Eschatology and Global Warming

Talk about prejudice

More research citations in one chapter than is contained in the entirety of many blogs and you dismiss it out of hand

Now I know why you are reduced to having to bump your own threads - there is only so much pseudoscientific claptrap anyone can take

 

Who?

 

And when are you going to post science instead of opinion?

 

Sorry, but the evidence is otherwise.

 

I have posted more peer-reviewed research than anyone else here.

 

Learn first; then post.

 

Here's science, but you're not gonna like it:

Palaeo data suggest that Greenland must have been largely ice free during Marine Isotope Stage 11 (MIS-11). The globally averaged MIS-11 sea level is estimated to have reached between 6–13 m above that of today.

[emphasis mine]

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms16008

“Even though the warm Eemian period was a period when the oceans were four to eight meters higher than today, the ice sheet in northwest Greenland was only a few hundred meters lower than the current level, which indicates that the contribution from the Greenland ice sheet was less than half the total sea-level rise during that period,” says Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Professor at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, and leader of the NEEM-project.

[emphasis mine]

https://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/news/n...e-of-the-past/

So, based on science, if the sea level rises another 3 meters, the only truthful scientific statement you can make is that sea levels are lower than sea levels in all 8 previously recorded Inter-Glacial Periods.

 

Another strawman

Point out for me please where in any of the IPCC reports it states that climate change has not happened in the past

 

Why?
I mean so far all you seem to be posting is Koch brothers AstroTurf

 

Ha ha, you just proved that YOU don't want to learn, you casually dismissed Mirceas post.

What is your problem?

 

Trouble is that he is not interested in science research, he is a "believer" on a climate ideology that builds on politics and money.

 

That's a silly post that suggests you don't know the material. I suspected that when you didn't know Peter Gleick. Now you've confirmed it.

 

He flees from substance.

 

The fear is irrational and his determined avoidance of a real debate exposes his problem.

 

We can agree that there are a lot of folks who swear by the global warming thing & I'd be the first to ask to see the evidence. Let's go for it.

What I'm hearing is that the earth is warming a degree or so (C) over the past century. Off hand I'd be willing to raise an eye brow or two over that, so please tell me what's warming (the entire earth, just the atmosphere, the surface, what?), and then show how u measure the current temp & how that relates to the temp what, 100 years ago? Then we got to go over temps in the past few millennia to see if this is unusual --and there's more we'd need to do but this is a start.

So, what's the temp of whatever it is ur measuring the temp of?

 

No problems whatsoever ever

For that question the answer lies here

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
If that is too deep and convoluted you can always read the summary for policy makers

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

 

When you post some I will address it

 

He posted numerous published science papers.....

You are being dishonest here, you keep finding away to AVOID the debate.

Your smarmy reply by posting a link to a full IPCC report shows your effort to avoid debate.

By the way I read that 28 page summary years ago.

 

I know what is AstroTurf alright which is wh I can spot it a mile off

So why are you determined to do the wirk of the Koch bro’s?

 

Nope you haven’t

mostly your links are to blogs and a blog is NOTrepeat NOT peer reviewed research

I love the fact that on my side I have the IPCC reports which are systematic reviews and meta analysis of tens of thousands of research papers (remember how I proved that just one chapter in one report had around 900 citations? ) written by hundreds of contributing authors world wide run by an international group not beholden to any single government and on your side you have

A couple of blogs and the Koch funded Heartland institute

 

Really? Everything I look at is a blog

 

Start with the thread's first post.

 

Actually, you apparently don't, and you're just making yourself look silly.

 

The blog posts usually include links to the peer-reviewed research they reference.
Heartland does not receive Koch funding. Just another of your usual mistakes.
Stop being afraid and learn something.

From the Heartland home page:

"No. Neither Charles Koch nor David Koch — nor any Koch family charitable foundation — is a current or regular contributor to The Heartland Institute. Koch Industries has never funded The Heartland Institute.

The Charles G. Koch Foundation in 2012 donated $25,000 to Heartland to support our work promoting free-market health care solutions, not climate issues. That is a paltry sum (0.36 percent) in our organization’s $7 million budget. That single donation — to support our work on health care issues — was the only Koch-connected contribution to Heartland in nearly two decades. [Important note: Heartland didn’t begin to support and promote scientists who are skeptical of human-caused climate catastrophe until 2008.]

The “Koch Brothers” generously support many nonprofit organizations that promote free markets and individual liberty. The Heartland Institute is not among them. Our policy positions, at any rate, are based on principle. We are not a “pay to play” organization."
Heartland Institute: Home

 

Books which may or may not have validated research backing the opinions of the authors

NOT peer reviewed science and certainly not a systematic review and I can confidently say that because a systematic review rarely has just one author