Global warming scepticism

Sure I do. I know you haven't submitted one post with any factual information. I've asked for you to provide it, but you consistently fail. So it's clear you have no clue.

 

At least he is consistent with his very science based 'Nuh Uh' defense.

 

'nuh uh'......

 

you're describing your own defense, my argument is based on facts and evidence

 

wahhoo, look he posted his opinion piece again. Slacker.

 

Wash, rinse, repeat. Old data and appeal to authority.

 

With all the noise about current warming being so dang unusual I though I would provide a paper by a 'scientist' so Dujac will just have to believe it.

Ice-core evidence of abrupt climate changes

http://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1331.abstract

 

evidently you don't realize that richard alley agrees with the same argument i've been making

human activity is responsible for global warming, watch the video and learn something

at the 2:34 mark:

host: "what role do you think fossil fuels are playing in all this [global warming]?"

richard alley: "i believe we now have high confidence that humans are the primary force"

[video=youtube;T4GThA35s1s]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4GThA35s1s[/video]

 

But, but, but, he just decimated one of the core warmist arguments based on Mann's 'delete the past' hockey stick that you defend. LOL I knew you would bite on that one.

 

no he didn't

 

I do realize that everything you say and believe are 'basically opinions'.

Scientists don't 'try to prove others wrong'? Scientists do a peer review, going over the identical process to obtain the same results. If this cannot be achieved then the scientific study needs more work or is thrown out.

'Time' does not 'validate or invalidate'? If something is peer reviewed, either they will obtain the same results or they won't.

Climate data comes from every square inch of Earth, on land, in water, in the atmosphere, and must of this is real-time data. There is plenty of data over plenty of time for me to call it 'endless'.

Without data how can something be peer-reviewed? Without a scientific or mathematical hypothesis how can something be peer-reviewed?

I can look out of the window of my office right now and understand that mankind definitely has an impact on Earth. How much impact, how negative the impact, how critical the impact, how regional or national the impact...I don't know. It is intuitively impossible to have population growth, industrialization, developing societies, without also impacting Earth. Since it's highly unlikely to be positive impacts then they must have potential to be negative impacts...

 

I don't think you know you just decimated your own argument.

Peer review proves nothing other than the paper was reviewed for publishing. Peer review does not attempt to prove or disprove anything.

Science is about being able to duplicate findings. If they cannot be duplicated, they are falsified. That is science. If they are not ever duplicated, they are just papers that will be proved or disproved with further discoveries. Very few papers stand the test of time. Very few. Scientists gain standing by publishing as many papers as they can. To prove that peer review is not what you think it is, nonsense papers were written by a computer using the language of scientists and were accepted for publication.

The only climate data that covers every inch of earth and not even that, is satellite data that the NOAA dropped from their data and instead prefer to use surface data that is mostly on land and very sparse over oceans (which only record water temperature) and non-existant in the Arctic. The further back in time you go, the less data there is.

Argument From Personal Incredulity is a logical fallacy argument.

 

Here you go;

http://www.munichre.com/site/corpor...eather_catastrophes_and_climate_change_en.pdf

Make sure you READ it to see who provides the funding.

And try this one;

http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/climatechange/research

And maybe this one;

https://www.db.com/medien/en/conten...143.htm?dbiquery=null:climate+change+research

I'm okay with anything SCIENTISTS do as long as it's peer reviewed. I sleep quite well at night knowing scientists around the world are studying our complex issues and curiosities all within a structured and proven process. This is what makes science so great...

 

I stand by my comments...science is science. If something does not follow scientific method then it's not science. There is plenty of data, plenty of papers, plenty of good old common sense...

 

Well, you are entitled to believe what you want whether you understand what happens or not.

 

you have no clue what you're talking about, there's more to it than that

it's reviewed for publishing because publishers want to print accurate texts, not mistakes


"Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work (peers). It constitutes a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards of quality, improve performance, and provide credibility. In academia peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication. Peer review can be categorized by the type of activity and by the field or profession in which the activity occurs, e.g., medical peer review."

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

 

And you don't realize you just proved my point.

 

i demonstrated to you omitted the most important aspects of peer review

 

Yes, and again I want to thank you for backing me up. You still don't realize you did that but then, who would be surprised.

 

I am curious. What ever happened to those 2010 50 million climate refugees?

 

hahahahahaha, can you believe they are truly without conceptual thinking qualities. Peer review, Peer review. Oh and BTW, they don't prove anything in the review. Yep been saying that for two years now since I've been in here. The stupid that finds its way on this forum is hysterical.

 

i didn't back you up, i showed how you tried to pass off a partial truth

and then you made up something about peer reviewing that's completely false

just like you lied about richard alley and his work on ice sheets & cores

 

You only showed that you have reading problems and don't even understand what you posted which backed me up 100%.

LOL, I posted the alley[sic] paper not that you could read it. Take it up with him.

 

i showed that you left out the most important aspects of peer reviewing

just like i showed that you were dishonest about richard alley

 

Still with the reading problems? Show me where the statement says they duplicated and proved their work. That isn't the point of peer review or don't you even know that?