In response to one comment below by 'Fantastic Bob' - yes I would to like to bet our future on them all being wrong. Science is solely about testing hypothesis, not GROUPTHINK! It does not matter how many people agree with each other - unless an hypothesis can be demonstrated as opposed to postulated - the theory remains strictly a THEORY. Always remember - politicians sell certainty; science lives off doubt. Time and time again throughout history - CONSENSUS has been proven wrong. FACT!
I do not agree with you're statement that a significant portion of all experts agree. You're resorting to the HEADCOUNT FALLACY argument - which implies that you value 'CONSENSUS' more than objective scientific inquiry. All Science requires is one investigator who happens to be right, meaning that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. Unfortunately, the theory of human-induced global warming has been postulated, but not scientifically demonstrated. FACT!!
The fact of the matter is that without personal, expert knowledge of scientific fields an individual is restricted to drawing their conclusions from experts in the fields. When such a significant portion of the experts all reach the same conclusion it is not logical for a layperson to espouse a different opinion - regardless of the truth or falsehood of the experts' conclusion.
If global warming is happening at an unprecedented rate which is going to lead to future catastrophe, then please can any advocate of human-induced global warming answer the following question: We have had five major ice ages that are known to have occurred in the history of earth's evolution. How come these ice ages disappeared before man invented the infernal combustion engine? What caused the ice to retreat? If man wasn't around polluting the earth with CO2, then how do you explain it?
@MegaPostman77 You can't be serious... I hope? Nobody who is putting forth man-made global warming is denying that climate change is also impacted by natural phenomenon and has occurred since the dawn of the planet.
I'm seriously baffled as to the point you think you are making.
Exuse me, but the Ice ages, as the main climate change on Earth, are explained in detailes decades ago by the Serbian scientist Milutin Milankovich ... the key is the Solar insolation (check the Milankovich Theory), that were prooved by the deep-sea cores. The answer on all major climate changes is in celestial mechanics and all the rest is just very expensive political show-bussines
LIntzen is such a turd. So why is it changing? Everything he's suggested to explain climate has been debunked and rebuked. Absolutely shocking that Al Gore a politician would understand the science better than an MIT scientist but he does. Lintzen's nothing but dogma. "It's all a government plot" even though different governments have different agendas. All he has is bad mouthing colleagues. No evidence.
@FantasticBob7000 He refers to dogma in this vid. Many people make their decisions based on the consensus of many different types of input-their friends, people in the media they admire, political expediency, etc.
@FantasticBob7000 - Makes me wonder on what basis you dismiss Gores "propaganda" movie. Oh, 1 scientist told you something you wanted to hear. Good to know.
@inso99 Oh I don't know, something about claiming impending 20 ft sea level rise or lying about polar bear populations or calling GW skeptics racists, that sort of thing. The list goes on... you know.
1. Stop inventing bullshit and taking the victim role.
2. There is an overwhelming concencus among climate scientists (yes, people who study this for a living, all over the world). In fact, more so than on any other issue (there is always someone who challenges it, which is healthy, unless they are backed/used by oil industry propaganda machines).
But you would like to bet our future on them all being wrong?
1. wtf r u talking about? Victim role? I bet you think I made all that up cause you don't take time to verify your hero's claims. It's all true, try checking the facts before you whine.
2. Lindzen is a climate scientist (yes, a guy who studies this for a living).
3. Better hurry to the fallout shelter cause Global Warming is gonna getcha!
1. Referring to people calling you racist. wtf is that? bs victim bullshit.
2. A, as in one. There is still an overwhelming majority. So why do you draw any conclusions from the few? Offcouse because it suits you in some way. Political reasons, jealousy, not willing to take responsibility etc.
3. I think now we at least have a conclusive result on the temperature of your maturity level.
@inso99 The temperature of my maturity level. Yeah... ok.
So I answer your question telling you Gore equates GW alarmism skeptics with racists and all your genius mind can come back with is calling me a victim. You obviously don't grasp the concept of logic it's no wonder you're a GW chump.
How is your failure coming along looking up Scopus's trade journal criteria? Typical as everyone of your desperate Wikipedia copy and pastes gets shot down you move on to a new one.
3. Your act is IDENTICAL to everyone else's who attempts to criticize the list. You pick the same papers conveniently skipping over hundreds because you saw it linked in Wikipedia. All you can do is cherry pick and hand wave because you have nothing. You don't get it, all you nonsense has been debunked ad nauseum. It is old and repetitive. That and you don't know what you are talking about.
You are obviously not well read on the matter as you were unaware of all these papers.
3) Except people can read the scientific discourse on the topic which indicate you're wrong, you simply say "nope they responded" even though they don't really address the criticisms and rely on E&E for some mysterious reason for some backing which you admit isn't a scientific journal. Sorry if I'm unconvinced by such lines of reasoning, but if you're going to discuss the science I rely on the science.
3. Yes they addressed the criticisms and in some cases were not allowed to respond. Yes E&E is not a pure natural science journal despite your obsessions with this strawman argument. I could careless if you are "convinced" as your behavior demonstrates this is not possible as you cherry pick nonsense, fabricate strawman arguments and rely on nonsense sources like wikipedia to get your facts wrong.
Says the guy that doesn't seem to care he's got such bad papers on his list and constantly fights for E&E when they don't have an editor on their board that's even qualified to comment on climatology or paelo climatology and insists because they're peer reviewed in other fields that they're automatically qualified to comment on the relevant ones even though they release such miserable papers it wouldn't pass college review.
So you're telling me that you have absolutely no problem with the paper stating that north america is representative of global temperatures and basing his model of global climate based upon that? If that's the case, man more power to you, because of course less than 2% of the earth's land mass must represent what the earth is doing. It's all you man, it's all you.
You even have legitimate papers in your list that don't actually go against the AGW consensus, for example "Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland" actually states it's only for the interior and higher altitudes so other studies must be done to determined if ice closer to the shore is resulting in a net loss via ablation, other studies have confirmed that there is a net loss.
It's rather funny because I have a feeling that no matter how many papers that people might list or go through, that you'll simply accuse people of cherry picking rather than removing them, admitting that they don't really support your position or anything that would be honest in the matter.
I am a scientist who does not believe climate change is man made - nor do I believe it is a problem. Both of these beliefs are based on observation of the evidence.
Oh? What peer reviewed literature do you base this upon? I've read a lot of literature despite only being a practitioner and a former "skeptic" to the extent I deny it's happening which is convincing. I only see blogs or people misinterpreting other people's work when I look at the skeptic camp.
@garith21 What part of "based on observation of the evidence" don't you understand? In my work and in my life I don't come to conclusions based on others' opinions.
so "it's unusually cold outside so it's globally cooling" sort of nonsense? If you really are a scientist you should know the importance of peer reviewed papers when it comes to what's most likely true otherwise you may as well think that nonsense like homeopathy or psychics are genuine based upon hear say.
@garith21 All the peer reviewed papers I have ever read have boiled down to the same thing: Others in the same field of study have looked it over and agree with the conclusion of the paper.
1) Someone agreeing with you does not make you right.
2) A LOT of people agreeing with you does not make you right. (Rapture did not happen Saturday even with a lot of agreement)
3) Most Global Warming papers are not peer reviewed because a) not written by climate experts and b) not reviewed by them either.
1) obviously, however having it double checked by those in the relevant fields and criticized accordingly does give it a higher chance of being right in respect to those fields.
2) Right and comparing peer reviewed by experts with religious fundies making shit up is equivalent how?
