The Problem With Science: It's Not Credible

[pogi]

It is talking about the land and ocean surface temperature, not the surface air temperatures alone. 

 

 

 

I agree, there was no global warming in the surface air temperatures  

 

If you would bother to read the title of the chart you would see that it accounted for ocean temps as well.  

 

I have, but there are no significant both sides in the scientific literature. There was a significant debate 40 years ago, not anymore. 

 

Is that what your websites told you?

No you haven't.  You didn't know about or read any peer reviewed journal articles that discredit global warming.  You don't know anything about solar cycles and what solar cycle we just entered.  When the science clearly demonstrates that global temps have been controlled by solar cycles and not C02 for the last 600,000, why are you focusing only on C02 and neglecting the solar cycles?  Have you watched the videos yet?  Invest in a nice coat. 

Edited March 25, 2015 by pogi

[thesometimesaint]

Luddite:

 

Against industrialization (reduced C02 emissions, curbing global warming).

 

Against big business replacing high skilled, high-paid workers with less-skilled, low-wage workers thereby increasing the income gap, making the rich richer and the poor poorer.  (I know your feelings about this from another thread).

 

I am starting to suspect that you just might be a Luddite yourself. 

 

I'm not against industrialization.

 

"You can buy anything in this world with money". Once someone is willing to be bought with money all we are doing is negotiating price.

Henry Ford was a jerk in many ways. But he was smart enough to know that if he paid his employees well enough to buy the cars they helped make that they would make him rich, and they did.

 

I am starting to suspect that you just might be a Agent Provocateur yourself.

Edited March 25, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

Solar cycles.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/rind_03/

[UtahTexan]

I saw that and could not believe it.

 

And this guy is supposed to be into science?  What was that about anyway?? 

 

It means his argument is weak

[MormonFreeThinker]

If you would bother to read the title of the chart you would see that it accounted for ocean temps as well.  at. 

 

If you would bother to understand what I am trying to tell you, the NASA chart is about the ocean-land temperatures. 

Your were talking about the air surface temperatures when you said, "You will also see that there has been no global warming for the past 18 years" 

 

Is that what your websites told you?. 

 

No, I cited 3 scientific papers that researched the scientific literature, I proved that there is no significant debate. 

 

You didn't know about or read any peer reviewed journal articles that discredit global warming. 

 

I did know of the few papers that challenge global warming, but the papers are not successful because they did not pass the test of time

None of your papers offer a new theory that explains all the data. 

 

When the science clearly demonstrates that global temps have been controlled by solar cycles and not C02 for the last 600,000, 

 

"clearly"? Now you are talking with 100% certainty. 

It is true that solar cycles have affected temperatures in the past, but it is currently not the case. Solar cycle length as a proxy for solar activity tells us the sun has had very little contribution to global warming since 1975.  I keep telling you that your "no warming for the past 18 years" for air surface temperatures challenges your solar cycle theory, why are you ignoring that? 

 

Read, they do cite the scientific literature, and please check it. 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-cycles-global-warming.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-cycle-length.htm

 

 

It means his argument is weak

 

CountryBoy,

I think it is good to point out that most pseudoscience creationists are also global warming skeptics. 

 

 

Have you watched the videos yet? Invest in a nice coat.

 

Yes, I am watching it, they are talking about the "importance" of internet blogs, why don't they talk about the scientific literature? 

I will like to see them debate climate researchers, because I think their "evidence" is out of context as usual. 

 

"John Casey and Craig Rucker Debunk The Hoax" there is no room for that title in a scientific debate, where is the open mind? 

The first speaker is not a climate researcher, I will not be surprise if no one is. 

 

 

 

Solar cycles.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/rind_03/

 

thesometimesaint, 

 

Nice link, but many here already decided that the consensus is wrong before reading the scientific literature. 

For many, blogs are far more important.  

Edited March 25, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker

[UtahTexan]

 

 

 

CountryBoy,

I think it is good to point out that most pseudoscience creationists are also global warming skeptics. 

 

 

 

 

So...assuming it and making that comment was right, then?  

 

odd, that

[thesometimesaint]

So...assuming it and making that comment was right, then?  

 

odd, that

 

While correlation is not causation the trend is statistically significant.

[mfbukowski]

Scientists are atheists.

