‘Climate Change’ Is No More Credible than Magic Says Top Physicist

[gatchaman]

Nope, we are done.

I asked for a real published scientific journal, you gave me crap from a known pseudoscience right wing conspiracy BLOG site..
There is nothing left to discuss, I know who I'm dealing with now and I wont waste any more of my time on you

You sound scared homie.

I provided you with this article http://www.clim-past.net/11/105/2015/cp-11-105-2015.pdf about correlating tree ring data with ice cores (Post #236).

And the surface temperature data I have provided is from NASA (Post #236 again).

Perhaps you are unaware that NASA changes its analysis even though I have quoted the NASA admission of this (Post #229). https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
"We maintain a running record of any modifications made to the analysis"

I thought you would appreciate the NASA data as you have posted some yourself (Post #230).

Do you dispute that NASA has changed its temperature data with the magnitude of the changes exceeding the size of NASA's error bars?

While I have provided you with a journal article you have asked for, you have not provided any evidence of correlation between surface temperature data and satellite data.

 

[Helden]

You sound scared homie.

I provided you with this article http://www.clim-past.net/11/105/2015/cp-11-105-2015.pdf about correlating tree ring data with ice cores (Post #236).

And the surface temperature data I have provided is from NASA (Post #236 again).

Perhaps you are unaware that NASA changes its analysis even though I have quoted the NASA admission of this (Post #229). https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
"We maintain a running record of any modifications made to the analysis"

I thought you would appreciate the NASA data as you have posted some yourself (Post #230).

Do you dispute that NASA has changed its temperature data with the magnitude of the changes exceeding the size of NASA's error bars?

While I have provided you with a journal article you have asked for, you have not provided any evidence of correlation between surface temperature data and satellite data.

Your credibility went out of the window the second you started using realclimatescience.com

We are done, you are 100% dishonest, have absolutely no understanding of the science or the data you are quoting and are a waste of my time
(you havent even read the paper you posted)

 

[Da Right Cross]

...Guess this guy doesn't have enough feels for those poor polar bears. He should be protested. Better get on that Antifa, chop chop. Fascist weather denier obviously calling for a beat down.

That the shittiest article ever and you should be ashamed of posting it. So this guy's science is more legit than 97% of other scientists science because????? ????????????????

 

[Da Right Cross]

CO2 is plant food. Plants literally use it to grow. Indoor pot growers release it into their gardens.

And do you think going from 3/10,000 to 4/10,000 is a huge jump in CO2?

Wow! What is this even suppose to mean? So because the plants were steadily cutting down absorb CO2 global warming isn't a thing?

 

[Da Right Cross]

I dont know if he's credible or not. But college proffessors are usually cuck bitches. They are cowardly fools. Paterson got no support from the other proffessors or the University. Universities cant be trusted to give accurate information on anything political. Theyve proven this time and time again.

Spoken like a guy who couldn't get into college.

 

[lifelessheap]

Wow! What is this even suppose to mean? So because the plants were steadily cutting down absorb CO2 global warming isn't a thing?

It is called "global climate change" because the 'experts' got so many predictions and models wrong they had to change the name.

So. At least get the name right, ya dork.

 

[Teppodama]

That the shittiest article ever and you should be ashamed of posting it. So this guy's science is more legit than 97% of other scientists science because????? ????????????????

I don't give a shit about the guys science or politics. I knew his comments would rustle Jimmie here and spark discussions that would make me laugh. That's as far as the thought went because no one here has honestly asked my opinion. Hardly anyone asks for real opinions they just react.

 

[Thunderflash500]

Spoken like a guy who couldn't get into college.

Because it's even hard. If you can read or write you're good. They have tens of thousands of reasons to accept you. College = Pinocchio 's pleasure island. A place for people to have fun and then wake up and realize they are a jackass. Yea some majors are still legit of course. But to get into college is not exactly a challenge.

The spirit of the university has left the campus. It's gone digital.

 

[Da Right Cross]

It is called "global climate change" because the 'experts' got so many predictions and models wrong they had to change the name.

So. At least get the name right, ya dork.

No they changed it because dumbasses would bring fucking snowballs into congress and be like "herp derp there's snow so how can the planet be 'warming'"

 

[Da Right Cross]

I don't give a shit about the guys science or politics. I knew his comments would rustle Jimmie here and spark discussions that would make me laugh. That's as far as the thought went because no one here has honestly asked my opinion. Hardly anyone asks for real opinions they just react.

What? How is regurgitating an obviously alcoholic professors article expressing your opinion? What is your opinion on the subject in your own words?

 

[Da Right Cross]

Because it's even hard. If you can read or write you're good. They have tens of thousands of reasons to accept you. College = Pinocchio 's pleasure island. A place for people to have fun and then wake up and realize they are a jackass. Yea some majors are still legit of course. But to get into college is not exactly a challenge.

The spirit of the university has left the campus. It's gone digital.

We'll it even sadder you could get in then. I got thousands of dollars worth of entrance scholarships when I got in FYI.

 

[Teppodama]

What? How is regurgitating an obviously alcoholic professors article expressing your opinion? What is your opinion on the subject in your own words?

