UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
convincing rebuttal, shit for brains.
"global warming petition project" peer reviewed and everything???
- Thread starter tobinates559
- Start date
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Dipshit, you're the one claiming the Sun is responsible for the warming on Earth. I told you it would be really easy to check the other planets, and if the reason truly is the Sun, the other planets would show similar climate patterns as on Earth. Then I provided evidence that completely contradicts what you are claiming.
It's your job to provide evidence of your claim "the Sun is responsible for the warming", otherwise that argument is useless. So unless you can show that the other planets are warming along with the Earth, that argument gets put back in the talking points drawer with the rest
Red1966
Well-Known Member
I never claimed the sun was responsible for the warming of the Earth. Yes, it is easy to check the surface of a planet millions of miles away. Just tell it to put this thermometer under its tongue. You provided no proof whatsoever of anything. You merely just stated it and demand we believe you or prove you wrong. It is not my job to disprove your completely fabricated claim false, it is your job to prove your claim to be true. This bullshit of demanding proof of this or that, while you provide nothing, isn't doing anything but make you look like a self-righteous ass. A dishonest one at that.
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
It was scientists who made that claim, not me, not Red.
Take it up with them.
And for the record, scientists make the same claim for man made climate change on earth they make about other planets heating up, accumulated evidence.
So why do you except accumulated scientific evidence for man made warming on earth, yet reject evidence they have on other planets?
See the bias, I do.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
I'm not seeing bias, I'm seeing a new religion.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
So if not the Sun and definitely not human activity, then what, magic?
1. yes, it is, NASA has been doing it for half a century
2. there are more ways than one to determine the temperature of an object
You obviously don't accept anthropogenic climate change, so by process of elimination, I assumed you believed the Sun is responsible for the recent spike in temperature, and you also said that Mars was warming (no sources cited). I showed you contradictory evidence to that claim with that chart showing a decrease in solar irradiance at the same time the temperature increases and the summary from skepticalscience
Do you believe the Sun is responsible for climate change on Earth?
The scientific consensus on Earth is that anthropogenic climate change is real, seeing as there are no humans on any of the other planets, how could that claim be true?
What scientists make that claim?
Did you even read this before you submitted it?
Why do I accept the evidence for anthropogenic climate change on Earth yet reject the evidence that doesn't exist because humans only occupy one planet?
Try that one again there, sport
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
I hear ya.
He accepts scientific claims that man is making the earth warm, but not claims from scientists who say the sun warms other planets.
Why, because that would be admitting he was wrong.
Just pointing out his spurious practices.
joe macclennan
Well-Known Member
lol pada...magic
that must be it
that must be it
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
Only you rule out the sun, scientists do not, check the facts.
Here is one of your main problems Mr. Pada, I don't know what is causing the earth to warm, like me, you don't either, we both take in data from science and form an opinion, that's it.
And your claim that there is a consensus among scientists is a flat out deceptive lie.
The only consensus is, is from the scientists who are paid by government and special interest groups to research man made climate warming, not nature caused climate change, the money is stacked against those who dedicate research in natural causation.
Bottom line, there is NO irrefutable proof that man is causing the planet to warm at any significant rate and, for the last 17 years the earth has not warmed.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
I guess you think you have some valid arguments there, sort of like those who slam their Bible on the lectern and say "God said it, I believe it, end of story." 1)Not magic, just didn't/isn't happening. 2) Yeah, but they're mostly just guessing. You showed no contradictory evidence. You just restated your opinion. Quit pretending your opinions are "evidence" "The scientific consensus on Earth is that anthropogenic climate change is real, seeing as there are no humans on any of the other planets, how could that claim be true?" Are you denying your own claim, or just don't speak English very well? Considering the average temperature for the last 4 or 5 million years has been 100+ degrees below zero, and the last ice age ended only about 25,000 years ago, you should be more worried about global cooling. As far as your religion goes, I guess you would call me a heretic.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
"1. yes, it is, NASA has been doing it for half a century 2. there are more ways than one to determine the temperature of an object" and "Why do I accept the evidence for anthropogenic climate change on Earth yet reject the evidence that doesn't exist because humans only occupy one planet?" is arguing two mutually exclusive theories.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
cite your scientists then.
then cite your scientists.
no, it is you lying.
show me a collection of peer reviewed papers on the subject and demonstrate that the massive, overwhelming majority of them do not endorse anthropogenic climate change.
you can't, because you are a lying sock puppet.
show us your scientists then, and show us who funds them.
show me which scientists are making this political claim.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
No shit
"Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing. When a question is first asked like what would happen if we put a load more CO2 in the atmosphere? there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested the processes of the scientific method because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science). Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that dont quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy.
But the testing period must come to an end. Gradually, the focus of investigation narrows down to those avenues that continue to make sense, that still add up, and quite often a good theory will reveal additional answers, or make powerful predictions, that add substance to the theory.
So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other's work. All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted - and relied upon.
In the scientific field of climate studies which is informed by many different disciplines the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change and thats nearly all of them. A survey of 928 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004).