3) Even if I assumed this was true, which it isn't why is it that you have like 6 practicing climatologists with arguments that have serious holes and assumptions in them vs the rest of the climatologists
4) I'm definitely skeptical of your claim about being a scientist since you're apparently not aware of how hard it is to get papers published, especially if they're in prestigious science journals like Nature or Science where most papers are denied.
That sentence doesn't even make any sense. All the same you don't really display much of anything in regards to a practicing scientist and you most certainly have not provided any evidence for your position despite the fact that you're claiming that you're basing your side on evidence.
Lastly you're using nothing but right wing propaganda so what's your point even if I am using "left winger tactics" it doesn't mean that my points are irrelevant as they addressed yours directly.
@garith21 Your points are irrelevant BECAUSE you are using the first rule of Leftwing tactics. You are shifting the argument. Since your argument is going to continue to shift, in your mind I will not be able to make a valid counterpoint because I will be replying to way you have said not what you are about to shift to.
That is, of course, If I don't ignore your attempts to shift the argument.
This is what one would call projecting, I asked you what peer reviewed literature you use to support your position and you shifted the argument so I would have to defend peer reviewed literature which I did, then you shifted this to "you must be using left wing tactics". I addressed your arguments directly and you're shifting the argument.
besides as I earlier stated, I've researched the evidence, peer reviewed literature merely gives the context since context is required for understanding. Blindly saying "it was warmer" or "it was colder" without understanding why or the mechanisms is only knowing half the story at which point you might as well just say witchcraft or "it's just nature, but I don't need to understand how it happened, but that ignorance still allows me to say anything else is still natural"
There are hundreds of peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments. Google, "900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm"
1) Many of these are released in journals which are referenced so rarely because they're not considered scientifically relevant and the leader admit that they are using it to push their political agenda
2) Climate Research which published the infamous Soon and Baliunas paper lost much credibility in the community since it was so poorly done it shouldn't have even passed the most cursory review.
The fact that you include this paper in your list leads me to wonder about you.
All of your nonsense is debunked in the extensive notes following the list.
1. Citations are a determination of popularity not scientific validity. Many of those papers are frequently referenced. Your other nonsense was debunked Google: "Correcting misinformation about the journal Energy & Environment"
2. Climate Research is a scholarly Peer-Reviewed journal.
The paper in question was never retracted by the journal and thus valid.
1) I didn't say they were all invalid, merely the presence of papers that are extremely dubious on your claimed list does pollute the list.
2) You talk about how it's listed as an index, but in some cases it's listed as a trade journal and not a peer reviewed journal
3) Saying a questionable journal hasn't retracted a paper and thus it's valid even though it's been addressed as to why it's so bad it shouldn't have even passed peer review doesn't mean that it's still valid.
1 The authors have defended those papers. The existence of a criticism does not make a paper "extremely dubious". The list is a resource and as comprehensive as possible.
2. It is listed in the ISI and EBSCO as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal. The Scopus listing is incorrect, if you believe otherwise, provide the criteria they use for a trade journal and prove how E&E meets it. The irrefutable fact is it is NOT a trade journal.
3. Any criticisms of the papers have been refuted by the authors. The existence of a criticism does not make a paper "invalid" or "bad". The paper in question was extensively peer-reviewed.
Some of these papers don't seem to even address AGW, many seem to be released in journals that seem borderline credibility of any at all, some papers are known to be so terribly done that editors quit over not being able to address how bad it really was. The fact that it's so easy to pick out such big problems in your list with a basic review makes me question how many of these are actually legitimate.
The Journal E&E has been known to put forth many absurd ideas like the idea of CO2 dropping since 1942, many papers from E&E have been highly criticized because of obvious flaws and methodology that again shouldn't have passed peer review. I've noticed your particular persona quite a bit making assertions, but claims like the above are rampant in E&E making one question it's credibility heavily.
The journal E&E is a scholarly peer-reviewed journal indexed by the ISI and EBSCO. It has published some controversial theories that have been defended by their authors. Your "questioning" is irrelevant to the irrefutable fact that it is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal. There are 256 other peer-reviewed journals on the list.
Like the claim that CO2 was at a peak at 1942 right? Which I might add made your list.
Secondly I'm only mentioning E&E and some specific papers because it definitely brings into question the rest of your list.
Thirdly I don't really consider the IPCC an authoritative source I'm only concerned about the scientific peer-review on the matter, the latter are largely irrelevant and makes me wonder how many of those papers make up your list.
Any peer-reviewed paper that supports a skeptic argument made the list. If you don't like a paper, don't read it, it still exists and is thus listed.
No you are desperately looking for any reason to hand wave the list away and are failing. E&E does not bring anything into question as it is a scholarly peer-reviewed journal.
The IPCC is very relevant to the debate. The papers are all appropriately categorized and all the socio-economic and policy papers in those categories.
There's even a few papers listed that really don't have much at all to do with the science as much as critiquing Al Gore's movie, his movie isn't science, while it does have some valid points many claims are hyperbole or not supported by the science, so I fail to see how attacking al gore's movie is attacking the science. Sorry but the more I read, the more dubious I find your list to be.
No claim is made ANYWHERE on the list that all the papers are physical science papers, only that they are all peer-reviewed. Socio-economic and policy papers are included just like the WGII and WGIII sections of the IPCC report. The TWO papers criticizing Al Gore's movie are criticizing the science or lack there of in his politically biased science-fiction film. Again the list supports skeptic arguments against AGW ALARM which includes policy, thus not all the papers are pure science
In other words many of your papers are largely irrelevant to a scientific topic, keep digging yourself a hole. Waving a bunch of papers saying "these are peer reviewed", many of which have nothing to do with the actual science and many of the scientific related ones are of at best dubious quality bury the few that might actually be scientifically valid.
Yes various papers on the list are irrelevant to your strawman argument most are not. You are digging your own hole by making strawman arguments and cherry picking papers you are not looking for in a desperate attempt to hand wave the list away. The rest is unsubstantiated nonsense. You still have nothing.
lol, naw man, in your own words, good portions are largely scientifically irrelevant, you won't even defend the paper that claims that CO2 was at it's peak in 1942, E&E hasn't retracted it so obviously you think it's still valid. Pointing out particular papers brings into question your selection process and how valid your argument really is because you know that no one will look through 900 papers you can just assert cherry picking.
I never said anything was scientifically irrelevant. You are the one harping the perpetual strawman about some of papers not being pure science papers. It is not my job to defend any paper, the authors defend their own papers. I simply compiled a resource. The paper in question was peer-reviewed and the only published criticism refuted by the author. My selection process is that the paper has to be peer-reviewed. It is not an assertion you cherry picked it, it is an irrefutable fact
The irrefutable fact is that an overwhelming number of peer-reviewed papers exist supporting skeptic arguments that you are in denial of. You asked for it, received it en masse and are now desperately looking for anything to hand wave them away. All of your tired nonsense has been refuted ad nauseum many times before.
Lastly your requirements of your list is hilarious because "AGW alarm" isn't a scientific term, and most commonly held beliefs about actual alarmism isn't what the science says. So even the definition of "skeptic arguments" shifts between what can be scientifically supported because some alarmism simply isn't science but it still doesn't support the denialist side of rejecting AGW as a whole. Very specific language, for the very obvious reason of inflating your numbers.
Are you king of strawman arguments? Where is it claimed "AGW Alarm" is a scientific term? "Alarm" is supported both inside and outside the scientific literature thus the list addresses both. It is obvious skeptics argue both and the list attempts to be a comprehensive resource. This is nothing new to anything involved in the debate for any extended period of time. Attempting to be comprehensive is not inflating anything. You are the one starting from a stramwman argument.
