Reply With Quote
Maybe you should do the math yourself, if you are capable.
Because you came in to the discussion to say that you agreed with Pheno and added nothing else of substance. Hence me saying you all added nothing of substance to the discussion.
So you believe that CO2 and water should get equal rights so CO2 is exonerated cause water isn't regulated?
Maybe you should do the math yourself, if you are capable.
do we have to do this again? I'm more than comfortable with taking the peer review process over the fronting of an idiot. If that is all you have then so be it.
Yes I know. You like your brainwashing.
You don't read the studies, you read what the pundits tell you the studies say...
as opposed to your method of just making up.
It's the National Academy of Science and not Rush Limbaugh
Silly me, I forget that the Academies had put together this handy anti-denial kit.Many complex processes shape our climate Based just on the physics of the amount of energy that CO2 absorbs and emits, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration from pre-industrial levels (up to about 560 ppm) would, by itself, cause a global average temperature increase of about 1 °C (1.8 °F). In the overall climate system, however, things are more complex; warming leads to further effects (feedbacks) that either amplify or diminish the initial warming. The most important feedbacks involve various forms of water. A warmer atmosphere generally contains more water vapour. Water vapour is a potent greenhouse gas, thus causing more warming; its short lifetime in the atmosphere keeps its increase largely in
step with warming. Thus, water vapour is treated as an amplifier, and not a driver, of climate change. Higher temperatures in the polar regions melt sea ice and reduce seasonal snow cover, exposing a darker ocean and land surface that can absorb more heat, causing further warming. Another important but uncertain feedback concerns changes in clouds. Warming
and increases in water vapour together may cause cloud cover to increase or decrease which can either amplify or dampen temperature change depending on the changes in the horizontal extent, al ude, and properties of clouds. The latest assessment of the science indicates that the overall net global effect of cloud changes is likely to be to amplify warming.
http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static...hange-full.pdf
Do you have a fetish for Limbaugh?
It's the National Academy of Science and not Rush Limbaugh
Why are you bringing him up?
Funny how they don't mention any of the 60 year lags like Hansen acknowledges.
They use more current correlation and causation, rather than any mention of solar peaking in 1958, and 60 years of equalization lag...
When a group will actually acknowledge these other real factors, I will start listening to them. Until that time, I will stick with researcher papers instead of blogs and ins ute statements to find my information.
Plants eat plant food? Who knew?
The discussion was about China's role given the already established principle. I'm guessing you didn't read it. Reading technical work seems a struggle for you.
If aerosol forcing goes down but the temperature anomaly remains the same what do you think that means regarding other forcings?
High Anxiety That Mountain Peaks are Warming Faster
Temperatures could be climbing on mountains—with new research suggesting that the highest al udes may be warming at a rate greater than expected.
Members of the Mountain Research Initiative collective report in Nature Climate Change that they found evidence that mountain peak regions were warming faster than the surrounding plateaus and lowlands.
The study—by Nick Pepin, leader of the Environmental Processes and Change Research Group at Portsmouth University in the UK, and colleagues from the US, Switzerland, Canada, Ecuador, Pakistan, China, Italy, Austria and Kazakhstan—comes with more than the usual set of health warnings.
The authors concede that the evidence is “extremely sparse”. But just as the Arctic region—the high la udes of the northern hemisphere—is warming faster than anywhere else in the world, so the high al ude could also be at risk.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...+the+Headlines
That's never been a problem for climate science.
I’m going to climate denial school: My first week inside the science of anti-science
Tuesday, for me and some ten thousand classmates, was the first day of climate denial school.
Or, should I say, anti-climate denial school. We’d all signed up for Denial101x, a new, six-week MOOC (that’s “massive open online course,” for all you education luddites) aimed at making sense of this whole phenomenon — and at giving us the tools to fight deniers, so that we can all get on with fighting climate change itself.
Our professor is John Cook, the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Ins ute at the University of Queensland and the founder of Skeptical Science, which over the past two years has been an invaluable resources for me, a newbie debunker of deniers.
Of course, there’s always more to learn. As a student, Cook told me via email, I can expect to leave the course with “a better understanding what’s happening to our climate, able to identify the techniques used to distort the science and be able to debunk misinformation.” That’s a great thing for a climate blogger, as well as — and this is really the point — for any concerned citizen of the world who wants to understand the truth about climate science for themselves.
The course doesn’t waste time wringing its hands over whether or not to call deniers “deniers” — a true skeptic, Cook explains in his welcome video, “doesn’t come to a conclusion until they’ve considered the evidence,” while “someone who denies well-established science comes to a conclusion first, and then discounts any evidence that conflicts with their beliefs.” But it is interested in why climate deniers believe the things they do. That’s because in order to effectively debunk climate denier myths, Cook told me, it’s important first to understand the psychology behind them — and to understand how and why they’re so good at casting doubt on the scientific consensus.
http://www.salon.com/2015/04/29/im_g..._anti_science/
Nice! That's kind of what I thought your value was too.
this got[FONT=arial][SIZE=3]I’m going to climate denial school: My first week inside the science of anti-science
All Pop Tart could come up with is whining that he censored him. He did get banned over at Skeptical Science but as we saw here he has antisocial traits.this got
What criticism do you have?
