Our Biggest Security Threat Is Global Warming-Induced Extreme Weather

[Obama 2012 1,714]

just remember. If we burn more coal, then that will stop the greenhouse effect and the earth will cool. Problem solved!

[Zero Sum 305]

Amazing turn. Its like the climate scientists themselves were the same scientists brandishing the Eugenics and Flat Earth dogma over the last couple of hundred years.

Its been said before quite clearly. Denialists will go to any length to obfuscate the fact that climate scientists are full aware of natural climate cycles.

[luckytxn 2,264]

All the studies hmm?

I think you obviously have a lot of reading to do.

Definitely fact #1, Steven.

On top of the reading... you should try understanding it too. That might help you out a bit. Might save you some embarrassment.

Every single study has shown to not withstand peer review so far. Now personally after so many have proven to be frauds to advance this theory it should be knocked back down to just a hypotheses but I am generous and say that it should stay a theory and looked at further but they have to from now on stop omitting any data that refutes them, no more falsification, no more fraud of any kind and lets let the real peer reviewed data lead us to a conclusion. So far this hasn't happened.

[Robert&Liliya 31]

The real problem is all the methane gas from the cows but I am working on that. How do you like your steak?

[Zero Sum 305]

Every single study has shown to not withstand peer review so far. Now personally after so many have proven to be frauds to advance this theory it should be knocked back down to just a hypotheses but I am generous and say that it should stay a theory and looked at further but they have to from now on stop omitting any data that refutes them, no more falsification, no more fraud of any kind and lets let the real peer reviewed data lead us to a conclusion. So far this hasn't happened.

Yeah...

Dangit... the real life LOL here just got me unneeded attention from the office next door. Now they want to read what some internet expert says about climate science being a fraud. Should I share?

The real problem is all the methane gas from the cows but I am working on that. How do you like your steak?

One of the problems, sure.

I am still cracking up... 'every single study'

Heaven please... let the unreasonable be reasoned with...

[luckytxn 2,264]

The real problem is all the methane gas from the cows but I am working on that. How do you like your steak?

Invent a methane capturing device for them and become rich.

[Robert&Liliya 31]

I am not sticking a hose up a cows bum. I just wanted a good excuse for a Bar-B-Q.

[Zero Sum 305]

I am not sticking a hose up a cows bum. I just wanted a good excuse for a Bar-B-Q.

Hmmm. Friday it is...

At least the ashes we can use to fertilize gardens, lawns, etc.

[luckytxn 2,264]

I am not sticking a hose up a cows bum. I just wanted a good excuse for a Bar-B-Q.

Party pooper.

[Ste 6]

OK now turn. This is to show me if you are just stupid or have some investments that could go south and cause you ruin.

Is CO2 the only heat trapping gas?

Which heat trapping gas is the largest?

Has the earth always in history undergone naturally ice ages and back?

Is Eugenics still practiced and believed in by some Scientists?

Did Scientists insist for a long time the earth was flat?

Because it's possible to prove or disprove a huge, decades long scientific study which is still being researched just by asking those five questions.

CO2 isn't the only one.

Water vapour is the largest (CO2 is in second place)

No. For a long while the earth was a huge ball of molten rock and other material.

Possibly.

At that time you couldn't really class people as scientists.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

Sticks and stone may break my bones, but names will be used by denialists.

i suppose you should go take that up with zero sum, since i'm merely using the same term he introduced into the conversation.

oh and btw, we're talking about eugenics, so following your logic, you've not used any names so you must believe in eugenics?

[Ste 6]

Every single study has shown to not withstand peer review so far. Now personally after so many have proven to be frauds to advance this theory it should be knocked back down to just a hypotheses but I am generous and say that it should stay a theory and looked at further but they have to from now on stop omitting any data that refutes them, no more falsification, no more fraud of any kind and lets let the real peer reviewed data lead us to a conclusion. So far this hasn't happened.

Here's an article you should look through. I'll put up an excerpt. It's a bit long.

Who's your expert? The difference between peer review and rhetoric

Peer review is the basis of modern scientific endeavour. It underpins research and validates findings, theories and data.

Submitting scientists' claims to peer review is a straightforward way to assess their credibility.

The Climate Commission was established by the Australian government to help build consensus around climate change.

Chief Commissioner Professor Tim Flannery handed the first major report, The Critical Decade to Julia Gillard on May 23.