Meaning that you confirm my statement that many can be listed for addressing non scientific arguments. So when I talk about scientific peer review against AGW, you're specifically defining AGW as any alarmist view for your list. And "supporting skeptic arguments" is simply intentionally broad, I could give half a crap about the IPCC, al gore or joe po dunk says on the matter. So broad it includes unrelated papers to get more numbers.
Yes, various per-reviewed papers are listed that support skeptic arguments relating to socio-economic and policy issues. You act like this is some revelation when this is explicitly stated. You then keep bringing it up in some hand waving attempt on the actual science papers on the list. I am not specifically defining AGW, I am defining "AGW Alarm". Supporting skeptic arguments is broad because there are so many arguments to support. All the papers are related to AGW Alarm. You fail.
Rofl, then when I'm asking about scientific peer review (in context) and you talk about 900 peer reviewed papers most which are largely irrelevant and some I might add are laughable, I'm obviously the one with the strawman right? On another topic I'm reading some E&E papers where references are from wikipedia, web sites, opinion pieces, but no peer reviewed literature or original research. Yes this is one of the papers on your list.
First of all you did not ask for pure scientific papers, second their are hundreds of these on the list. Yes you are the one stating strawman arguments about the list as no claim was made that they were all physical science papers even though most are. I have no idea what paper you are reading, likely another cherry pick but by far most of the E&E papers references the scholarly literature. You can cherry pick all day and still be in denial of the hundreds of other papers on the list
I have to say I had more stringent requirements for my biology report for references for my non peer reviewed project. You know what man, if that's what it takes to convince you, you can have it and we can agree to disagree, but I have to say I was expecting more from E&E, even if it is listed as an academic journal, it apparently isn't a scientific one.
I enjoy how you state for a defense of E&E as an academic journal (note not scientific) because it's referenced by the IPCC, if you examine the list of E&E articles used by the IPCC none are dealing with the science of the matter. Lastly, oh no, perhaps when I was talking about scientific topics and peer review on the matter I should always state "scientific peer review" and don't blame me for including such literature on your list, I'm merely reading and laughing.
Your perpetual strawman arguments are getting old. No claim is made that E&E is a pure natural science journal. It is an interdisciplinary journal that covers both natural and social-sciences. Regardless it is scholary peer-reviewed and listed in the ISI and EBSCO as such.
You can cherry pick and laugh all you want, anyone who knows better understands your denial of the hundreds of other papers on the list. The facts don't change no matter how much hand waving you do.
Right right, perhaps you should spend some time to split up the "pure science" from the social sciences so people can get to addressing those. Honestly speaking if I was still a skeptic in that regard I'd see all of the rest of stuff as fluff and terribly unconvincing, although I do find it funny that you included such terrible papers as I already mentioned and aren't even aware of it.
The papers are split up that is what the categories are for.
You are not "honestly speaking" which is why you are desperately trying to cherry pick papers to support your strawman arguments. Any true skeptic would be interested in those papers that deal with the socio-economic effects of AGW as they would the science.
Your declarations of a paper being "terrible" is meaningless nonsense designed to try and hand wave the list away but it is failing like you have.
1) You do realize that papers such as the soon and baliunas paper were responded to by people they often cited as sources telling them that they misinterpreted their work, that 4 of the editors of Climate Research recommended not publishing it and the head editor left when he was not allowed to post a response/review after being pressured into it.
1. The authors responded to those criticisms. They also reappraisal that was published in E&E. It was not rejected by 4 editors. One editor and four board members resigned. The editor who was in charge of the paper rejected all the criticisms.
2) You do also realize that some of these papers rely on this paper and cut off their reconstructions almost a decade and a half ago even though the paper was published in 2007 and obviously had the data available which would "cough" include this decade which is warmer than the last, makes me wonder why they'd cut it off or rely on such controversial papers.
2. You don't even now what you are talking about. That paper from Climate Research is not crucial to any other paper's findings. You are confusing what skeptics have been arguing relating to most paleo-climate papers. Please stop commenting on things you have no knowledge of.
1) Strange the head editor resigned and condemned the journal's review process when he wanted to change the review process as a result of the massive amount of criticisms that indicated that the paper had no business passing peer review, I guess he had no problem with it at all, obviously.
2) Uh, it's referenced in one of the first papers on your list for reconstructions for it's conclusions or support, obviously right?
1. The editor (Von Storch) was only appointed head editor because of the controversy. He was NOT head editor prior to it. The paper in question was reviewed by four independent reviewers who all approved of it for publication.
2. Are you clueless? The paper was mentioned not referenced for data. It has NOTHING to do with the conclusions of the paper. Do you know anything about this subject or do you just make it up as you go along?
Lastly, I advise you look at "Solar cycles 24 and 25 and predicted climate response" on your list, there's so many grammatical, editorial and basic scientific errors that it makes you wonder if anyone even looked at it, much less if anyone qualified looked at it. If you really think E&E are even reading these things before moving them on through. Seriously read it and tell me you see nothing wrong with it, a real skeptic would.
Yawn, yes the typos in the Solar Cycles paper is well known. Your cherry picking is getting really tiresome. Please try to find those in the over hundred other papers from the same journal. Why are you skipping hundreds of other papers? Maybe because you are intellectually dishonest.
3) I realize that no matter how many papers I go through or how I criticize you'll just accuse me of cherry picking or "hand waving" and that you're far to invested in this project to really ever change your mind on the matter nor would you address any of it head on. While I'm no expert I'm well read on the matter and picking out problems is relatively easy because I started off from the skeptic camp rather than the "believer" camp.
this is not about that our life will change, it is about that the life of the animals changes... actually manny are going to die. yes we had climate change all over earth history, but the animals and plants had the chance to migrate and adapt. today populations are so fragmented and small, that many animals are hitting the wall if the temperature rises +1°C.
Richard Lindzen is the probably the most respected climate denier , but his ideas have never been proven on AGW and the iris theory has been shown not to actually work. Still I like to listen to scientist that are skeptical of AGW because its important to hear the other side and not get blinded by your own biases. He has yet to actually put forth a good counter to the masses of data and theories and models that support AGW. Lets hope he does, AGW is not a good if true.
Richard Lindzen is the probably the most respected climate denier , but his ideas have never been proven on AGW and the iris theory has been shown not to actually work. Still I like to listen to scientist that are skeptical of AGW because its important to hear the other side and not get blinded by your own biases. He has yet to actually put forth a good counter to the masses of data and theories and models that support AGW. Lets hope he does, AGW is not a good if true.
lets not forget lindzen has been discredited by many of his peers, he may well be right...be he could just as well be wrong, people need to acknowledge that
this man talks so much sense and in such a reasonable way.such a shame the alarmists don't return the favour- they claim people like him are funded by exxon mobil etc. completely unfair- al gore is extremely wealthy as a result of his 'climate crusade' and his home is one of the highest energy consumers around, the hypocrite...
@Typamango But that has little to do with anthropogenic carbon dioxide altering the heat retention properties of the atmosphere.
And man IS a problem. For many reasons, but saying that it justifies Eugenics is insane. Just because something could be used as a pretext for something evil doesn't discount its voracity.
OMG THIS GUY HAS A BEARD AND A TITLE HE MUST SPEAK THE TRUTH AND KNOW EVERYTHING....context motherfucker...did you take that into consideration when forming a conclusion about the leaked UAE emails? Climate patterns. Short term cycles. A colder than normal couple of years in no way contradicts the evidence of global warming. This guy needs to an hero.
