Eschatology and Global Warming

Then who is? My computer will not link through to the actual book probably because it is click bait with some nasty virus linked but feel free to link me to the actual book on some site where I can at least evaluate on paragraph

But I have to ask - how many citations does each chapter contain? Is it peer reviewed science or a mish mash of ideas poorly supported. What critical analysis of evidence does it contain?

 

Okay YOU do that

I do not do other people’s homework for them

 

As posted.
Germans Dr. Klaus-Petr Dahm, Detlef Laves and Wolfgang Merbach have written a new book on today’s climate change: “Der heutige Klimawandel: Eine kritische Analyse des Modells von der menschlich verursachten globalen Erwärmung (Mitteilungen Agrarwissenschaften)” (A Critical Analysis of the Human-Caused Global Warming Model (Communications Agricultural Sciences).

 

As I said, Google will translate.

 

So........ Go for it

As I said I am not about to do your homework for you. You are the one claiming this is peer reviewed science prove it by posting WITHIN the rules of this forum

 

Says the person relying on fringe blogs to validate arguments

personally I rely on the IPCC and I have yet to see a valid critique of any portion of any of the reports

 

Here you go.
Today's Climate Change: A Critical Analysis of the Human-Made Global Warming Model (Communications Agricultural Sciences) Paperback - Aug 6, 2015
by Klaus-Peter Dahm (Author), Detlef Laves (Author), Wolfgang Merbach (Author)
8 star ratings
Volume 27 of the Agricultural Sciences Communications deals with today's climate change and thus picks up on a very topical topic. . . . . The book, whose statements are underpinned by 59 mostly colored illustrations and 190 citations from the literature, aims to contribute to a more balanced discussion of the causes of current climate change. . . .

 

And yet you can't debate the topic.

 

Oh! I am happy to debate the topic but I don’t demean myself by launching ad Hominems

 

Oh! Wow! Be still my beating heart!
190 citations! Are they to peer reviewed research or to blogs or to newspaper articles? Was there a systematic review of the research carried out? Were the findings of the research used in an ethical manner (I.e. not cherry picked or misrepresented?)

Now stand this up against ONE chapter of ONE IPCC report https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

picking a random chapter https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

There are nine pages of citations with approx 50 citations per page and there are 13 chapters in that one report.

You can pick another report and random chapter if you like...........

 

You give a web link but you don't say what the temp is nor what you're taking the temp of. If the temp and statement of what we're taking the temp of was there you could have copied & pasted it here. My bet is that you didn't copy and paste it because it was not there & you decided to just "say" it's there even if it isn't.

This is why those of us who want to see the evidence say there is no evidence, because everyone we talk to & everywhere we look we keep ending up w/ "I won't tell u, u have to look elsewhere". Worse yet, if we say we still don't know we get called names for our trouble.

Cheers

 

Do you understand that you're not saying what the temp is. You say that your opinion and conclusion is that this temp that you're not sharing is "quite unusual over previous surface warming during the past several thousand years" but you're not showing what the current temp is nor what the previous temps were. A simple graph would suffice. A table of temp data would work also. We've got nothing here except opinions and other people's conclusions. We've not no data evidence.

Spare me the name calling that usually starts up at this point.

 

The point was simply to show there is disagreement.

 

Sorry, but ad hom is your stock in trade. My remark was merely an assessment of your posting history.

 

The answer is in the IPCC

I don’t play with Stawmen

But personally I think the “ideal” temperature is one that does not **** with the ecology of the planet

 

Keep going you are racking up the rule violations

 

Try debating the topic.

 

That was never in doubt

BUT the essence is whether or not each side can validate its argument with equal proof in the form of peer reviewed science

Have you got ANYTHING equivalent to the IPCC reports?

 

Happy to - what point do you want to try and make now?

 

On the contrary, please see #62, to which I replied.
The IPCC reports are political documents.

 

Post #1 remains the topic.

 

What? This post 62? Eschatology and Global Warming
The one by skepticalmike with your deleted post underneath? And you have not proven your contention that they are “political documents”. ALL you have is one disgruntled idiot who is not held in high regard by her contemporaries

Curry has a history - she was part of Project BEST and indeed is still listed as an Author - she was all for the project until it validated the data in the IPCC the she suddenly changed her mind

So, please explain to me how an INTERGOVERNMENTAL Body that is not beholden to any one government, has hundreds of contributing authors from every corner on the planet is basing its reports on tens of thousands of research papers each of which also had authors who would object if their data and material were misused, which has been scrutinised ceaseless since the first publication can possibly “be political”.

 

Off topic. If you want to discuss that, start a thread. And FYI: An intergovernmental body is by definition political.

 

--and some other nice people whatever they say but we got no idea what they say...

--and I don't rape and kill women and children, not like SOME people around here but I won't mention any names but you KNOW who I'm talking about don't you...

--and that mysterious temp could be anything we want it to be but for sure it's the absolute truth and nobody but nobody can possibly disagree.

Meanwhile, if anyone here happens to find out what the total global average current temp is (along w/ some kind of methodology that makes sense) please let me know, I'm serious now.

 

You did not answer my question

I went to post 62 as directed by you but found it was a furphy. And you STILL have not proven your point.

Bottom line is that those reports are what is informing government policies throughout the world. It underpins the Paris agreement sets carbon emission target etc etc. Without addressing the science in those reports all you are doing is taking up bandwidth. If you are serious about objecting you take time to understand that science, how the scientists came to the conclusions they did and what the recommendations are.