Peer-reviewed by internationally respected scientists, the report summarises key evidence and conclusions regarding climate change for Australia and the world.

Rising temperatures, changing rainfall, threats to human health and agriculture, and deteriorating ecosystems are carefully documented from the scientific literature. The report makes compelling reading and a solid case for rapid action on greenhouse gases such as CO2.

But are all experts really in agreement with the Climate Commission’s report?

Enter an alternative group of experts.

Writing in Quadrant Online Bob Carter, David Evans, Stewart Franks and Bill Kininmonth stated, “The scientific advice contained within The Critical Decade is an inadequate, flawed and misleading basis on which to set national policy.”

Carter and his colleagues dispute the major findings and assert that “independent scientists are confident overall that there is no evidence of global warming” or unusual “sea-level rise”.

According to them “there is nothing unusual about the behaviour of mountain glaciers, Arctic sea ice or the Greenland or West Antarctic ice sheets.”

You would be forgiven for concluding that firm action on carbon dioxide might not be warranted if the experts can’t agree.

But is there really so much scientific dispute over the facts of climate change?

One way to resolve this is to ask a simple question. If Carter and company hold different views to those expressed in the majority of the peer-reviewed, scientific literature, then have they submitted their ideas to independent and objective peer-review?

This is a critical process that sorts opinion and rhetoric from scientific knowledge and consensus.

If the answer is “yes”, there are legitimate grounds for concern over the report’s conclusion.

If the answer is “no”, the arguments against the Climate Commission’s report fall away as unsubstantiated opinion.

The Web of Science is maintained by Thomson Reuters and covers 10,000 journals across the sciences, social sciences, arts and humanities.

You can search this database for papers by different authors within reputable, peer-reviewed journals.

I used the Web of Science to see if Carter, Evans, Franks and Kininmonth were legitimate experts in the areas in which they claim superior knowledge.

Given such strong opinions, you would expect that the four individuals would have published extensively in the peer-reviewed, scientific literature on subjects like climate change, oceanography, and atmospheric physics.

After all, if they have such strong opinions, then surely these ideas have been treated like all other valid scientific ideas?

The Climate Commission and its scientific advisory panel survive this type of scrutiny extremely well. For example, Climate Commissioner Professor Lesley Hughes has at least 39 peer-reviewed publications since 2000.

Many of these articles focus on the terrestrial ecosystems on climate change, an area for which Professor Hughes is internationally recognised.

Similar conclusions can be made for Professors Will Steffen, Matt England, David Karoly, Andrew Pitman and the others associated with the Climate Commission.

Searching for peer-reviewed articles by “R. M. Carter”, however, revealed plenty of peer-reviewed articles on unrelated topics within geology.

Only one paper turns up that could be remotely related to climate change.

This paper, however, was found to be seriously flawed by an internationally recognised group of Earth scientists.

This brings us back to zero for the number of credible papers published by Carter on climate change in the Web of Science.

Searching for articles by David Evans and William Kininmonth revealed no peer-reviewed scientific literature that tests their claim that climate change is not happening.

Lastly, searching for peer-reviewed papers from Stewart Franks yielded a number of articles (>50) on hydrology and climate variability since 2000.

None of these peer-reviewed articles presented data or tested the idea that climate change is or is not happening, or any of the other “errors” that Carter and his co-authors claim are associated with the conclusions of the Climate Commission.

The number of articles by Franks since 2000 that involve peer review of his claims that climate change is not happening is also zero.

So the number of peer-reviewed papers that adequately expose the ideas of Carter and co-authors to the scientific peer-review system on the climate change issue is 0, 0, 0 and 0.

....

Edited August 5, 2011 by Ste

[Ste 6]

i suppose you should go take that up with zero sum, since i'm merely using the same term he introduced into the conversation.

oh and btw, we're talking about eugenics, so following your logic, you've not used any names so you must believe in eugenics?

My point was that people needn't use derogatory terms to get their point across, I don't care who they are or who else might have done it. I gave no other logic to follow, so everything you wrote in this post is pretty irrelevant.

And I assumed your sentence sentence "the only arses bitten belong to the fruits and nuts that advanced that now debunked theory." was talking about climate change, so apologies if it was about eugenics.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Ste

[Zero Sum 305]

Charles being into semantics again... say it ain't so!

[luckytxn 2,264]

Always good to have noobs come in now and again and lecture us.