Are human activities influencing the climate?

Thargor

dense wrote: »

BTW, was someone looking for a list of extinct animals to mourn over?


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_extinct_animals

What a bizarre individual, do you take pleasure in seeing species go extinct or something?

Although looking at the tone and writing style of earlier posts compared to those preachy sermons up there its clear that theres more than one person logging into this Dense account so maybe individual isnt the right word...

dense

Thargor wrote: »

What a bizarre individual, do you take pleasure in seeing species go extinct or something?

Or something.

I regularly wonder how nature be so cruel as to not permit all species to prosper indefinitely.

Right now I'm thinking of polar bears.
They're doing alright, even though global warming was to have made them extinct by now by having no ice to eat.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Does anyone take the Guardian, the UK newspaper in which one of Cook et al's conspirators Dana Nuccitelli has an unfettered platform to promote the 97% untruth?

Whenever he writes, the comments published reflect the readers' staunch belief in the 97% and CAGW.

Comments usually range, in a narrow spectrum, from "we are killing the planet", to "we need to stop burning fossil fuels, yesterday".

There's a rich irony at play, that goes undetected, with the readers urging everyone to switch to a different lifestyle, a more sustainable, less environmentally damaging one, one where consumerism is frowned upon and preaching to others is normal.

The Guardian profiles it's readers.

It finds that:

Guardian readers are generally wealthy with a definite sense of financial nous and an interest in investment ideas.

Guardian readers are twice as likely as the average GB adult to holiday 2-6 times a year.

They are 30% more likely than the average adult to have travelled by plane in the last 12 months.

They are far more likely to have an interest in financial services advertising and twice as likely as the average adult to be interested in reading about personal finance in newspapers

They spend more than the average adult on groceries; an astonishing £87 million in total every week, and their food buying habits tend towards quality, healthy produce.

Guardian readers are stylish and like spending a lot of money on clothes. In the last year Guardian readers spent a staggering £457m on clothing, footwear and accessories.

They are more likely than the average adult to own the latest items, such as laptops with blu-ray layers, wireless internet radios and digital music streamers.


https://www.theguardian.com/advertising/advertising-guardian-readership-profile

We need to stop doing all of these things we're doing, they say.

No friends, those ABC1 readers, they want YOU to stop doing all the nice things you're doing.

They need suckers to take up the slack.

And they're awfully sure that the planet is going to burst into flames at any moment.

Dana has told them that 97% of scientists say it's so.

What are you on about?

Subcomandante Marcos

dense wrote: »

Or something.

I regularly wonder how nature be so cruel as to not permit all species to prosper indefinitely.

Right now I'm thinking of polar bears.
They're doing alright, even though global warming was to have made them extinct by now by having no ice to eat.

Wow. You really don't know what you're talking about, do you?

Polar bear numbers aren't increasing, they were just misreported for years. There's increased numbers in certain areas of North Eastern Canada where hunting has almost completely stopped, but otherwise cub mortality rates are increasing.

dense

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

.There's increased numbers in certain areas of North Eastern Canada where hunting has almost completely stopped, but otherwise cub mortality rates are increasing.

It's good to see someone acknowledging that hunting was wiping them out, not climate change.

There is no decline in the number of polar bears.

http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/arctic/wildlife/polar_bear/population/


https://polarbearscience.com/2017/02/23/global-polar-bear-population-larger-than-previous-thought-almost-30000/

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

What are you on about?

What's so difficult to comprehend?

Its just an outline of the simplistic devouring of false data by the hypocrites in the UK ABC1 segment who have the neck to criticise others whose lifestyles they see as being responsible for climate change.

Here it's the barely spell their own name crowd (but get a star for effort) who believe the 97% of scientists lie.

The "I would of", "I could of" crowd, you know the ones, their kid was in a field and then tripped and "fell on the floor".

Thickos. They'll swallow anything, from chemtrails to anti-vax to AGW.

Unless you'd like to dispute that, and show we've the same hypocritical ABC1 preachy rubbish going on here as in the UK.

xckjoo

dense wrote: »

What's so difficult to comprehend?