@MonkeyMagic88 Bolshevik? Last I checked, I don't support rigid adherence to the leadership of the central committee. Ad hominem, not that you care whether your comments are rational. This so called climate change 'skepticism' has been debunked long ago. The criticism of the content of the leaked UAE emails was cherry picking and misrepresenting of the facts.
Do you really care so little about whether what you believe is true?
Also, 'mass murderer'? whered you pull that from lol
The idea that somehow "Climate is always changing" is perhaps the most absurd anti-AGW argument I've ever heard. People are also "always dying" -- does that mean if there is a disaster threatening thousands of people we just rationalize doing nothing to help because "we die anyway"? His argument is neither logical nor evidence -- it is just an excuse not to think.
@Ranillon "People are also "always dying" -- does that mean if there is a disaster threatening thousands of people we just rationalize doing nothing to help because "we die anyway"?
Nobody was arguing that. Lindzen is not saying that we should ignore a catastrophe that is happening. He's denying you've shown that the Earth is dying, that's all.
@asborisov1 So, we are supposed to believe one scientist who tells us "don't worry, be happy" over an ENTIRE SCHOOL OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH?? A school, let me add, which has produced mountains and mountains of evidence supporting climate change. One lone wolf publishing a "trust me" paper hardly compares.
@Ranillon HE'S N0T THE 0NLY SCIENTIST THE MEDIA HAS Y0U BRAINWASHED WHERE THEY TELL Y0U THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED. PLEASE D0 S0ME RESEARCH 0N LINTZEN AND HIS NEW PAPER. SCIENCE IS N0T SETTLED BY C0NSENSUS BUT BY FACTS AND MEASURMENTS.
@asborisov1 A "consensus" in science arises once a theory has passed all those "facts and measures" so well and so consistently that the vast majority of experts in the field agree. That is EXACTLY what has happened. To suggest otherwise suggests either willful ignorance or blindl devotion to an ideology. Which one describes you?
@asborisov1 I have read many of lindzens papers. He is a constant contrarian and you will get that from reading his work. The science of AGW of is not settle, but then nothing in science is ever settled. You seem not to understand what science is. Now if we are talking about the validity of the AGW theory, it is basically settled. All the data points to AGW as being real and having future harmful effects. How much with this effect earth and what will happen is in major debate.
@asborisov1 No, you have it exactly opposite -- it was science and the scientific method which proved that it wasn't.
Look, if you don't care about science, facts, and evidence and are determined to just spout ideology and "scientists are all evil" sorts of conspiracy theories don't bother replying (or thinking, apparently). Otherwise, visit a good science site like realclimate-dot-org and get informed.
The oil-trolls and their ideological sheeps just took the highest peak from a random year and the coolest from 10 years later, connected the dots to fool the masses... idiots like you
the real trends are clearly, undeniable and continously... not just the temperatures...but every single indocator
climate .nasa. g o v / keyindicators
what happened with people like you to spam disinfo like crazy all around?
@asborisov1 No, it is not -- average temperatures has been steadily rising over time. The only way deniers make you think overwise is by cherry picking data and trying to ignore all the rest. Don't be duped -- go read some actual scientific websites (not denier sites selling ideology rather than reason) and see the truth for yourself.
@Ranillon THIS IS N0T WHAT HAS HAPPENED AT ALL. THE SCIENCE D0ES N0T SAY THAT AND LINTZEN'S RECENT PAPER BASED 0N ACTUAL MEASRUMENTS TRUMPS THE UN'S M0DELS.
@Ranillon DAMN Y0URE DUMB. HAVE Y0U EVEN READ HIS STUDIES Y0U NUT. HE IS PART 0F THE IPCC AND HIS 0NE PAPER SH0WED ACTUAL MEASURMENTS WHICH HE USED 15 YEARS T0 FINISH. THEY TRUMP THE UN'S FAKE M0DELS
Please see the Climate Scientists' Register that the International Climate Science Coalition have created & has been endorsed by 137 climate experts since June 2010:
tinyurl[dot]com/2es3rqx
The Register states:
“We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming."
In response to one comment below by 'Fantastic Bob' - yes I would to like to bet our future on them all being wrong. Science is solely about testing hypothesis, not GROUPTHINK! It does not matter how many people agree with each other - unless an hypothesis can be demonstrated as opposed to postulated - the theory remains strictly a THEORY. Always remember - politicians sell certainty; science lives off doubt. Time and time again throughout history - CONSENSUS has been proven wrong. FACT!
MegaPostman77 1 month ago
I do not agree with you're statement that a significant portion of all experts agree. You're resorting to the HEADCOUNT FALLACY argument - which implies that you value 'CONSENSUS' more than objective scientific inquiry. All Science requires is one investigator who happens to be right, meaning that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. Unfortunately, the theory of human-induced global warming has been postulated, but not scientifically demonstrated. FACT!!
MegaPostman77 1 month ago
The fact of the matter is that without personal, expert knowledge of scientific fields an individual is restricted to drawing their conclusions from experts in the fields. When such a significant portion of the experts all reach the same conclusion it is not logical for a layperson to espouse a different opinion - regardless of the truth or falsehood of the experts' conclusion.
ihatealigators 1 month ago
If global warming is happening at an unprecedented rate which is going to lead to future catastrophe, then please can any advocate of human-induced global warming answer the following question: We have had five major ice ages that are known to have occurred in the history of earth's evolution. How come these ice ages disappeared before man invented the infernal combustion engine? What caused the ice to retreat? If man wasn't around polluting the earth with CO2, then how do you explain it?
MegaPostman77 1 month ago
@MegaPostman77 You can't be serious... I hope? Nobody who is putting forth man-made global warming is denying that climate change is also impacted by natural phenomenon and has occurred since the dawn of the planet.
I'm seriously baffled as to the point you think you are making.
ihatealigators 1 month ago
Exuse me, but the Ice ages, as the main climate change on Earth, are explained in detailes decades ago by the Serbian scientist Milutin Milankovich ... the key is the Solar insolation (check the Milankovich Theory), that were prooved by the deep-sea cores. The answer on all major climate changes is in celestial mechanics and all the rest is just very expensive political show-bussines
Bayubadu 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
LIntzen is such a turd. So why is it changing? Everything he's suggested to explain climate has been debunked and rebuked. Absolutely shocking that Al Gore a politician would understand the science better than an MIT scientist but he does. Lintzen's nothing but dogma. "It's all a government plot" even though different governments have different agendas. All he has is bad mouthing colleagues. No evidence.
rugbyguy59 5 months ago
Comment removed
rugbyguy59 5 months ago
This video should be a mandatory introduction to Gore's propaganda movie.
It makes you wonder on what basis the viewers who gave a thumbs down to this video acted on.
FantasticBob7000 5 months ago 10
@FantasticBob7000 He refers to dogma in this vid. Many people make their decisions based on the consensus of many different types of input-their friends, people in the media they admire, political expediency, etc.
pretorious700 4 months ago
@FantasticBob7000 - Makes me wonder on what basis you dismiss Gores "propaganda" movie. Oh, 1 scientist told you something you wanted to hear. Good to know.
inso99 3 months ago
@inso99 Oh I don't know, something about claiming impending 20 ft sea level rise or lying about polar bear populations or calling GW skeptics racists, that sort of thing. The list goes on... you know.
FantasticBob7000 3 months ago
@FantasticBob7000
1. Stop inventing bullshit and taking the victim role.
2. There is an overwhelming concencus among climate scientists (yes, people who study this for a living, all over the world). In fact, more so than on any other issue (there is always someone who challenges it, which is healthy, unless they are backed/used by oil industry propaganda machines).