Religionists are kooks
 

 

While correlation is not causation the trend is statistically significant.

 

Edited March 25, 2015 by mfbukowski

[thesometimesaint]

Scientists are atheists.

Religionists are kooks

 

 

Non Sequitur, but we can find examples of both. Sometimes in the same individual.

[ERayR]

Non Sequitur, but we can find examples of both. Sometimes in the same individual.

 

I have noticed that in this thread alone.

[strappinglad]

I have a thermometer on the front of my house and one on the back. Rarely do they read the same. What amount of temperature change in the last 100 years has resulted from the number and position of the sensors? Any sensor in an urban environment ( which is much greater in area now than 100 years ago) should probably read much higher than one in rural areas. Maybe it's like crime stats in that we have much better records now and every little event is reported 24/7 so the place just seems more dangerous. Then again, I am not a scientist and have not done any personal peer reviewed research .From what I have seen here though, there are a few brave souls who are leaving or ignoring the bandwagon. In my uninformed opinion, that is what makes for good science .

[thesometimesaint]

I have a thermometer on the front of my house and one on the back. Rarely do they read the same. What amount of temperature change in the last 100 years has resulted from the number and position of the sensors? Any sensor in an urban environment ( which is much greater in area now than 100 years ago) should probably read much higher than one in rural areas. Maybe it's like crime stats in that we have much better records now and every little event is reported 24/7 so the place just seems more dangerous. Then again, I am not a scientist and have not done any personal peer reviewed research .From what I have seen here though, there are a few brave souls who are leaving or ignoring the bandwagon. In my uninformed opinion, that is what makes for good science .

 

SEE

 

While there is plenty more to learn, and at least in theory to falsify. Science usually builds on what is already known, and it takes very convincing evidence to falsify it. IE; Newton was right to a point. We still use his ideas to launch spacecraft to outside our solar system. But he had no clue as to the large scales of our universe. That took Einstein. Like wise Einstein was right to a point. But had no clue as to objects at the quantum level. We just falsified Einstein's spooky actions at a distance. That's how science works, usually not with big grand pronouncements, but small steps on what is already known.

[Mormonmaniac]

I tried really hard to listen to the news on that global warming as I froze my butt off this last few winters when it got to 25 below zero but even the radio in the darn car doesn't work too well when its that cold. I'm thinking that if all politicians lived in Alaska we would probably be debating global freezing.

[MormonFreeThinker]

I tried really hard to listen to the news on that global warming as I froze my butt off this last few winters when it got to 25 below zero but even the radio in the darn car doesn't work too well when its that cold. I'm thinking that if all politicians lived in Alaska we would probably be debating global freezing.

 

WOW dude, Impressive! You are the most intelligent person ever, you know far more than the climate researchers.

You should win a Nobel prize for discovering that it is cold in Alaska, I didn't know that. 

 

 

I have a thermometer on the front of my house and one on the back. Rarely do they read the same. 

 

strappinglad, 

 

You are very intelligent too, and you should win a Nobel Prize for that.

You guys are the modern Einstein. Your arguments truly challenge the scientific consensus. 

Edited March 25, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker

[thesometimesaint]

One more dreaded video.

[Mormonmaniac]

WOW dude, Impressive! You are the most intelligent person ever, you know far more than the climate researchers.

You should win a Nobel prize for discovering that it is cold in Alaska, I didn't know that. 

 

 

strappinglad, 

 

You are very intelligent too, and you should win a Nobel Prize for that.

You guys are the modern Einstein. Your arguments truly challenge the scientific consensus.

If this earth has been around for 4 billion years and they have only been accurately measuring climate temperatures for the last 50-100 years then what is that? Like 0.00025% of the earths history? Nobel Prize? Sure!

[thesometimesaint]

I tried really hard to listen to the news on that global warming as I froze my butt off this last few winters when it got to 25 below zero but even the radio in the darn car doesn't work too well when its that cold. I'm thinking that if all politicians lived in Alaska we would probably be debating global freezing.

 

You do know the difference between weather and climate don't you?

 

BTW While Senator "Snowball" Inhofe is pitching balls of butt-falls it was 83 degrees where I live in southern California.