Its just an outline of the simplistic devouring of false data by the hypocrites in the UK ABC1 segment who have the neck to criticise others whose lifestyles they see as being responsible for climate change.

Here it's the barely spell their own name crowd (but get a star for effort) who believe the 97% of scientists lie.

The "I would of", "I could of" crowd, you know the ones, their kid was in a field and then tripped and "fell on the floor".

Thickos. They'll swallow anything, from chemtrails to anti-vax to AGW.

Unless you'd like to dispute that, and show we've the same hypocritical ABC1 preachy rubbish going on here as in the UK.

I can barely comprehend what you're writing about either. It's all over the place and littered with acronyms that aren't explained.

Are you talking about the hypocrisy of people that call for reduction in Carbon emissions while simultaneously over-consuming and over-emitting themselves? That's a fair observation. But irrelevant if you don't believe these things have an influence on the climate. The world is full of self-entitled hypocrites. Don't sweat it if they're harping on about things you don't think effect you.

dense

xckjoo wrote: »

I can barely comprehend what you're writing about either.

It's all over the place and littered with acronyms that aren't explained.

There are just three common acronyms used, UK, ABC1, and AGW.

If they are causing comprehension difficulties for you, and you say they are, I'll kindly reject the advice you offer in the rest of your post.

xckjoo

dense wrote: »

There are just three common acronyms used, UK, ABC1, and AGW.

If they are causing comprehension difficulties for you, and you say they are, I'll kindly reject the advice you offer in the rest of your post.

Ha! They were only adding to the comprehension difficulties. Not creating them.

The rest of the post was primarily asking for clarification about what you meant but don't worry about it.

Thargor

I had to look up what ABC1 meant, never heard that terminology before:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NRS_social_grade

So apparently this evil ABC1 cohort that Dense is calling on all "friends" to rally against:

dense wrote: »

No friends, those ABC1 readers, they want YOU to stop doing all the nice things you're doing.

Is made up of the segment of population comprised of upper middle class down to lower middle class with good old middle class in the erm... middle. I think poor Dense has got a bit of a chip on his shoulder about something besides climate change...

dense wrote: »

Thickos. They'll swallow anything, from chemtrails to anti-vax to AGW.

Unless you'd like to dispute that, and show we've the same hypocritical ABC1 preachy rubbish going on here as in the UK.

Ummm... no, I think you'll find more of the chemtrails and anti-vaccine crowd in your denier camp, people who go against the vast scientific consensus on one subject usually have no issues doing it for whatever takes their fancy.

dense

Thargor wrote: »

I had to look up what ABC1 meant, never heard that terminology before:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NRS_social_grade

That's one that I used.

You said you couldn't comprehend the acronyms that I hadn't explained.

I used three.

Did also you need to look up what UK and AGW mean?

Fair enough if you did.

Thargor wrote: »

Ummm... no, I think you'll find more of the chemtrails and anti-vaccine crowd in your denier camp, people who go against the vast scientific consensus on one subject usually have no issues doing it for whatever takes their fancy.

What "scientific consensus" are you referring to in the context of the current debate?

The "97% of all scientists" consensus myth that Akrasia and I busted earlier in the thread?

Maybe you missed it, coming so late to the party.

So let's do it again, for clarity.

3% of 11,944 scientific research papers analysed "endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".

Do you think that's a consensus?

Does it look like 97% of scientists agreeing about AGW?

Or 3%?

"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW (389 of 11,944 papers analysed) 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

Do you understand the above?

Given that you have self-confessed trouble comprehending "UK" and "AGW", I have to ask.

The published analysis indicates that the number of papers which endorse the AGW theory is a vanishingly small proportion of published research.

The "consensus" doesn't exist.

It is a construct, a mistruth to get society to swallow an agenda.

Check it out for yourself, here, in the "scientific" paper that manufactured the myth.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Subcomandante Marcos

dense wrote: »

That's one that I used.

You said you couldn't comprehend the acronyms that I hadn't explained.

I used three.

Did also you need to look up what UK and AGW mean?

Fair enough if you did.



What "scientific consensus" are you referring to in the context of the current debate?

The "97% of all scientists" consensus myth that Akrasia and I busted earlier in the thread?

