@metal-brain saidSeems like you're undermining the "efforts to rig the process" argument by presenting peer-reviewed literature that supports your position. I don't see any evidence of a rigged system.
I can find peer reviewed articles that disagree with you. Here are a few.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00254-006-0261-x
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/294/5546/1431.2.summary
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/myownPapers-d/Aug27-PIPGreview2003.pdf
Skeptics manage to meet the standards of Scholarly peer review despite efforts to rig the process. This fact makes your assertions ridiculous.
Did you read the reviews and response to reviewers? It's kind of neat (I think) to have the review process so transparent, and it is clear that the reviewers are extremely knowledgeable and thorough and spend a great deal of time weeding through the methodology.
@metal-brain saidYou're making this up.
Some skeptics avoid posting reviews because they fear they will lose funding. Government simply doesn't have a habit of funding non-problems so they pay alarmists to scare them.
@wildgrass saidI am merely pointing out "climategate" is evidence of past rigging. That is a fact.
Seems like you're undermining the "efforts to rig the process" argument by presenting peer-reviewed literature that supports your position. I don't see any evidence of a rigged system.
Did you read the reviews and response to reviewers? It's kind of neat (I think) to have the review process so transparent, and it is clear that the reviewers are extremely knowledgeable and thorough and spend a great deal of time weeding through the methodology.
I also provided you with a link that said quite clearly that your claim is false. You are making crap up. Here they are again. Don't ignore them this time and stop making up lies!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#282a31c33f9f
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html
@Metal-Brain
And the fact July was the hottest ever recorded on average, just weather I suppose.
Couldn't POSSIBLY be due to the now 415 PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere, a level not seen for millions of years.
But of course we are to take you on the word of your 90 year old buddies while the young scientists are all full of shyte.
@sonhouse saidOf course there are record high temps. That is what happens in a natural warming trend and it will keep happening as I have said many times before.
@Metal-Brain
And the fact July was the hottest ever recorded on average, just weather I suppose.
Couldn't POSSIBLY be due to the now 415 PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere, a level not seen for millions of years.
But of course we are to take you on the word of your 90 year old buddies while the young scientists are all full of shyte.
CO2 is causing it you say? Prove it using sea level rise.
Oh, that's right. You are incapable of doing that.
That's why you make false assertions you never prove when called on it. You simply digress into anything but sea level rise on a sea level rise thread.
17 Aug 19
@Metal-Brain
So if you are right, the temperatures should cycle back down in a few years. My prediction is that will not happen but just keep getting hotter.
18 Aug 19
@sonhouse saidNope, I never said that.
@Metal-Brain
So if you are right, the temperatures should cycle back down in a few years. My prediction is that will not happen but just keep getting hotter.
We are in a warming trend. As long as we are in this warming trend record breaking temps will keep happening. This is merely a continuation of the natural causes that started the trend.
Record breaking temps do NOT prove anthropogenic causes. That is just another confirmation bias that alarmists foolishly fall for without proper critical thinking.
Global warming is real, but not mostly anthropogenic.
18 Aug 19
@Metal-Brain
You better HOPE it is anthro caused because if not there is no stopping it.
If caused by humans, humans can slow it down maybe stop it. Assuming we have the will.
@metal-brain saidGlobal warming is real. It seems strange to think that 7.5 billion humans who have developed much of the planet don't have a large impact on the warming climate. Heat islands (aka really large furnaces) are real, land use affects climate, greenhouse gases exist and are increasing in the atmosphere, all of these anthropogenic things affect climate.
Nope, I never said that.
We are in a warming trend. As long as we are in this warming trend record breaking temps will keep happening. This is merely a continuation of the natural causes that started the trend.
Record breaking temps do NOT prove anthropogenic causes. That is just another confirmation bias that alarmists foolishly fall for without proper critical thinking.
Global warming is real, but not mostly anthropogenic.
I just had a conversation with my neighbor who was a farmer and he is a huge skeptic of man-made climate change. But, the guy loves the idea of increasing building and vehicle efficiencies, altering farm subsidy payouts which currently only reward corn growers to support something more sustainable which would require less pesticides and fertilizer, carbon sequestration techniques as a means to make stuff. He mentioned carbon fibers as a product and I looked it up afterwards, pretty cool:
C2CNT's approach is to capture CO2 directly from the flue stream of a power plant, cement kiln or other industrial facility, then convert it into pure carbon nanotubes. The process costs less than traditional carbon nanofiber manufacturing, such as chemical vapor deposition or polymer pulling, the company said.
He was excited about this stuff because it would increase our competitiveness, create jobs, and advance energy independence. So there are many different motivations for people to support these types of initiatives, even if you don't "believe" that human activities warm the planet. I know we'll never convince you that anthropogenic causes are actionable, but there are many other reasons to support innovation in these areas.
19 Aug 19
1 edit
@wildgrass
Did they say exactly how they would be going about making those nano's? And how much energy it would cost to do it and how much water or other resources it would take to do that conversion?
20 Aug 19
@wildgrass saidYou are digressing away from sea level rise. If you cannot conform to the name of the thread your argument is gossip and nothing more. Prove it with sea level rise!
Global warming is real. It seems strange to think that 7.5 billion humans who have developed much of the planet don't have a large impact on the warming climate. Heat islands (aka really large furnaces) are real, land use affects climate, greenhouse gases exist and are increasing in the atmosphere, all of these anthropogenic things affect climate.
I just had a conversati ...[text shortened]... ogenic causes are actionable, but there are many other reasons to support innovation in these areas.
20 Aug 19
@sonhouse saidI found that from here: https://www.greenbiz.com/article/5-surprising-products-companies-are-making-carbon-dioxide
@wildgrass
Did they say exactly how they would be going about making those nano's? And how much energy it would cost to do it and how much water or other resources it would take to do that conversion?
Molten electrolysis. I think you can see some of the details on the methods at the C2NT website: https://www.c2cnt.com/technology/
20 Aug 19
@metal-brain saidI'm just trying to meet you where you're at. Did you read those peer reviews you asked for?
You are digressing away from sea level rise. If you cannot conform to the name of the thread your argument is gossip and nothing more. Prove it with sea level rise!
21 Aug 19
@wildgrass saidIt looked like a website that selectively posts peer reviews. I would expect more reviews of an article than the link posted. Who created that link and why?
I'm just trying to meet you where you're at. Did you read those peer reviews you asked for?
@metal-brain saidIt's an academic journal that posts all peer reviews and authors' responses to reviewers alongside each of the articles they publish. The "link" as you put it is created by the journal for transparency purposes. Also, it keeps reviewers honest. There are many journals that do this now, so it's certainly not selective.
It looked like a website that selectively posts peer reviews. I would expect more reviews of an article than the link posted. Who created that link and why?
I was just asking if you read the ones you asked for and what you thought about them.