Your go to site WUWT is tied to GWPC and other oilco think tanks. That is your go to source over the years. Do you have any examples of a conflict of interest like the Harvard researcher hailed as a leading skeptic who misrepresented being paid by oilcos?
The flowchart in the pic is apt for you. You have clearly come to your conclusion that oilcos interests must be met and have moved from position to position as outlined in my sig. You are another that misrepresents his allegiances.
on and on...
Feel free to flesh out some valid criticisms of the points he makes.this got
This entire thread is about the flawed logic and bad evidence used by so many people who want to argue about the science and deny that anything is wrong or that humans are causing widespread climate change.
When you use flawed logic, you don't help your case of denying that AGW is taking place.
Man up and go a bit beyond the high school insults and smileys.
So?
on and on...
http://www.salon.com/2015/04/29/im_g..._anti_science/politics aside, the University of Victoria’s Robert Gifford explains, our brains just didn’t evolve to grapple with long-term, global threats like climate change. And so a number of psychological barriers, or what he calls “dragons of inactions,” prevent us from responding in a way that’s commensurate to the problem: we tend to discount events that seem far away, for instance, and we tend to be overly optimistic about the risks of climate change while at the same time deeply pessimistic about our individual ability to make a difference. And then, there’s the whole matter of the “consensus gap“: the difference between the 97 percent scientific consensus, and where the public believes it is — somewhere around 50 to 60 percent. How great people believe the consensus is has a big influence on their other beliefs, like whether the support the need for climate action. And according to Gifford’s own experiments, the more Americans support “free, unregulated markets,” the larger the consensus gap.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-06-2015 at 11:35 AM.
The 97% scientific consensus is only that 97% of the scientists agree humans have an impact. An unspecified amount of impact. Anyone saying it means 97% of the scientists say we are the largest contributor, is lying.
Come on...
We've been over the facts before.
http://bigthink.com/experts-corner/5...ific-consensusFaced with unfortunate facts or inconvenient truths? Tired of closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears, and screaming "LA LA LA LA LA LA?" Well, simply read RealClearScience's handy guide for denying scientific consensus. It's 100% proven to work against a variety of well-substantiated topics, such as:
Drinking Water Fluoridation
Global Climate Change
Child Vaccinations
Evolution
The Link Between HIV and AIDS
I'm sure you've got a long day of crafting aluminum foil hats ahead of you, so let's get going!
Tip #1: Claim a conspiracy. Feel like the whole world is against you? Well that's because it is! Scientists, politicians, journalists: they're all in collusion! Take climate change, for example. It's obvious why all those scientists "agree." They've been paid off by Big Solar and Big Wind, and are probably throwing lavish parties, complete with dancers that jump out of giant cakes shaped like beakers.
Tip #2: Use fake experts. The other side has their experts, so you need to get some, too. Finding somebody with respected credentials will be difficult, so to make up for it, just dress whoever you select in a white lab coat. If you can recruit a celebrity, do it! The public already trusts them. (Note: The more attractive the celebrity, the greater is his or her credibility.) To the anti-vaxxers out there, I recommend Jenny McCarthy.
Tip #3: Cherry-pick scientific data. Every once in a while, a scientific study will be published that supports your claims. When this happens, latch on and don't let go (despite it's obvious errors)! After all, the key to convincing others is simply to repeat your message more often than your opponents repeat theirs. If you're opposed to genetic modification, allow me to recommend a 2012 study by Gilles-Éric Séralini which found that genetically modified corn causes cancer in lab rats. Never mind that it's been universally denounced and recentlyretracted. The public doesn't need to know that.
Tip #4: Create unrealistic expectations of the evidence. Science is inherently uncertain; even scientists admit that! What can they ever really prove? Nothing! Climate change deniers, take Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKee's advice and "point to the absence of accurate temperature records from before the invention of the thermometer."
Tip #5: Employ logical fallacies. Straw men, red herrings, false analogies: all of these are your friends. Misrepresent the opposition! Change the subject! And here's a foolproof false analogy for evolution deniers: "As the universe and a watch are both extremely complex, the universe must have been created by the equivalent of a watchmaker." Deep, isn't it?
Okay! You're ready to go! But first beware: there's a guaranteed side effect of utilizing this guide. You'll look like a total dunderhead.
But hey, it sure beats sticking your head in the ground!
Source: Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKee. "Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?" European Journal of Public Health, (2009) Vol. 19, No. 1, 2–4
Article at big think.
http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/con...9/1/2.full.pdf Paper in the European Journal of Public Health.
Let's see how many of these things you used in the 200+ pages here.
1. Claim a conspiracy.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post4819909
There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)
Posting Permissions
