“Climate Change” IS no “joke.” It’s a hoax…at least insofar as it’s mankind’s “fault”. And, it WAS begun in order to extract money from American taxpayers. That’s actually self-evident. The ONLY “scientists” who touted AGW were those vying for research grants from Congress.
So you’d agree with the articles in the OP, correct?
I didn’t read the article in the OP but I don’t need to in order to know that humans are not controlling the earth’s climate.
There is not now and never has been any science to suggest such a moronic claim, this has been a hoax believed only by those who accept religious opinions without challenging them or applying critical thinking skills before parroting the claims of their religious leaders.
And most of them outside the field of climatology.
Not sure who you are referring too?
Look at the upper right hand corner of the post where it identifies the person I was replying to.
Yeah, I see it now. thx
Apparently, the Whitehouse approved a report saying that climate change is man-made…
I hope you guys see the problem with the articles in the OP…
Sez who? You don’t have to be a “climatologist,” whatever that is, to be able to assess the “data” that the global warmists have been spouting for the last 20 years.
Why would it matter what the “Trump White House” thinks about humans causing the climate to change?
The idea is ridiculous and has no credibility in science, that doesn’t change regardless of how many politicians or “researchers” get paid to “endorse” this ludicrous religion.
The isotope of carbon found in mummified plants, has contributed a greater and greater share of the supply of Carbon in our atmosphere.
There’s only one way it got there.
But the real point here, is that we shouldn’t conflate the Left’s instrumentation of Climate change, with humanity’s contribution to it. These are not the same issue.
Stating that we have in fact warmed the planet, is not a concession that fossil fuels are then evil or wrong. It certainly doesn’t make central planning of our economy to punish usage of them valid.
If you want to know in depth to why the left is still wrong, go ask Bjorn Lomborg . He and his institute have been stating this for over 10 years now.
The first thing I do when a skeptic makes claims, I check their claims of “peer-review”. I find out where they are publishing to see if they are publishing in credited journals.
The journal he says he published in Global Policy Journal a journal that focuses more on policy implications, than climate, though, as long as we’re all aware of that, that is perfectly ok.
Here is a list of credited journals and it’s not there.
Does that mean he’s wrong? No, but it always get’s my BS detector going. Let’s dig deeper…
Ok, next we look at the body of his work. What are his academic creds? How many papers has he published? On what topics? Are his articles cited?
He’s submitted 15 papers (the paper you cite I assume would be 16 as it’s not on the list), of which 5 have been cited.
Ok, but maybe of those 5 a few are heavily cited?
Not so much. Of those 5 he has a total of 54 citations, 42 of them come from a paper on the prisoner’s dilemma. Of his papers cited 1 is a paper on the environment that’s been cited 4 times from a journal called “Michigan Law Review”.
Here is his citation record:
Just for reference, here is a person in a similar field who is established and recognized by his peers:
Then I went out and looked at the kinds of information he was publishing and it became clear he cannot be taken seriously as he cherry picks data in order to tell the story he wants people to hear:
In an opinion piece in the Guardian he wrote:
Since 1992, we have had satellites measuring the rise in global sea levels, and they have shown a stable increase of 3.2mm per year (1/8 of an inch) – spot on compared to the IPCC projection. Moreover, over the last two years, sea levels have not increased at all – actually, they show a slight drop. Should we not be told that this is much better than expected?
Here is a graph I found online exposing the nonsense of that statement.
Now there’s lot’s more that exposes the “work” Mr. Bjorn has done, but I will spare you.
So you will forgive me, I do not think Lomborg is a scientist who just happens to have a different opinion from the majority. First of all, there is very little indication that he is actually working as a scientist, given his near-zero scientific track record since his Ph.D. work. Second, the arguments he presents to the wider public on the sea-level rise can hardly be seen as made in good faith – rather, they appear to me to be carefully crafted (and admittedly rather eloquent) distortions, aimed to deceive his lay audience about the seriousness of the threat. In short, I would consider much of Lomborg’s writing propaganda and the evidence of his peer-review submissions and acceptance and his cherry picking of data to deceive his audience makes him suspect at best.
We all understand that attacking your religion brings the ire out. Since when does the volume of “citations” have ANYTHING whatsoever to do with veracity?
The veracity of the claim, or the veracity of the person making the claim?
We can’t all be experts at something as complicated as climate science. So we rely on people that study it and understand the methods of study to fact check each other.
I’ve pointed out that my Bjorn cherry picks data. That’s not the kind of thing a person does when they are evaluating the data honestly with an interest in the truth. That is a person with an agenda.
Look, I admit that there are people on all sides with this problem, but we rely on the experts to check each other. All we need to know is how to spot people who don’t do real work in the field they claim to be in. Instead, they do Ted talks and write opinion pieces in newspapers and blogs.
I’ve exposed Mr. Bjorn as that person.
Does that mean he’s wrong? Nope, but I don’t have a PH.D. in anything having to do with climate. I rely on the experts who do real work and publish all of the data.
Now, you can be like Ret and claim the entire body of science is all corrupt, but that’s just not how science works. We wouldn’t have the airplane or gene sequencing, or spacecraft visiting the moons of Saturn if this were how science works.
You guys don’t like it because it conflicts with your preconceived notions of how the world works. I get it, and I’m just exposing it for what it is.
Right. Like those global warmists who IGNORE data that doesn’t support THEIR agenda?
Do those people exist? Sure, but all you have to do is show, as I’ve done, that a particular person that claims to represent a position, but doesn’t subject their work to the scrutiny of their peers, if they do, it’s not recognized as significant, they cherry pick data, their works aren’t cited by others and they make money talking about climate rather than doing the work of understanding it.
Peer review is the most ridiculous standard that exists, it is the equivalent of college football “voting” to determine a “National Champion” so they don’t have to have a playoff system.
Humans are not controlling the climate, nothing humans can do can raise or lower the temperature of the earth.
Simplest terms possible…
The sun adds heat to the earth.
The concentration of carbon dioxide (and other gasses) affect how much of the suns energy stays in the atmosphere.
Suns energy is declining:
Carbon dioxide increasing:
Temprature is rising:
Burning fossil fuels releases carbon.
We burn a LOT of fossil fuels and are responsible for the spike in carbon dioxide released since the industrial age.
Therefore, even though the suns energy is declining, carbon dioxide concentrations are keeping more of that energy here on earth then is being released back to space.