Maybe you missed it, coming so late to the party.

Sorry when did you "bust" anything?

You keep saying that but it never actually happened.

dense

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

Sorry when did you "bust" anything?

You keep saying that but it never actually happened.

You obviously haven't been keping tabs.

Akrasia and I agree that 100% of scientists were never polled, hence the claim of "97% of scientists" agreeing is fallacious.

See my previous post to learn how "climate research" is openly progressing in the direction of lies and deception in order to claim a consensus exists.

Subcomandante Marcos

You're saying things but you have nothing, literally nothing to back them up.

Typical crank ****e.

dense

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

You're saying things but you have nothing, literally nothing to back them up.

Typical crank ****e.

Typical alarmist comment.

Subcomandante Marcos

Logical fallacies are all you have to cling on to.

Like I said earlier in this thread, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Added to that, useful idiots are abundant.

Thargor

dense wrote: »

Given that you have self-confessed trouble comprehending "UK" and "AGW", I have to ask.

Oof, reading comprehension fail there, can you back up your statement or are you just lying again?

Akrasia

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

You're saying things but you have nothing, literally nothing to back them up.

Typical crank ****e.

There's no consensus but dense cannot find a single academic or scientific body that agrees with his/her position on global warming.

Not even one.

Dense fails (deliberately?) to realise that the consensus is so strong that it literally goes without saying that global warming is real and humans are responsible, and for this reason, most academic papers on the subject don't have to state their position on the validity of AGW in the abstract.

dense

Thargor wrote: »

Oof, reading comprehension fail there, can you back up your statement or are you just lying again?

Sorry Thargor, I didn't lie, I just confused you with someone else.
It was just ABC1 that you hadn't understood.

Someone else had trouble with some or all of the "unexplained" ABC1, UK and AGW acronyms:


https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=105146262&postcount=808

You claimed there is "vast scientific consensus" about AGW.

Are you another person deliberately lying about the 97% of scientists or are you just mistaken, not realising (like many others) that you've been duped by Barack and unethical scientists engaging in unethical "research"?

What "vast scientific consensus" are you talking about?

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

See my previous post to learn how "climate research" is openly progressing in the direction of lies and deception in order to claim a consensus exists.

The only lies and deception are on the side of James Dellingpole and the 'no tricks zone' who have been caught with their pants on fire, and the denialosphere who happily repeat those lies without ever bothering to check their facts.

xckjoo

dense wrote: »

Sorry Thargor, I didn't lie, I just confused you with someone else.
It was just ABC1 that you hadn't understood.

Someone else had trouble with some or all of the "unexplained" ABC1, UK and AGW acronyms:


https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=105146262&postcount=808

You claimed there is "vast scientific consensus" about AGW.

Are you another person deliberately lying about the 97% of scientists or are you just mistaken, not realising (like many others) that you've been duped by Barack and unethical scientists engaging in unethical "research"?

What "vast scientific consensus" are you talking about?

That was me asking you about the acronyms. Out of those three, only one of them is an acronym I've ever encountered before. I'll let you figure out which one. Instead of just explaining them you've harped on about it for a full page or so.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

There's no consensus but dense cannot find a single academic or scientific body that agrees with his/her position on global warming.

Not even one.

There you are, right on cue carrying your strawman under your arm.

Must be getting heavy lugging it around all the time.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

The only lies and deception are on the side of James Dellingpole and the 'no tricks zone' who have been caught with their pants on fire, and the denialosphere who happily repeat those lies without ever bothering to check their facts.

And up to half of pal reviewed scientific "literature" is suspected of being false.


http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124


http://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970


https://www.naturalnews.com/053663_scientific_literature_fabricated_studies_Big_Pharma.html


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2685008/

srsly78

Everything is suspected of being false, that's the point of science. Producing evidence for falsification and correcting things are the hard part. Anyone is free to publish their own work/evidence, and everyone else is free to criticise it.

Opinion means little however, evidence is what counts.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

There you are, right on cue carrying your strawman under your arm.

Must be getting heavy lugging it around all the time.