But you would like to bet our future on them all being wrong?
inso99 3 months ago
@inso99
1. wtf r u talking about? Victim role? I bet you think I made all that up cause you don't take time to verify your hero's claims. It's all true, try checking the facts before you whine.
2. Lindzen is a climate scientist (yes, a guy who studies this for a living).
3. Better hurry to the fallout shelter cause Global Warming is gonna getcha!
freak
FantasticBob7000 3 months ago
@FantasticBob7000
2. STILL an overwhelming concencus. 97% of climate scientists agree.
Its allot easier to hid your head in the sand mate, isn't it?
someghosts 3 months ago
@FantasticBob7000
1. Referring to people calling you racist. wtf is that? bs victim bullshit.
2. A, as in one. There is still an overwhelming majority. So why do you draw any conclusions from the few? Offcouse because it suits you in some way. Political reasons, jealousy, not willing to take responsibility etc.
3. I think now we at least have a conclusive result on the temperature of your maturity level.
inso99 3 months ago
@inso99 The temperature of my maturity level. Yeah... ok.
So I answer your question telling you Gore equates GW alarmism skeptics with racists and all your genius mind can come back with is calling me a victim. You obviously don't grasp the concept of logic it's no wonder you're a GW chump.
FantasticBob7000 3 months ago 4
yeeaahhhh! i knew they were not telling us the truth (pro global warming scientists)
we are all going to die anyway....
osonixer 6 months ago
Just to double check, I went through 50 papers from E&E and they all cite scholarly sources.
populartechnology 8 months ago
Still nothing to support you Scopus trade journal claim? Epic Fail try not relying on Wikipedia.
populartechnology 8 months ago
How is your failure coming along looking up Scopus's trade journal criteria? Typical as everyone of your desperate Wikipedia copy and pastes gets shot down you move on to a new one.
populartechnology 8 months ago
@garith21
3. Your act is IDENTICAL to everyone else's who attempts to criticize the list. You pick the same papers conveniently skipping over hundreds because you saw it linked in Wikipedia. All you can do is cherry pick and hand wave because you have nothing. You don't get it, all you nonsense has been debunked ad nauseum. It is old and repetitive. That and you don't know what you are talking about.
You are obviously not well read on the matter as you were unaware of all these papers.
populartechnology 8 months ago
@populartechnology
3) Except people can read the scientific discourse on the topic which indicate you're wrong, you simply say "nope they responded" even though they don't really address the criticisms and rely on E&E for some mysterious reason for some backing which you admit isn't a scientific journal. Sorry if I'm unconvinced by such lines of reasoning, but if you're going to discuss the science I rely on the science.
garith21 8 months ago
@garith21
3. Yes they addressed the criticisms and in some cases were not allowed to respond. Yes E&E is not a pure natural science journal despite your obsessions with this strawman argument. I could careless if you are "convinced" as your behavior demonstrates this is not possible as you cherry pick nonsense, fabricate strawman arguments and rely on nonsense sources like wikipedia to get your facts wrong.
populartechnology 8 months ago
@populartechnology
Says the guy that doesn't seem to care he's got such bad papers on his list and constantly fights for E&E when they don't have an editor on their board that's even qualified to comment on climatology or paelo climatology and insists because they're peer reviewed in other fields that they're automatically qualified to comment on the relevant ones even though they release such miserable papers it wouldn't pass college review.
garith21 8 months ago
@populartechnology
So you're telling me that you have absolutely no problem with the paper stating that north america is representative of global temperatures and basing his model of global climate based upon that? If that's the case, man more power to you, because of course less than 2% of the earth's land mass must represent what the earth is doing. It's all you man, it's all you.
garith21 8 months ago
@populartechnology
You even have legitimate papers in your list that don't actually go against the AGW consensus, for example "Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland" actually states it's only for the interior and higher altitudes so other studies must be done to determined if ice closer to the shore is resulting in a net loss via ablation, other studies have confirmed that there is a net loss.
garith21 8 months ago
@populartechnology
It's rather funny because I have a feeling that no matter how many papers that people might list or go through, that you'll simply accuse people of cherry picking rather than removing them, admitting that they don't really support your position or anything that would be honest in the matter.
garith21 8 months ago
I am a scientist who does not believe climate change is man made - nor do I believe it is a problem. Both of these beliefs are based on observation of the evidence.
acoow 9 months ago
@acoow
Oh? What peer reviewed literature do you base this upon? I've read a lot of literature despite only being a practitioner and a former "skeptic" to the extent I deny it's happening which is convincing. I only see blogs or people misinterpreting other people's work when I look at the skeptic camp.
garith21 9 months ago
@garith21 What part of "based on observation of the evidence" don't you understand? In my work and in my life I don't come to conclusions based on others' opinions.
acoow 9 months ago
@acoow
so "it's unusually cold outside so it's globally cooling" sort of nonsense? If you really are a scientist you should know the importance of peer reviewed papers when it comes to what's most likely true otherwise you may as well think that nonsense like homeopathy or psychics are genuine based upon hear say.
garith21 9 months ago
@garith21 All the peer reviewed papers I have ever read have boiled down to the same thing: Others in the same field of study have looked it over and agree with the conclusion of the paper.
1) Someone agreeing with you does not make you right.
2) A LOT of people agreeing with you does not make you right. (Rapture did not happen Saturday even with a lot of agreement)
3) Most Global Warming papers are not peer reviewed because a) not written by climate experts and b) not reviewed by them either.
acoow 9 months ago
@acoow
1) obviously, however having it double checked by those in the relevant fields and criticized accordingly does give it a higher chance of being right in respect to those fields.
2) Right and comparing peer reviewed by experts with religious fundies making shit up is equivalent how?
3) Even if I assumed this was true, which it isn't why is it that you have like 6 practicing climatologists with arguments that have serious holes and assumptions in them vs the rest of the climatologists
garith21 9 months ago
@acoow
4) I'm definitely skeptical of your claim about being a scientist since you're apparently not aware of how hard it is to get papers published, especially if they're in prestigious science journals like Nature or Science where most papers are denied.
garith21 9 months ago
@garith21
You told only five replies to execute the three most common tactics that Leftwinger use in debates.
acoow 9 months ago
@acoow
That sentence doesn't even make any sense. All the same you don't really display much of anything in regards to a practicing scientist and you most certainly have not provided any evidence for your position despite the fact that you're claiming that you're basing your side on evidence.
Lastly you're using nothing but right wing propaganda so what's your point even if I am using "left winger tactics" it doesn't mean that my points are irrelevant as they addressed yours directly.
garith21 9 months ago
@garith21 Your points are irrelevant BECAUSE you are using the first rule of Leftwing tactics. You are shifting the argument. Since your argument is going to continue to shift, in your mind I will not be able to make a valid counterpoint because I will be replying to way you have said not what you are about to shift to.
That is, of course, If I don't ignore your attempts to shift the argument.
acoow 9 months ago
@acoow
This is what one would call projecting, I asked you what peer reviewed literature you use to support your position and you shifted the argument so I would have to defend peer reviewed literature which I did, then you shifted this to "you must be using left wing tactics". I addressed your arguments directly and you're shifting the argument.
garith21 9 months ago
@acoow
besides as I earlier stated, I've researched the evidence, peer reviewed literature merely gives the context since context is required for understanding. Blindly saying "it was warmer" or "it was colder" without understanding why or the mechanisms is only knowing half the story at which point you might as well just say witchcraft or "it's just nature, but I don't need to understand how it happened, but that ignorance still allows me to say anything else is still natural"
garith21 9 months ago
@garith21
There are hundreds of peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments. Google, "900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm"
populartechnology 8 months ago
@populartechnology
1) Many of these are released in journals which are referenced so rarely because they're not considered scientifically relevant and the leader admit that they are using it to push their political agenda
2) Climate Research which published the infamous Soon and Baliunas paper lost much credibility in the community since it was so poorly done it shouldn't have even passed the most cursory review.
