13 Oct 16
There is a difference between alleged consensus of climate scientists believing man is the "primary cause" of global warming and an actual poll of climate scientists showing a consensus of "primary cause".
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/2/#16f28cb926d6
When people claim a climate scientist believes man is the "primary cause" of global warming and write a paper on it only for that climate scientist to say that is not what he was saying in his study it is stupid to claim that is proof of anything.
When a respected climate scientist writes a paper saying there is no poll to suggest climate scientists believe man is the "primary cause" of global warming and not even one climate scientist disputes it I think it is very likely Fred Singer knows what he is talking about.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/02/climate_consensus_con_game.html
I have had it with liars like humy claiming a poll exists showing climate scientists believe man is the "primary cause" of global warming. He can show us a poll without "primary cause" or a poll of people who are not climate scientists but that is a failure. They have to be climate scientist, not just scientists. Primary cause is important too. Showing man is a mere factor is not enough. Even Fred Singer himself does not deny man is a factor and he is regarded as a skeptic.
I challenge anyone to prove what Humy, Sonhouse, Kazetnaggora and Googlefudge have failed to do on multiple occasions, but use facts and not mere claims without sources of information provided. This is a science forum, not a myth forum.
Originally posted by Metal BrainSo you assert without evidence that any link that says a pole shows most climate scientists believe that man is the primary cause of the resent global warming is just telling "lies".
There is a difference between alleged consensus of climate scientists believing man is the "primary cause" of global warming and an actual poll of climate scientists showing a consensus of "primary cause".
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/2/#16f28cb926d6
When people claim a climate scie ...[text shortened]... mere claims without sources of information provided. This is a science forum, not a myth forum.
So those pole either never took place or, somehow, the results where just fabricated? Which?
And how do you know this without evidence? If it was all "lies" in some sort of mass conspiracy then why aren't the majority of these climate scientists coming out in public protest saying in anger, as they would if this vast mass conspiracy is true, that they don't believe any of this and words have been put into their mouths and it is all lies?
This is the problem with you assertions; scientists will in general not easily sit back and just tolerate without any protest to be severely misrepresented in such an extreme way and if they are severely misrepresented in such a way then MANY of them will try very hard to organize together to publicly say something publicly about it in which case we would all know about it; and yet we are not hearing about loads of climate scientists getting together and publicly denounce all these 'lies' you say are said about what they believe; an indicator that they are not lies.
18 Oct 16
Originally posted by humyLOL!
So you assert without evidence that any link that says a pole shows most climate scientists believe that man is the primary cause of the resent global warming is just telling "lies".
So those pole either never took place or, somehow, the results where just fabricated? Which?
And how do you know this without evidence? If it was all "lies" in some sort of mass ...[text shortened]... all these 'lies' you say are said about what they believe; an indicator that they are not lies.
The links you post as evidence do NOT provide any evidence after asserting. The consensus project does NOT provide a source of information at all. Neither have you after making your assertions (lies) repeatedly.
Some climate scientists do say they have been misrepresented and have said so. The other climate scientists cannot challenge a poll that does not exist. How can they possibly be angry and speak out against a non-existent poll. Duh!
Fred Singer did write the article consensus con game and there you go. If the highly respected climate scientist S. Fred Singer says the poll does not exist and no other climate scientists challenge that assertion how do you explain that the poll exists? How can you possibly think no climate scientists would challenge him if they thought he was lying?????????
Fred Singer is stating the truth and it is ridiculous to dismiss your own logic in regards to his article "The Consensus Con Game". You have proven yourself wrong with your own logic!
Originally posted by Metal BrainFred Singer who reported Phobos was an alien construct, hollowed out asteroid? THAT Singer? The one who got his degrees before 1950? The one rejecting peer reviewed papers showing evidence of global climate change which he doesn't accept? That 92 year old guy who MUST know what he is talking about since he is SO current? THAT Singer?
LOL!
The links you post as evidence do NOT provide any evidence after asserting. The consensus project does NOT provide a source of information at all. Neither have you after making your assertions (lies) repeatedly.
Some climate scientists do say they have been misrepresented and have said so. The other climate scientists cannot challenge a poll t ...[text shortened]... rds to his article "The Consensus Con Game". You have proven yourself wrong with your own logic!
You just latch on to whomever you think boosts your case. Well, I should say, you were programmed by this dude and others and now you think like him. How does it feel being an intellectual parrot?
You should know your field well before you start being their parrot:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
There are about 70 scientists listed there as anti climate change.
On the plus side, there are about 31,000 scientists polled who agree there is climate change and it is caused mainly by mankind:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
Let's see. 70 of your guys. 31,000 of ours.
Good luck. Make the choice of who you parrot well. But then again, you are already a Singerite. Any others we should know? Maybe not on the skeptics list?
20 Oct 16
Originally posted by sonhouseI hope they find a cure for your dementia. I'm getting tired of you forgetting I proved you wrong about the Phobos alien construct myth. I'm posting this link again which shows Singer explaining that Phobos is likely rubble. Stay off of those stupid alien conspiracy links. They are junk!
Fred Singer who reported Phobos was an alien construct, hollowed out asteroid? THAT Singer? The one who got his degrees before 1950? The one rejecting peer reviewed papers showing evidence of global climate change which he doesn't accept? That 92 year old guy who MUST know what he is talking about since he is SO current? THAT Singer?
You just latch on to ...[text shortened]... n again, you are already a Singerite. Any others we should know? Maybe not on the skeptics list?