I don't think you know what a strawman argument is

Subcomandante Marcos

Akrasia wrote: »

I don't think you know what a strawman argument is

He doesn't even know the difference between flat map projections and actual area on a spherical planet :pac:

srsly78

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

He doesn't even know the difference between flat map projections and actual area on a spherical planet :pac:

But where is your evidence that the planet is spherical!?

Doctor Jimbob

dense wrote: »

And up to half of pal reviewed scientific "literature" is suspected of being false.


http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124


http://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970


https://www.naturalnews.com/053663_scientific_literature_fabricated_studies_Big_Pharma.html


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2685008/

What proportion of random blogs would you say contain false information?

Peer review isn't flawless, but I'd put more faith in it than any loony with an internet connection.

Akrasia

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

What proportion of random blogs would you say contain false information?

Peer review isn't flawless, but I'd put more faith in it than any loony with an internet connection.

Or anyone who thinks naturalnews is a reliable source

Thargor

srsly78 wrote: »

But where is your evidence that the planet is spherical!?

He actually would argue that there is no consensus for that either.

Akrasia

Thargor wrote: »

He actually would argue that there is no consensus for that either.

The only way there could be a consensus is if every single scientist in the world was compelled to complete a survey
#denselogic

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Or anyone who thinks naturalnews is a reliable source

Are you disputing the story linked to? No you're not.

You are just trying it on again.

Here's another source, you'll no doubt find fault with it too or claim that climate scientists are a moral and intellectually superior breed of scientists.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1/fulltext?rss%3Dyes

Doctor Jimbob

dense wrote: »

Are you disputing the story linked to? No you're not.

You are just trying it on again.

Here's another source, you'll no doubt find fault with it too or claim that climate scientists are a moral and intellectually superior breed of scientists.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1/fulltext?rss%3Dyes

All that anything you're linking shows is that peer review isnt perfect though. That doesn't mean the alternatives you're linking to are better, which is what you're so obviously trying to imply.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

The only way there could be a consensus is if every single scientist in the world was compelled to complete a survey
#denselogic

No, I just said the "97% of scientists" claim has no basis, but suckers lap it up and liars spread it.

You've already agreed that 100% of scientists were never asked about it.

You followed that up by making a claim that 100% of universities and academies of science endorse the AGW theory.

You couldn't provide a shred of evidence to support that claim either.


If you'd just come out and say that the end justifies the means and that you're not afraid to lie because you believe so much in CAGW, I might have some respect.


As it is, as I've already said, you're just making things up and hoping no one will look too closely at what you're claiming.

Am I being fair when I say that I think you'll say anything if it could create the consensus you so badly seem to rely on?

Is it all just so urgent, the catastrophe requires lies now in order that it may be averted?

And can you confirm that you believe that man is responsible for 110% of climate change and that you also believe mankind can manipulate nature at will in order to arrive at and maintain the desired global temperature?

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Are you disputing the story linked to? No you're not.

You are just trying it on again.

Here's another source, you'll no doubt find fault with it too or claim that climate scientists are a moral and intellectually superior breed of scientists.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1/fulltext?rss%3Dyes

The fact that you linked to natural news is a strong indication of how much value you place on properly validated sources of information


There is a problem in science publications that there isn't enough replication of studies and there is a novelty bias, (where journals are more likely to publish cutting edge science than the necessary follow up papers to verify the findings )

The thing is, that climate change is not reliant on a small number of papers on the cutting edge. Climate change has multiple independent lines of evidence and thousands of actively working scientists working across many different disciplines and their findings are in broad agreement with each other.

On the other hand, there are the 'skeptics' who produce very few papers fit to be in the peer reviewed literature, and those papers, when they contradict the climate consensus tend to be of very low quality, often basing their conclusions on spurious assumptions that have not been demonstrated to be true.

You don't fight bad science with bad science. You fight bad science with good science. If climate change is such a false alarm, there should be thousands of scientists publishing papers showing where the climate consensus is flawed. Instead you have a very small number of actual scientists peddling discredited theories supported by an army of bloggers and climate mis-informers

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

No, I just said the "97% of scientists" claim has no basis, but suckers lap it up and liars spread it.