[MormonFreeThinker]

If this earth has been around for 4 billion years and they have only been accurately measuring climate temperatures for the last 50-100 years then what is that? Like 0.00025% of the earths history? Nobel Prize? Sure!

 

Fact Number 1: There are climate researchers that have expensive lab equipment. 

Fact Number 2: Scientists publish their research in the scientific literature, not in blogs. 

Fact Number 3: There are many sophisticated methods to study the distant past 

 

See the video, it is beautiful, they know what they are talking about, see 4:30

 

 

I wish I was with them, but I am here trying to do my computer programming homework 

Edited March 25, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker

[Mormonmaniac]

You do know the difference between weather and climate don't you?

 

BTW While Senator "Snowball" Inhofe is pitching balls of butt-falls it was 83 degrees where I live in southern California.

Yeah its a political term. First it was global warming, now its "climate change". This is a branch of AL Gore science. So, if Al Gore= climate change, and Al Gore is a Democrat, then we can say that Climate change = Democrat.

[thesometimesaint]

If this earth has been around for 4 billion years and they have only been accurately measuring climate temperatures for the last 50-100 years then what is that? Like 0.00025% of the earths history? Nobel Prize? Sure!

 

You weren't there when your mother was born. So how do you know how you were born? Since you're a faction of how old your mother is, least 12 years younger. Do you now get the Nobel Prize in medicine?

 

Ps. Dr. Richard Alley is a republican. So republican = climate change. Also SEE video posted in post 440.

Edited March 25, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[Mormonmaniac]

Fact Number 1: There are climate researchers that have expensive lab equipment. 

Fact Number 2: Scientists publish their research in the scientific literature, not in blogs. 

Fact Number 3: There are many methods that scientists use to study the distant past 

 

See the video, it is beautiful, they know what they are talking about, see 4:30

 

Wow, 3 facts that say nothing factually about climate change and if or what its impact is or has been in the history of the earth. If they know what they are talking about, why is it a political debate? (we all know politicians just say stuff for money)

[Mormonmaniac]

You weren't there when your mother was born. So how do you know how you were born? Since you're a faction of how old your mother is, least 12 years younger. Do you now get the Nobel Prize in medicine?

 

Ps. Dr. Richard Alley is a republican. So republican = climate change. Also SEE video posted in post 440.

I read the board rules and it said something about no politics. Lest see how fast we can shut this thread down. This is a purely political debate and nothing more. I cant help it if Al Gore has made himself a millionaire promoting this political agenda of global warming. Democrats use this issue as a basic platform for making money and getting elected.

Please give feedback on your view of the politics.

[ERayR]

You weren't there when your mother was born. So how do you know how you were born? Since you're a faction of how old your mother is, least 12 years younger. Do you now get the Nobel Prize in medicine?

 

 

 

Probably not but I think I will nominate you for the Nobel prize for inane replies and videos.

[ERayR]

Wow, 3 facts that say nothing factually about climate change and if or what its impact is or has been in the history of the earth. If they know what they are talking about, why is it a political debate? (we all know politicians just say stuff for money)

 

No they don't but they make MFT feel warm and fuzzy.

[MormonFreeThinker]

No they don't but they make MFT feel warm and fuzzy.

 

I care about serious scientific research. I was a CO2 caused skeptic, but the evidence forced me to changed my mind.

I don't care about feeling warm and fuzzy, what about you? What if you are wrong?

 

Please give feedback on your view of the politics.

 

Sure, I voted for Mitt in 2012, I am not a Democrat. I am independent, but I don't mix science and politics.

The skeptics always talk about the politics, not me. 

 

. I cant help it if Al Gore has made himself a millionaire promoting this political agenda of global warming. 

 

I don't care about Al Gore, in fact I disagree with him because he exaggerated the Global Warming effects.  

 

What if you are wrong? Are you open to that possibility? 

 

In 1896, Dr. Svante Arrhenius demonstrated CO2 caused global warming to be plausible. 

In the 1950s, important papers where published 

 

"Effect of carbon dioxide variations on climate" GN Pass - American Journal of PHysics, 1956

""Carbon dioxide exchanged between atmosphere and ocean and the question of an increase of atmospheric CO2 during the past decades" R Revelle 1957

and a lot more 

 

Here is a 1958 video about Global Warming 

 

Edited March 25, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker