shouldn't go by numbers. I think it's significant to straighten out misconceptions. One misconception is that 2,500 IPCC scientists agree that global warming is coming, and it's going to be two degrees Centigrade by the year 2100. That's just not so. In the first place, if you count the names in the IPCC report, it's less than 2,000. If you count the number of climate scientists, it's about 100. If you then ask how many of them agree, the answer is: You can't tell because there was never a poll taken. These scientists actually worked on the report. They agree with the report, obviously, in particular with the chapter that they wrote. They do not necessarily agree with the summary, because the summary was written by a different group, a handful of government scientists who had a particular point of view, and they extracted from the report those facts that tended to support their point of view.
For example, they came up with a conclusion--the only conclusion of this 1996 report--that there's a discernible human influence on climate. I don't know what that means. Nobody really knows what that means. On the one hand, it's easy to agree with a statement "a discernible human influence on global climate." Sure, why not? Nights are getting warmer. Maybe that's it. On the other hand, it certainly does not mean--as politicians think it does--it does not mean that the climate models have been validated, that there's going to be a major warming in the next century. It does not mean that. And they don't say that. They just imply it."
If Singer is wrong about that prove it. Don't try to do it with another pathetic skeptic science site that peddles alarmist propaganda.
Originally posted by Metal Brain
"No, I reject anyone's denial of the scientific facts regardless of their qualifications scientific or otherwise."
You have not shown that Singer is lying about anything. All you do is rely on a website posted by one of those intellectually challenged people you claim others are simply because they don't agree with you. You will not use another climat ...[text shortened]... Don't try to do it with another pathetic skeptic science site that peddles alarmist propaganda.
You have not shown that Singer is lying about anything
whether he is deliberately lying or is just mistaken or even delusional, either way, we have shown you the evidence that he is wrong.
12 Feb 15
4 edits
for anyone who is interested:
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-severe-weather-variable.html
Judging from various links including this link, global warming will generally, just like it already has done, lead to ever greater variability in weather which would in turn tend to generally lead to ever greater frequency of weather-related damage.
12 Feb 15
Originally posted by humy" we have shown you the evidence that he is wrong."You have not shown that Singer is lying about anything
whether he is deliberately lying or is just mistaken or even delusional, either way, we have shown you the evidence that he is wrong.
You have done nothing of the sort. All you have done is present opinion based links that were not written by a climate scientist. You have continually said that climate scientists know better than you and me both so I presented one and you have presented no climate scientist to establish real evidence of anything. You fall short and show hypocrisy at the same time. Not only will you not cite a climate scientist instead of simple links from questionable sources of information, but you insult and ignore the qualified opinion of a climate scientist without any facts to justify it. You will not take issue with a single statement Singer made. You don't want to stick with facts anymore because you would embarrass yourself more if you did. You have already embarrassed yourself by rejecting the qualified opinion of a climate scientist without a single specific reason and in addition to that never relying on your own!
You need to do better than that. If you cannot you have lost this one. You can claim questionable sources of info are proof all you want. Until you adhere to your own standards and rely on a climate scientist you are a joke and everyone can see that for themselves. You really should stop embarrassing yourself. You in denial. Things are not as black and white as you thought. You need to be more humble and lose the hubris. You are too competitive. You remind me of Edison when he went on a propaganda campaign against Alternating Current. He let his loyalty to Direct Current run his life and he fought in vain. He just could not let go and neither can you. If you have to mislead people to win a debate you have already lost.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
12 Feb 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainWhat's the point.
" we have shown you the evidence that he is wrong."
You have done nothing of the sort. All you have done is present opinion based links that were not written by a climate scientist. You have continually said that climate scientists know better than you and me both so I presented one and you have presented no climate scientist to establish real evidenc ...[text shortened]... let go and neither can you. If you have to mislead people to win a debate you have already lost.
You are a loony conspiracy nut with less grasp on reality than a 2 year old.
There is nothing we can say that will change your biased little mind.
The links I provided were to articles written by climate scientists.
The fact that they, disagree with your pet industry brought lobbyist,
and your own internal stupidity does not mean that we have not done
exactly as you asked and provided links to real climate scientists who
really know what they are talking about.
You are far too far gone to reason with.
13 Feb 15
Originally posted by googlefudge"The links I provided were to articles written by climate scientists."
What's the point.
You are a loony conspiracy nut with less grasp on reality than a 2 year old.
There is nothing we can say that will change your biased little mind.
The links I provided were to articles written by climate scientists.
The fact that they, disagree with your pet industry brought lobbyist,
and your own internal stupidity does n ...[text shortened]... sts who
really know what they are talking about.
You are far too far gone to reason with.
That is not true. They were not written by climate scientists. Now you are resorting to outright lying. You are a dishonest turd!
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
13 Feb 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainAhem
"The links I provided were to articles written by climate scientists."
That is not true. They were not written by climate scientists. Now you are resorting to outright lying. You are a dishonest turd!
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook, the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland. He studied physics at the University of Queensland, Australia. After graduating, he majored in solar physics in his post-grad honours year. He is not a climate scientist. Consequently, the science presented on Skeptical Science is not his own but taken directly from the peer reviewed scientific literature. To those seeking to refute the science presented, one needs to address the peer reviewed papers where the science comes from
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jan/22/oceans-warming-so-fast-they-keep-breaking-scientists-charts
John Abraham
Dr John Abraham is a professor of thermal sciences. He researches in climate monitoring and renewable energy generation for the developing world. His energy development work has extended to Africa, South America and Asia
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/sep/15/97-vs-3-how-much-global-warming-are-humans-causing
Dana Nuccitelli
Dana Nuccitelli is a blogger on environmentguardian.co.uk. He is an environmental scientist and risk assessor, and also contributes to SkepticalScience.com
http://theconsensusproject.com/
Do calm down, you are starting to foam at the mouth, it's not a good look.
14 Feb 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeLike I said, skeptical science is not written by a climate scientist. Stop peddling that crap as legitimate. Skeptical science is poorly written garbage and I'm sick of dishonest people like you trying to pass it off as proof of anything.
Ahem
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook, the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland. He studied physics at the University of Queensland, Australia. After graduating, he majored in solar physics in his post-grad honours year. He is not a climate scient ...[text shortened]... usproject.com/
Do calm down, you are starting to foam at the mouth, it's not a good look.
Ocean temps have a limited record. They indicate nothing long term. More meaningless crap being embraced by GW alarmists who cannot convince anyone of it without misleading people.
AS for your 97% consensus, it is misleading junk as well. You should already know that if you are reading my posts though. Don't you remember what Singer said which I posted previously? Here it is again.
"Anything else? . . .
Let me say something about this idea of scientific consensus. Well, you really shouldn't go by numbers. I think it's significant to straighten out misconceptions. One misconception is that 2,500 IPCC scientists agree that global warming is coming, and it's going to be two degrees Centigrade by the year 2100. That's just not so. In the first place, if you count the names in the IPCC report, it's less than 2,000. If you count the number of climate scientists, it's about 100. If you then ask how many of them agree, the answer is: You can't tell because there was never a poll taken. These scientists actually worked on the report. They agree with the report, obviously, in particular with the chapter that they wrote. They do not necessarily agree with the summary, because the summary was written by a different group, a handful of government scientists who had a particular point of view, and they extracted from the report those facts that tended to support their point of view.
For example, they came up with a conclusion--the only conclusion of this 1996 report--that there's a discernible human influence on climate. I don't know what that means. Nobody really knows what that means. On the one hand, it's easy to agree with a statement "a discernible human influence on global climate." Sure, why not? Nights are getting warmer. Maybe that's it. On the other hand, it certainly does not mean--as politicians think it does--it does not mean that the climate models have been validated, that there's going to be a major warming in the next century. It does not mean that. And they don't say that. They just imply it."
That 97% is just a fabrication. There is no justification for claiming any number since no poll was taken. The title says a lot:
"The preponderance of evidence shows that humans are responsible for about 100% of the warming since 1950"
100%??? Did Dana Nuccitelli write that article for stupid people? That is not even possible. It is no surprise that Nuccitelli is affiliated with skeptical science, one of the most misleading website about climate change I have ever seen. Here is a rebuttal from the guardian as well.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming
Are you embarrased yet? You should be.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/
Originally posted by Metal Brainperhaps you are unable to read but your above quote was already rendered irrelevant before you said it by what googlefudge had just perfectly informatively and concisely told you which was:
Like I said, skeptical science is not written by a climate scientist.
“...
He is not a climate scientist. Consequently, the science presented on Skeptical Science is not his own but taken directly from the peer reviewed scientific literature. To those seeking to refute the science presented, one needs to address the peer reviewed papers where the science comes from ...”