The climate is changing, this is an obvious observable phenomena. I personally believe that humanity has contributed to it. Is it the main reason? I simply do not know, but given my general feelings regarding humanity and how we've dealt with our environment, I'm willing to believe that we can lay a rather large portion of the blame on ourselves.

We can enact as many measures as we want to try and correct the issue but I believe that the only real answers are either a rather large reduction in the overall planetary population or we simply must move beyond the boundaries of Earth to relieve the constant taxing of our planetary resources.

 

[Da Right Cross]

The climate is changing, this is an obvious observable phenomena. I personally believe that humanity has contributed to it. Is it the main reason? I simply do not know, but given my general feelings regarding humanity and how we've dealt with our environment, I'm willing to believe that we can lay a rather large portion of the blame on ourselves.

We can enact as many measures as we want to try and correct the issue but I believe that the only real answers are either a rather large reduction in the overall planetary population or we simply must move beyond the boundaries of Earth to relieve the constant taxing of our planetary resources.

Or rely more on the renewable resources already available to us instead of believing in some fanciful sci-fi colonization of other planets.

 

[lifelessheap]

I don't think there's any way with all the complexities involved to figure out how to fix

We are coming out of an ice age that featured woolly mammoths and saber tooth tigers less than 12,000 years ago and the Earth has been warming ever since. Now that humans have injected so much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere it is warming even more. Everything we do depends on adding more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The solution is going to be messy. The one thing I do know is that the Earth is going to be spinning long after this grievance is addressed.

Water vapor has a way more substantial impact as a greenhouse gas as compared to CO2. Should we ban water?

lmao, CO2 going from 3/10,000 parts to 4/10,000 is going to cause the Earth to catch fire? lol

 

[JonnyRingo84]

Global warming research has been falsified.

falsifiable (which is what i thought we were talking about) is a different issue than something being falsified. disagree?

If you think that global warming is replicable

again, i think we're using different nomenclature. replication refers to the ability to replicate research. right? so if one researcher claims based on an experiment, "when diabetics eat 1 cup of blueberries a day, xy and z happens to them." then another researcher should be able to do the same experiment, and get similar results.

im not talking about replicating global warming within an experiment, as it seems you are implying. that would be pointless. you dont need to replicate a volcano to prove how one works.

 

[gatchaman]

falsifiable (which is what i thought we were talking about) is a different issue than something being falsified. disagree?



again, i think we're using different nomenclature. replication refers to the ability to replicate research. right? so if one researcher claims based on an experiment, "when diabetics eat 1 cup of blueberries a day, xy and z happens to them." then another researcher should be able to do the same experiment, and get similar results.

im not talking about replicating global warming within an experiment, as it seems you are implying. that would be pointless. you dont need to replicate a volcano to prove how one works.

I am stating that the finding of 1C of warming in 100 years is falsified because this finding is based on adjusted measurements, which do not correlate with other measurements, whereas measurements (such as tree rings) which do correlate with other measurements (such as ice cores) do not show significant warming.

The adjusted measurements that show 1C of warming in 100 years cannot be replicated using raw data, unless the same adjustments are applied. There is no raw data set that can be used to show the 1C of warming in 100 years.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

I am stating that the finding of 1C of warming in 100 years is falsified because this finding is based on adjusted measurements, which do not correlate with other measurements, whereas measurements (such as tree rings) which do correlate with other measurements (such as ice cores) do not show significant warming.

The adjusted measurements that show 1C of warming in 100 years cannot be replicated using raw data, unless the same adjustments are applied. There is no raw data set that can be used to show the 1C of warming in 100 years.

looks like youve debunked it all. alert the media.

 

[gatchaman]

looks like youve debunked it all. alert the media.

If you do not have enough science literacy to discuss the science itself then you are vulnerable to manipulation by propaganda.

When I press others on their views of scientific discoveries, I find that their opinions often come down to just parroting the opinion they heard on TV; this form of appeal to authority is unconvincing to me.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

If you do not have enough science literacy to discuss the science itself then you are vulnerable to manipulation by propaganda.

When I press others on their views of scientific discoveries, I find that their opinions often come down to just parroting the opinion they heard on TV; this form of appeal to authority is unconvincing to me.

ive been in these climate science debates before, and i know what it turns into.

two or more people unqualified to interpret the data theyre mining and pasting, going on and on and on and on only to convince the other person of nothing.

and with the presence of shilling on both sides of issues like this, i limit the effort that i put into forum posting these days.

 

[gatchaman]

ive been in these climate science debates before, and i know what it turns into.

two or more people unqualified to interpret the data theyre mining and pasting, going on and on and on and on only to convince the other person of nothing.

and with the presence of shilling on both sides of issues like this, i limit the effort that i put into forum posting these days.

Now that I have taken you to the woodshed, you are reduced to ad hominem of insinuating I am unqualified to discuss climate science.

I entered the discussion in response to your post. By your own metric, you were unqualified to start things off with your catastrophic pronouncements about apple trees.

Engaging in logical fallacies, such as ad hominem, is a departure from scientific discussion and an embrace of sophistry.