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2013/06/to_mars_--_in_three_easy_steps.html
Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information and neither is skeptical science. Try again. Skeptical science relies on the "consensus project" for their source of information and their 97% is a lie! They state that the 97% agree that man is the cause. That 97% merely say that man is a factor, not the primary cause. They do not state their source of information because it does not exist. They even say "cause" as opposed to "primary cause" which implies man is 100% of the cause which is simply impossible and obvious even to a common moron!
Maybe you should not try again since you are a moron who cannot remember much of anything.
"On the plus side, there are about 31,000 scientists polled who agree there is climate change and it is caused mainly by mankind:"
Scientists are not all climate scientists. When I pointed out that Freeman Dyson disagreed with you and the other GW alarmists you said that because he is not a climate scientist his opinion did not matter. This is yet another example of your hypocrisy. You have cited 31,000 scientists whose opinion does not matter according to you. If you have changed your opinion then say so. If you have not stop being a stupid hypocrite!
http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/mairead-mcardle/top-physicist-freeman-dyson-obama-took-wrong-side-climate-change
Originally posted by Metal BrainOf course you could care less what happens to Earth as long as mankind is not the culprit. Time will tell and I hope you have some excuses ready for your grandkids and greatgrandkids.
I hope they find a cure for your dementia. I'm getting tired of you forgetting I proved you wrong about the Phobos alien construct myth. I'm posting this link again which shows Singer explaining that Phobos is likely rubble. Stay off of those stupid alien conspiracy links. They are junk!
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2013/06/to_mars_--_in_th ...[text shortened]... nsnews.com/blog/mairead-mcardle/top-physicist-freeman-dyson-obama-took-wrong-side-climate-change
03 Nov 16
Originally posted by sonhouseLOL!
Of course you could care less what happens to Earth as long as mankind is not the culprit. Time will tell and I hope you have some excuses ready for your grandkids and greatgrandkids.
So you think man should stop NATURAL global warming? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!
What about the cyclical ice ages, should we stop them too? That is climate change. Is your view that mother nature is a bitch that needs to be tamed no matter how impossible it seems?
03 Nov 16
Originally posted by Metal BrainYes, obviously yes. Of course we should seek to stop any and all climate change as it is extremely costly to us. That you shout 'LOL' suggests you haven't thought it through. (or you are paid by the oil companies).
So you think man should stop NATURAL global warming? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!
What about the cyclical ice ages, should we stop them too?
03 Nov 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadI guess he figures since he knows mankind is to meager a force on Earth to be causing climate change, mankind therefore is also too weak to do anything about it.
Yes, obviously yes. Of course we should seek to stop any and all climate change as it is extremely costly to us. That you shout 'LOL' suggests you haven't thought it through. (or you are paid by the oil companies).
05 Nov 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadStopping natural climate change is the most stupid idea I have ever heard because it is impossible.
Yes, obviously yes. Of course we should seek to stop any and all climate change as it is extremely costly to us. That you shout 'LOL' suggests you haven't thought it through. (or you are paid by the oil companies).
IMPOSSIBLE!
Originally posted by Metal Brainwhy is it 'impossible'? Science doesn't say it is impossible. It is just a matter of humanity doing something on such a large scale as to effect climate, which is exactly what we are doing. If we were due for a natural cooling of climate in the present as a result of natural cycles, we have already stopped that. If we can inadvertently interfere with climate, it must also be possible for us to deliberately stop a natural climate change.
Stopping natural climate change is the most stupid idea I have ever heard because it is impossible.
IMPOSSIBLE!
06 Nov 16
Originally posted by Metal BrainHe just made my point. He clearly thinks mankind too insignificant to have ever screwed up something so huge as an entire planet's eco system and therefore too weak to ever be able to stave off climactic disaster.
Stopping natural climate change is the most stupid idea I have ever heard because it is impossible.
IMPOSSIBLE!
06 Nov 16
2 edits
Originally posted by humyThere's no doubt mankind is affecting our environment. I'm curious about the 'natural cycles'. Our seasons for example are due to the slight eccentricity of our orbit around our star. It is not clear to me why for example there are 'natural' recurring ice ages. A wobble left over from an asteroid strike or something?
.. If we were due for a natural cooling of climate in the present as a result of natural cycles, we have already stopped that. ...
Anyway. What we can do now and in the near future is merely to modify our own impact on the natural cycles. Am I off base here?
Is it possible that we have already upset that natural balance enough that modifying our own impact comes too late?
I feel sure that our progeny gets a world different than we knew, in many and profound ways.
06 Nov 16
8 edits
Originally posted by apathistthat is mainly not true although the elliptical orbit as apposed to a purely circular orbit has been calculated to have some small but measurable effect on our seasons.
Our seasons for example are due to the slight eccentricity of our orbit around our star.
The seasons are mainly caused by the tilt of the Earth's axis of rotation relative to the Sun rather than its orbital path;
http://www.weatherquestions.com/What_causes_the_seasons.htm
It is not clear to me why for example there are 'natural' recurring ice ages. A wobble left over from an asteroid strike or something?
There are several cycles here superimposed on to each other but the most notable causes, I think, are;
1, the gravitational interaction between the Moon and Earth causing the tilt of the Earth to vary cyclically over thousands years and how this effects the average amount of ice cover around the poles and thus the Earth's albedo. (I have completely failed to find even a single half-reasonable link on this but I assure you this IS the main cause of the last few significant ice ages)
2, changes in the Earth's orbit due to gravitational interactions between the Earth's orbit and that of the other planets; these are called the Milankovitch cycles;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#Variations_in_Earth.27s_orbit_.28Milankovitch_cycles.29