The fact that you include this paper in your list leads me to wonder about you.
garith21 8 months ago
@garith21
All of your nonsense is debunked in the extensive notes following the list.
1. Citations are a determination of popularity not scientific validity. Many of those papers are frequently referenced. Your other nonsense was debunked Google: "Correcting misinformation about the journal Energy & Environment"
2. Climate Research is a scholarly Peer-Reviewed journal.
The paper in question was never retracted by the journal and thus valid.
populartechnology 8 months ago
@populartechnology
1) I didn't say they were all invalid, merely the presence of papers that are extremely dubious on your claimed list does pollute the list.
2) You talk about how it's listed as an index, but in some cases it's listed as a trade journal and not a peer reviewed journal
3) Saying a questionable journal hasn't retracted a paper and thus it's valid even though it's been addressed as to why it's so bad it shouldn't have even passed peer review doesn't mean that it's still valid.
garith21 8 months ago
@garith21
1 The authors have defended those papers. The existence of a criticism does not make a paper "extremely dubious". The list is a resource and as comprehensive as possible.
2. It is listed in the ISI and EBSCO as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal. The Scopus listing is incorrect, if you believe otherwise, provide the criteria they use for a trade journal and prove how E&E meets it. The irrefutable fact is it is NOT a trade journal.
populartechnology 8 months ago
@garith21
3. Any criticisms of the papers have been refuted by the authors. The existence of a criticism does not make a paper "invalid" or "bad". The paper in question was extensively peer-reviewed.
populartechnology 8 months ago
@populartechnology
Some of these papers don't seem to even address AGW, many seem to be released in journals that seem borderline credibility of any at all, some papers are known to be so terribly done that editors quit over not being able to address how bad it really was. The fact that it's so easy to pick out such big problems in your list with a basic review makes me question how many of these are actually legitimate.
garith21 8 months ago
@garith21
All the papers support skeptic arguments against AGW Alarm. All the journals are peer-reviewed.
Only ONE paper had a dust up with any the editors and it was never retracted, thus it will not be removed.
You haven't picked out anything let alone found any problems outside of your bias. Next time read the notes.
populartechnology 8 months ago
@populartechnology
The Journal E&E has been known to put forth many absurd ideas like the idea of CO2 dropping since 1942, many papers from E&E have been highly criticized because of obvious flaws and methodology that again shouldn't have passed peer review. I've noticed your particular persona quite a bit making assertions, but claims like the above are rampant in E&E making one question it's credibility heavily.
garith21 8 months ago
@garith21
The journal E&E is a scholarly peer-reviewed journal indexed by the ISI and EBSCO. It has published some controversial theories that have been defended by their authors. Your "questioning" is irrelevant to the irrefutable fact that it is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal. There are 256 other peer-reviewed journals on the list.
populartechnology 8 months ago
@populartechnology
Like the claim that CO2 was at a peak at 1942 right? Which I might add made your list.
Secondly I'm only mentioning E&E and some specific papers because it definitely brings into question the rest of your list.
Thirdly I don't really consider the IPCC an authoritative source I'm only concerned about the scientific peer-review on the matter, the latter are largely irrelevant and makes me wonder how many of those papers make up your list.
garith21 8 months ago
@garith21
Any peer-reviewed paper that supports a skeptic argument made the list. If you don't like a paper, don't read it, it still exists and is thus listed.
No you are desperately looking for any reason to hand wave the list away and are failing. E&E does not bring anything into question as it is a scholarly peer-reviewed journal.
The IPCC is very relevant to the debate. The papers are all appropriately categorized and all the socio-economic and policy papers in those categories.
populartechnology 8 months ago
@populartechnology
There's even a few papers listed that really don't have much at all to do with the science as much as critiquing Al Gore's movie, his movie isn't science, while it does have some valid points many claims are hyperbole or not supported by the science, so I fail to see how attacking al gore's movie is attacking the science. Sorry but the more I read, the more dubious I find your list to be.
garith21 8 months ago
@garith21
No claim is made ANYWHERE on the list that all the papers are physical science papers, only that they are all peer-reviewed. Socio-economic and policy papers are included just like the WGII and WGIII sections of the IPCC report. The TWO papers criticizing Al Gore's movie are criticizing the science or lack there of in his politically biased science-fiction film. Again the list supports skeptic arguments against AGW ALARM which includes policy, thus not all the papers are pure science
populartechnology 8 months ago
@populartechnology
"thus not all the papers are pure science"
In other words many of your papers are largely irrelevant to a scientific topic, keep digging yourself a hole. Waving a bunch of papers saying "these are peer reviewed", many of which have nothing to do with the actual science and many of the scientific related ones are of at best dubious quality bury the few that might actually be scientifically valid.
garith21 8 months ago
@garith21
Yes various papers on the list are irrelevant to your strawman argument most are not. You are digging your own hole by making strawman arguments and cherry picking papers you are not looking for in a desperate attempt to hand wave the list away. The rest is unsubstantiated nonsense. You still have nothing.
populartechnology 8 months ago
@populartechnology
lol, naw man, in your own words, good portions are largely scientifically irrelevant, you won't even defend the paper that claims that CO2 was at it's peak in 1942, E&E hasn't retracted it so obviously you think it's still valid. Pointing out particular papers brings into question your selection process and how valid your argument really is because you know that no one will look through 900 papers you can just assert cherry picking.
garith21 8 months ago
@garith21
I never said anything was scientifically irrelevant. You are the one harping the perpetual strawman about some of papers not being pure science papers. It is not my job to defend any paper, the authors defend their own papers. I simply compiled a resource. The paper in question was peer-reviewed and the only published criticism refuted by the author. My selection process is that the paper has to be peer-reviewed. It is not an assertion you cherry picked it, it is an irrefutable fact
populartechnology 8 months ago
@garith21
The irrefutable fact is that an overwhelming number of peer-reviewed papers exist supporting skeptic arguments that you are in denial of. You asked for it, received it en masse and are now desperately looking for anything to hand wave them away. All of your tired nonsense has been refuted ad nauseum many times before.
populartechnology 8 months ago
@populartechnology
Lastly your requirements of your list is hilarious because "AGW alarm" isn't a scientific term, and most commonly held beliefs about actual alarmism isn't what the science says. So even the definition of "skeptic arguments" shifts between what can be scientifically supported because some alarmism simply isn't science but it still doesn't support the denialist side of rejecting AGW as a whole. Very specific language, for the very obvious reason of inflating your numbers.
garith21 8 months ago
@garith21
Are you king of strawman arguments? Where is it claimed "AGW Alarm" is a scientific term? "Alarm" is supported both inside and outside the scientific literature thus the list addresses both. It is obvious skeptics argue both and the list attempts to be a comprehensive resource. This is nothing new to anything involved in the debate for any extended period of time. Attempting to be comprehensive is not inflating anything. You are the one starting from a stramwman argument.
populartechnology 8 months ago
@populartechnology
"thus the list addresses both."