It does have a basis, the multiple scientific studies that back up the claim

You've already agreed that 100% of scientists were never asked about it.

You followed that up by making a claim that 100% of universities and academies of science endorse the AGW theory.

You couldn't provide a shred of evidence to support that claim either.

Prove me wrong. Find a single National academy of science, or a single university science department that supports your position on global warming.

Just one.

It's laughable that you demand that 100% of scientists need to be asked about global warming before we can say there is a consensus, a ridiculous burden of proof. But all I ask you for is a single example of a scientific body to support your position and you refuse every single time.

Is it perhaps because you know you're wrong but don't want to admit it?

If you'd just come out and say that the end justifies the means and that you're not afraid to lie because you believe so much in CAGW, I might have some respect.

As it is, as I've already said, you're just making things up and hoping no one will look too closely at what you're claiming.

Am I being fair when I say that I think you'll say anything if it could create the consensus you so badly seem to rely on?

The consensus is real because the evidence is overwhelming.
The ipcc says it is incontrovertible that humans have caused global warming because of our emissions of greenhouse gasses.

I don't 'rely on a consensus' that the world isn't flat. The consensus is there because the evidence is undeniable (except to a few loons who have a very warped view of the world)

Is it all just so urgent, the catastrophe requires lies now in order that it may be averted?

I'm not lying, your buddies at 'notrickszone' are lying. Did your read my link to that snopes article. So you think it's a bad idea to be on the same side of the debate as people that deliberately lie and mislead their readers, and the same side of the debate as the thousands of blogs and tabloid journalists that repeated those lies without ever bothering to check if they were true?, and leaving those misleading articles on their blog even when they know they are lying
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/25/so-far-this-year-400-scientific-papers-debunk-climate-change-alarm/
https://www.snopes.com/400-papers-published-in-2017-prove-that-global-warming-is-myth/

And can you confirm that you believe that man is responsible for 110% of climate change and that you also believe mankind can manipulate nature at will in order to arrive at and maintain the desired global temperature?

Where did you get that second part from? If I believe that mankind can manipulate global temperatures at will, then why would I be worried about global warming. Do you think I'm some kind of weather control conspiracy theorist or something?

Humans are polluting the atmosphere with greenhouse gasses, we're not doing it on purpose, it's a byproduct of our reliance on fossil fuels.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

The consensus is real because the evidence is overwhelming.
The ipcc says it is incontrovertible that humans have caused global warming because of our emissions of greenhouse gasses.

The IPCC doesn't do any research. It collates published research in the field of AGW, much of which is questionable and is charged by the UN with coming up reports about possible affects on climate change, whether it's man made or not. In other words the IPCC isn't researching or going to be attending to anything other than the theory that AGW is real.

It is not independent. It is a political entity biased from the start with unproven claims about man made ghgs affecting climate.

https://www.ipcc.ch/docs/UNEP_GC-14_decision_IPCC_1987.pdf



This is groundhog day Akrasia, I've already shown how those studies are based on tiny samples and low response rates, remember, afterwards you said there was a Gallup poll of scientists which showed consensus, which you later admitted was of the general public.


If you want to make a claim, you are the one that must show it is true.

I asked for evidence that 100% of universities and academies of science endorse the AGW theory and you are unable to come up with it.

Just admit you made it up because you thought it sounded good.

I asked if you believe that we can manipulate and control the earth's temperature and adjust it at will to achieve and maintain a suitable predetermined global temperature.

You haven't answered.

Thargor

dense wrote: »

The IPCC doesn't do any research. It collates published research in the field of AGW, much of which is questionable and is charged by the UN with coming up reports about possible affects on climate change, whether it's man made or not. In other words the IPCC isn't researching or going to be attending to anything other than the theory that AGW is real.

It is not independent. It is a political entity biased from the start with unproven claims about man made ghgs affecting climate.

https://www.ipcc.ch/docs/UNEP_GC-14_decision_IPCC_1987.pdf



This is groundhog day Akrasia, I've already shown how those studies are based on tiny samples and low response rates, remember, afterwards you said there was a Gallup poll of scientists which showed consensus, which you later admitted was of the general public.


If you want to make a claim, you are the one that must show it is true.

I asked for evidence that 100% of universities and academies of science endorse the AGW theory and you are unable to come up with it.

Just admit you made it up because you thought it sounded good.

I asked if you believe that we can manipulate and control the earth's temperature and adjust it at will to achieve and maintain a suitable global temperature.

You haven't answered.

Do you not think there might be something weak about your position when you're desperately clutching at straws like this? We all know if you could find a single scientific institution of any merit that goes against the vast scientific consensus on climate change you'd be screaming it from the rooftops.

Its impossible to give you the proof in the way you're asking just like its impossible to prove the scientific consensus on evolution or how planes fly, for the simple reason that its not humanly possible to poll all possible respondents, but we all know you know this already and having the last word in a thread is all that matters to you no matter how illogical your statements.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

The IPCC doesn't do any research. It collates published research in the field of AGW, much of which is questionable and is charged by the UN with coming up reports about possible affects on climate change, whether it's man made or not. In other words the IPCC isn't researching or going to be attending to anything other than the theory that AGW is real.

It is not independent. It is a political entity biased from the start with unproven claims about man made ghgs affecting climate.

https://www.ipcc.ch/docs/UNEP_GC-14_decision_IPCC_1987.pdf

I know what the ipcc is. I also know that you don't respect the process of scientific discovery. You have decided that global warming isn't real for some reason, so now you're going to dismiss anything that conflicts with your belief.

Can i ask you. What evidence, if any, would change your mind.

Akrasia

As if more evidence was actually needed, the US 4th National Climate Assessment report was released yesterday

No prizes for guessing what their findings are

This assessment concludes, based on extensive evidence, that it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.

In addition to warming, many other aspects of global climate are changing, primarily in response to human activities. Thousands of studies conducted by researchers around the world have documented changes in surface, atmospheric, and oceanic temperatures; melting glaciers; diminishing snow cover; shrinking sea ice; rising sea levels; ocean acidification; and increasing atmospheric water vapor.

https://science2017.globalchange.gov

Of course, we can't possibly trust a US government body to tell the truth about climate change, especially when the current US president is one of the leading proponents of environmental activism and he is filling all the key appointments with environmental campaigners...

We all know climate scientists are only pretending that climate change is real because that's what their employers and the grant funders want them to say...
Scott Pruitt (for example) is notorious a tree hugger who would instantly fire anyone who dared to question the climate change consensus.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/10/scott-pruitt-war-on-the-epa
Here are some of the other Trump appointments that are forcing scientists to falsely report that climate change is real.
https://twitter.com/davelevitan/status/894745840337604609

one world order

If they'd stop spraying metal chemicals in the skies around the world, causing a blanket and trapping the heat in, we wouldn't have global warming. Also notice the increase in autism these metal chemicals are having on the population.

Subcomandante Marcos

one world order wrote: »

If they'd stop spraying metal chemicals in the skies around the world, causing a blanket and trapping the heat in, we wouldn't have global warming. Also notice the increase in autism these metal chemicals are having on the population.

Aerosols reflect solar radiation, not trap it.

#TheMoreYouKnow

one world order

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

Aerosols reflect solar radiation, not trap it.

#TheMoreYouKnow

By spraying aluminium, barium, strontium, cadmium and other metal chemicals they can create artificial clouds. This creates the Venus Effect, trapping in thermal radiation emitted from the surface.

Subcomandante Marcos

chemtrails aren't real. Stop listening to Alex Jones.

Doctor Jimbob

The way this threads going it won't be long until someone's blaming vaccines for global warming

BorneTobyWilde

Worlds population is what is causing climate change. More people equals more cars, and we are breeding cattle at a crazy rate to keep up, cattle and other animals that are bred for food are more polluting that cars. They have nothing to do only eat and fart.

one world order

I may as well be taking to a wall. Most people are so brainwashed by mainstream media, they accept whatever they're told as truth. Between climate geoengineering and mainstream media, they can do whatever they want.

Akrasia

one world order wrote: »

I may as well be taking to a wall. Most people are so brainwashed by mainstream media, they accept whatever they're told as truth. Between climate geoengineering and mainstream media, they can do whatever they want.

Forget the mainstream media.. We know they're corrupt. What scientific source do you have for your belief?

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

I know what the ipcc is. I also know that you don't respect the process of scientific discovery. You have decided that global warming isn't real for some reason, so now you're going to dismiss anything that conflicts with your belief.

Can i ask you. What evidence, if any, would change your mind.

The earth has indeed warmed, by around a degree Celsius since the late 19th century.

I differ on the future predictions of catastrophic warming and catastrophic climate change because the modelled predictions have exaggerated observed warming and because they cannot model nature and also for the fact that for most of the world's population and for the earth's wellbeing a barely measurable rise in temperature has coincided with all measures of improvements in the quality of life.

I also differ in that I do not accept as flawless the research reviewed by peers of those producing it.

Or that each piece of newly rehashed statistic gathering exercise published in a journal is a new scientific discovery.

The reviewers and those they are reviewing are ultimately members of the same club with the same shared vision of using the mantra of climate research and climate change mitigation to implement UN economic one-world quasi-socialist policy based on wealth transfer from developed to developing countries.

The reviewers are biased in favour of those with the same beliefs.

But oddly, you do say you accept the peer review system is flawed.

You say there's something wrong with it.
But haven't gone as far as to say what.

If that is true, then you must also accept that the research it is reviewing and publishing as empirical must also be flawed

To what extent is it flawed?
No one knows. We can't put a figure on it.

Might be 50% that's false and riddled with errors like Horton suggested. Using false data.
Genuine errors, deliberate errors. Maybe 25%
But what 25%, what 50%?

What can you say is accurate and what can you say is not?

I assume you haven't read and cross checked the entire published literature on the subject.

The system is built on one paper citing another as being correct, and properly tested, and if Horton is correct, a substantial level of cross contamination must be occurring where historic and current mistakes are either genuinely going unnoticed or are deliberately being permitted to suit an agenda.

We know it's in serious trouble.
We've seen rubbish being published.

Unless you're just agreeing for the sake of agreeing and believe the flaws that you see in the peer review system have nothing to do with the biased or lazy reviewing of and the consequent publication of flawed research.

What "scientific discovery" can you point to that can be used to show how we have in the past altered a previously unchanging climate and raised the global temperature, whilst simultaneously demonstrating how we can now just as easily manipulate and control the earth's temperature, and adjust it at will, to both achieve and maintain a suitable predetermined global temperature, and a stable, unchanging climate into the future?

You've previously claimed that if it wasn't for our use of fossil fuels in the last 100 years or so we'd be heading for another ice age. How do you propose to prevent that happening if we stop using fossil fuels tomorrow which is what the activists are demanding?

Or will the lock step increase in temperatures witnessed in the recent past which you say were caused by co2 not be so lock stepped on the way back down towards the promised ice age?

You are saying that man made co2 from fossil fuel use is inextricably and solely responsible for the recent past and immediate future temperature changes aren't you?

And that we can control like a switch, the "required" global temperature to whatever we choose, when we choose?

Or will stopping using fossil fuels actually make no difference for centuries because it's already out of control?

When will the difference kick in, this promised downward control we will be able to exert on temperatures by eliminating co2 emissions (based on decidedly dodgy thinking about the upward control we have) and what could we do to manipulate it back upwards a bit if it gets too cold?

dense

Thargor wrote: »

Do you not think there might be something weak about your position when you're desperately clutching at straws like this? We all know if you could find a single scientific institution of any merit that goes against the vast scientific consensus on climate change you'd be screaming it from the rooftops.

Its impossible to give you the proof in the way you're asking just like its impossible to prove the scientific consensus on evolution or how planes fly, for the simple reason that its not humanly possible to poll all possible respondents, but we all know you know this already and having the last word in a thread is all that matters to you no matter how illogical your statements.

If it's now roundly being accepted that it is not possible to poll all scientists to begin with why on earth would you initially accept a claim about 97% of scientists?

Or maybe you always rejected it.....

Maybe you analysed the claim the minute you heard it and said it was not humanly possible to poll all scientists. But hey, it sounded good, and the end justifies the means.

When did you realise no such poll took place?