Meaning that you confirm my statement that many can be listed for addressing non scientific arguments. So when I talk about scientific peer review against AGW, you're specifically defining AGW as any alarmist view for your list. And "supporting skeptic arguments" is simply intentionally broad, I could give half a crap about the IPCC, al gore or joe po dunk says on the matter. So broad it includes unrelated papers to get more numbers.
garith21 8 months ago
@garith21
Yes, various per-reviewed papers are listed that support skeptic arguments relating to socio-economic and policy issues. You act like this is some revelation when this is explicitly stated. You then keep bringing it up in some hand waving attempt on the actual science papers on the list. I am not specifically defining AGW, I am defining "AGW Alarm". Supporting skeptic arguments is broad because there are so many arguments to support. All the papers are related to AGW Alarm. You fail.
populartechnology 8 months ago
@populartechnology
Rofl, then when I'm asking about scientific peer review (in context) and you talk about 900 peer reviewed papers most which are largely irrelevant and some I might add are laughable, I'm obviously the one with the strawman right? On another topic I'm reading some E&E papers where references are from wikipedia, web sites, opinion pieces, but no peer reviewed literature or original research. Yes this is one of the papers on your list.
garith21 8 months ago
@garith21
First of all you did not ask for pure scientific papers, second their are hundreds of these on the list. Yes you are the one stating strawman arguments about the list as no claim was made that they were all physical science papers even though most are. I have no idea what paper you are reading, likely another cherry pick but by far most of the E&E papers references the scholarly literature. You can cherry pick all day and still be in denial of the hundreds of other papers on the list
populartechnology 8 months ago
@populartechnology
I have to say I had more stringent requirements for my biology report for references for my non peer reviewed project. You know what man, if that's what it takes to convince you, you can have it and we can agree to disagree, but I have to say I was expecting more from E&E, even if it is listed as an academic journal, it apparently isn't a scientific one.
garith21 8 months ago
@populartechnology
I enjoy how you state for a defense of E&E as an academic journal (note not scientific) because it's referenced by the IPCC, if you examine the list of E&E articles used by the IPCC none are dealing with the science of the matter. Lastly, oh no, perhaps when I was talking about scientific topics and peer review on the matter I should always state "scientific peer review" and don't blame me for including such literature on your list, I'm merely reading and laughing.
garith21 8 months ago
@garith21
Your perpetual strawman arguments are getting old. No claim is made that E&E is a pure natural science journal. It is an interdisciplinary journal that covers both natural and social-sciences. Regardless it is scholary peer-reviewed and listed in the ISI and EBSCO as such.
You can cherry pick and laugh all you want, anyone who knows better understands your denial of the hundreds of other papers on the list. The facts don't change no matter how much hand waving you do.
populartechnology 8 months ago
@populartechnology
Right right, perhaps you should spend some time to split up the "pure science" from the social sciences so people can get to addressing those. Honestly speaking if I was still a skeptic in that regard I'd see all of the rest of stuff as fluff and terribly unconvincing, although I do find it funny that you included such terrible papers as I already mentioned and aren't even aware of it.
garith21 8 months ago
Comment removed
populartechnology 8 months ago
@garith21
The papers are split up that is what the categories are for.
You are not "honestly speaking" which is why you are desperately trying to cherry pick papers to support your strawman arguments. Any true skeptic would be interested in those papers that deal with the socio-economic effects of AGW as they would the science.
Your declarations of a paper being "terrible" is meaningless nonsense designed to try and hand wave the list away but it is failing like you have.
populartechnology 8 months ago
@populartechnology
1) You do realize that papers such as the soon and baliunas paper were responded to by people they often cited as sources telling them that they misinterpreted their work, that 4 of the editors of Climate Research recommended not publishing it and the head editor left when he was not allowed to post a response/review after being pressured into it.
garith21 8 months ago
@garith21
1. The authors responded to those criticisms. They also reappraisal that was published in E&E. It was not rejected by 4 editors. One editor and four board members resigned. The editor who was in charge of the paper rejected all the criticisms.
populartechnology 8 months ago
@populartechnology
2) You do also realize that some of these papers rely on this paper and cut off their reconstructions almost a decade and a half ago even though the paper was published in 2007 and obviously had the data available which would "cough" include this decade which is warmer than the last, makes me wonder why they'd cut it off or rely on such controversial papers.
garith21 8 months ago
@garith21
2. You don't even now what you are talking about. That paper from Climate Research is not crucial to any other paper's findings. You are confusing what skeptics have been arguing relating to most paleo-climate papers. Please stop commenting on things you have no knowledge of.
populartechnology 8 months ago
1) Strange the head editor resigned and condemned the journal's review process when he wanted to change the review process as a result of the massive amount of criticisms that indicated that the paper had no business passing peer review, I guess he had no problem with it at all, obviously.
2) Uh, it's referenced in one of the first papers on your list for reconstructions for it's conclusions or support, obviously right?
garith21 8 months ago
@garith21
1. The editor (Von Storch) was only appointed head editor because of the controversy. He was NOT head editor prior to it. The paper in question was reviewed by four independent reviewers who all approved of it for publication.
2. Are you clueless? The paper was mentioned not referenced for data. It has NOTHING to do with the conclusions of the paper. Do you know anything about this subject or do you just make it up as you go along?
populartechnology 8 months ago
@populartechnology
Lastly, I advise you look at "Solar cycles 24 and 25 and predicted climate response" on your list, there's so many grammatical, editorial and basic scientific errors that it makes you wonder if anyone even looked at it, much less if anyone qualified looked at it. If you really think E&E are even reading these things before moving them on through. Seriously read it and tell me you see nothing wrong with it, a real skeptic would.
garith21 8 months ago
@garith21
Yawn, yes the typos in the Solar Cycles paper is well known. Your cherry picking is getting really tiresome. Please try to find those in the over hundred other papers from the same journal. Why are you skipping hundreds of other papers? Maybe because you are intellectually dishonest.
populartechnology 8 months ago
@populartechnology
3) I realize that no matter how many papers I go through or how I criticize you'll just accuse me of cherry picking or "hand waving" and that you're far to invested in this project to really ever change your mind on the matter nor would you address any of it head on. While I'm no expert I'm well read on the matter and picking out problems is relatively easy because I started off from the skeptic camp rather than the "believer" camp.
garith21 8 months ago
this is not about that our life will change, it is about that the life of the animals changes... actually manny are going to die. yes we had climate change all over earth history, but the animals and plants had the chance to migrate and adapt. today populations are so fragmented and small, that many animals are hitting the wall if the temperature rises +1°C.
unluckylion 9 months ago
polar bears are a problem
dickinson1027 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Richard Lindzen is the probably the most respected climate denier , but his ideas have never been proven on AGW and the iris theory has been shown not to actually work. Still I like to listen to scientist that are skeptical of AGW because its important to hear the other side and not get blinded by your own biases. He has yet to actually put forth a good counter to the masses of data and theories and models that support AGW. Lets hope he does, AGW is not a good if true.
thesparitan 11 months ago
Richard Lindzen is the probably the most respected climate denier , but his ideas have never been proven on AGW and the iris theory has been shown not to actually work. Still I like to listen to scientist that are skeptical of AGW because its important to hear the other side and not get blinded by your own biases. He has yet to actually put forth a good counter to the masses of data and theories and models that support AGW. Lets hope he does, AGW is not a good if true.
thesparitan 11 months ago
lets not forget lindzen has been discredited by many of his peers, he may well be right...be he could just as well be wrong, people need to acknowledge that
tdavies456 11 months ago
this man talks so much sense and in such a reasonable way.such a shame the alarmists don't return the favour- they claim people like him are funded by exxon mobil etc. completely unfair- al gore is extremely wealthy as a result of his 'climate crusade' and his home is one of the highest energy consumers around, the hypocrite...
digitalbroadcastmk7 1 year ago
Some of the arguments being used here are ironically the same things being addressed in the video.
lulz.
schizrade 1 year ago
The Global Warming SCAM is EUGENICS , mass murder in disguise !!!
MonkeyMagic88 1 year ago
@MonkeyMagic88 That is a very stupid statement
thesparitan 11 months ago
@MonkeyMagic88 What the fuck does global warming have anything to do with eugenics
Keinlicht 11 months ago
Man is a problem.. his numbers must be reduced etc etc. @Keinlicht
Typamango 10 months ago
@Typamango But that has little to do with anthropogenic carbon dioxide altering the heat retention properties of the atmosphere.
And man IS a problem. For many reasons, but saying that it justifies Eugenics is insane. Just because something could be used as a pretext for something evil doesn't discount its voracity.
Keinlicht 10 months ago
I'm really not up to walking you through it all right now @Keinlicht..
I'll send you a PM I used with another guy a few months back..
That's the most I'm prepared to do for you.
Alan Watt (cuttingthroughthematrix) is a Good place to >start<.
Typamango 10 months ago
OMG THIS GUY HAS A BEARD AND A TITLE HE MUST SPEAK THE TRUTH AND KNOW EVERYTHING....context motherfucker...did you take that into consideration when forming a conclusion about the leaked UAE emails? Climate patterns. Short term cycles. A colder than normal couple of years in no way contradicts the evidence of global warming. This guy needs to an hero.
SupermarketsRevil 1 year ago
@SupermarketsRevil STFU you Bolshevik wanna be mass murderer !
MonkeyMagic88 1 year ago
@MonkeyMagic88 Bolshevik? Last I checked, I don't support rigid adherence to the leadership of the central committee. Ad hominem, not that you care whether your comments are rational. This so called climate change 'skepticism' has been debunked long ago. The criticism of the content of the leaked UAE emails was cherry picking and misrepresenting of the facts.
Do you really care so little about whether what you believe is true?
Also, 'mass murderer'? whered you pull that from lol
SupermarketsRevil 1 year ago
The idea that somehow "Climate is always changing" is perhaps the most absurd anti-AGW argument I've ever heard. People are also "always dying" -- does that mean if there is a disaster threatening thousands of people we just rationalize doing nothing to help because "we die anyway"? His argument is neither logical nor evidence -- it is just an excuse not to think.
Ranillon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ranillon "People are also "always dying" -- does that mean if there is a disaster threatening thousands of people we just rationalize doing nothing to help because "we die anyway"?
Nobody was arguing that. Lindzen is not saying that we should ignore a catastrophe that is happening. He's denying you've shown that the Earth is dying, that's all.
Understand his argument a bit better now ?
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@Ranillon Y0URE AN IDI0T HE PUBLISHED A RECENT PEER REVIEWED PAPER WHICH ACTUALLY SH0WS MEASUREMENTS RATHER THAN THE FAKE M0DELS THAT THE UN USES.
asborisov1 1 year ago
@asborisov1 So, we are supposed to believe one scientist who tells us "don't worry, be happy" over an ENTIRE SCHOOL OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH?? A school, let me add, which has produced mountains and mountains of evidence supporting climate change. One lone wolf publishing a "trust me" paper hardly compares.
Ranillon 1 year ago
@Ranillon HE'S N0T THE 0NLY SCIENTIST THE MEDIA HAS Y0U BRAINWASHED WHERE THEY TELL Y0U THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED. PLEASE D0 S0ME RESEARCH 0N LINTZEN AND HIS NEW PAPER. SCIENCE IS N0T SETTLED BY C0NSENSUS BUT BY FACTS AND MEASURMENTS.
asborisov1 1 year ago
@asborisov1 A "consensus" in science arises once a theory has passed all those "facts and measures" so well and so consistently that the vast majority of experts in the field agree. That is EXACTLY what has happened. To suggest otherwise suggests either willful ignorance or blindl devotion to an ideology. Which one describes you?
Ranillon 1 year ago
@Ranillon
Sheeple!
fjb664 1 year ago
@asborisov1 I have read many of lindzens papers. He is a constant contrarian and you will get that from reading his work. The science of AGW of is not settle, but then nothing in science is ever settled. You seem not to understand what science is. Now if we are talking about the validity of the AGW theory, it is basically settled. All the data points to AGW as being real and having future harmful effects. How much with this effect earth and what will happen is in major debate.
thesparitan 11 months ago
@Ranillon IF SCIENCE WAS STILL SETTLED BY C0NSENSUS WE W0ULD THINK THE EARTH IS STILL FLAT.
asborisov1 1 year ago 4
@asborisov1 No, you have it exactly opposite -- it was science and the scientific method which proved that it wasn't.
Look, if you don't care about science, facts, and evidence and are determined to just spout ideology and "scientists are all evil" sorts of conspiracy theories don't bother replying (or thinking, apparently). Otherwise, visit a good science site like realclimate-dot-org and get informed.
Ranillon 1 year ago
@Ranillon THE EARTH IS ACTUALLY C00LING N0W.
asborisov1 1 year ago
@asborisov1
the earth is NOT cooling, get your facts weirdo
The oil-trolls and their ideological sheeps just took the highest peak from a random year and the coolest from 10 years later, connected the dots to fool the masses... idiots like you
the real trends are clearly, undeniable and continously... not just the temperatures...but every single indocator
climate .nasa. g o v / keyindicators
what happened with people like you to spam disinfo like crazy all around?
aerobique 1 year ago
@aerobique THE EARTH IS C00LING ACC0RDING T0 Y0UR BEL0VED SCIENTISTS . D0WNL0AD AND READ THE EMAILS WIERD0.
asborisov1 1 year ago
@asborisov1 No, it is not -- average temperatures has been steadily rising over time. The only way deniers make you think overwise is by cherry picking data and trying to ignore all the rest. Don't be duped -- go read some actual scientific websites (not denier sites selling ideology rather than reason) and see the truth for yourself.
Ranillon 1 year ago
@Ranillon THIS IS N0T WHAT HAS HAPPENED AT ALL. THE SCIENCE D0ES N0T SAY THAT AND LINTZEN'S RECENT PAPER BASED 0N ACTUAL MEASRUMENTS TRUMPS THE UN'S M0DELS.
asborisov1 1 year ago 3
@Ranillon DAMN Y0URE DUMB. HAVE Y0U EVEN READ HIS STUDIES Y0U NUT. HE IS PART 0F THE IPCC AND HIS 0NE PAPER SH0WED ACTUAL MEASURMENTS WHICH HE USED 15 YEARS T0 FINISH. THEY TRUMP THE UN'S FAKE M0DELS
asborisov1 1 year ago
Thanks so much for posting this. The more I hear from Richard Lindzen the more credible he is to me.
Dexiclecom 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Please see the Climate Scientists' Register that the International Climate Science Coalition have created & has been endorsed by 137 climate experts since June 2010:
tinyurl[dot]com/2es3rqx
The Register states:
“We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming."
Tom Harris
ICSC
TomHarrisICSC 1 year ago
Awesome video
jsh78mang 1 year ago 2
Thank you for posting this video!
order9066 1 year ago 11
@order9066 You're welcome.
ClimateScam 1 year ago 4
Richard Lindzen: What a damn nice guy!!
TheTempestSpark 1 year ago 4