A follow-up study by the Skeptical Science team of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013). The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming.
Several studies have confirmed that ...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 97% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.
We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.
In the field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change."
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
This is the shit that I'm talking about... You have no clue how science works. First the government is full of retards that can't tie their shoes, now all of a sudden when it comes to climate change they're the most capable and deceptive force the planet has ever seen. You lack consistency when you criticize the government. You lack evidence when you make such ridiculous conspiracy theory claims. You lack common sense when it comes to reality.
97% of scientists on the planet are in on a global conspiracy to raise our taxes. Dummy, they raise our taxes all the time, they don't need the worlds scientists to do it. You are clueless. Open a science book, take a climate course, enrich your mind and get rid of the shit the scientifically illiterate tell you about how science works
Says the guy that can't even explain what he would accept as proof. Hint hint, if you don't know what you would accept, you don't understand what the fuck you are saying
More proof you have no idea how science works. The debate is not about if the climate is changing, it's about why, both sides accept it's changing
lmfao yeah, because that's how science works, it's all just guesses!
Scientific consensus isn't opinion. Are plate tectonics "my opinion", too?
[that]; "And for the record, scientists make the same claim for man made climate change on earth they make about other planets heating up, accumulated evidence." - in response to this retarded claim made by JB. Apparently he believes there are credible scientists out there who made the claim that the climate is changing on other planets for the same reason it's happening on Earth, and since we know the scientific consensus for climate change on Earth is anthropogenic (man made), that means he believes that humans occupy other planets, too. Otherwise, why would he attempt to make such a stupid point?
Uhh...
I'd call you ignorant if you weren't so vehemently stupid and arrogant
The smugness this time is actually hilarious though because you think it's your opinion vs. my opinion when it's actually you and your sidekicks pea brained conspiracy theory vs. the entire planet's leading scientists
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Are you trying to claim the sun is not the cause of warming of the earth? I would be careful shouting dipshit if I were you...
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
You against the world
That's exactly why none of them will touch the substance of what's being said or argue the points made.
They can't tell me what they would accept as proof, can't provide any evidence of any of their claims without citing an obvious political/religious bias or conflict of interest, can't even identify when a source actually is or isn't biased, believe in a world wide conspiracy in which all the leading climate scientists are falsifying data to raise Americans taxes and one of them just revealed he doesn't even believe the climate is actually changing!
Exactly why we should leave this sort of shit up to the professionals. They think they can read a few websites and have a solid grasp on the idea when it takes years of research after years of critical thinking (which neither of them have).
Is that what I said? No? Then no
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
[h=2]Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown[/h]
Robert C. Balling, Jr.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Balling
At the 1998 hearing, Balling "acknowledged that he had received $408,000 in research funding from the fossil fuel industry over the last decade (of which his University takes 50% for overhead)."[SUP][4]
[/SUP] Between December 1998[SUP][5][/SUP] and September 2001[SUP][6][/SUP] Balling was listed as a "Scientific Adviser" to the Greening Earth Society, a group that was funded and controlled by the Western Fuels Association (WFA), an association of coal-burning utility companies. WFA founded the group in 1997, according to an archived version of its website, "as a vehicle for advocacy on climate change, the environmental impact of CO2, and fossil fuel use."[SUP][7][/SUP]
Robert C. Balling, Jr.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Balling
At the 1998 hearing, Balling "acknowledged that he had received $408,000 in research funding from the fossil fuel industry over the last decade (of which his University takes 50% for overhead)."[SUP][4]
[/SUP] Between December 1998[SUP][5][/SUP] and September 2001[SUP][6][/SUP] Balling was listed as a "Scientific Adviser" to the Greening Earth Society, a group that was funded and controlled by the Western Fuels Association (WFA), an association of coal-burning utility companies. WFA founded the group in 1997, according to an archived version of its website, "as a vehicle for advocacy on climate change, the environmental impact of CO2, and fossil fuel use."[SUP][7][/SUP]
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown
Claude (Jean) Allègre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Allègre
In 1996, Allègre opposed the removal of carcinogenic asbestos from the Jussieu university campus in Paris, describing it as harmless and dismissing concerns about it as a form of "psychosis created by leftists".[SUP][12][/SUP] The campus' asbestos is deemed to have killed 22 people and caused serious health problems in 130 others.[SUP][13][/SUP]
In 1999, the Canard enchaîné, and subsequently several other media, published Allègre's claim, initially stated during a radio interview, that, if one drops a pétanque ball and a tennis ball at the same time from a tower, they will reach the ground at the same time. Allègre claimed that there was a popular misconception to the contrary, and that schoolchildren should be made to understand that two objects always fall at the same speed. The Canard responded that this was true only in a vacuum, and not in all cases as Allègre had said. Allègre responded in turn, maintaining his initial statement. Georges Charpak, Nobel prize for Physics, intervened to explain that Allègre was wrong; Allègre maintained his statement yet again.
In 2010, more than 500 French researchers asked Science Minister Valérie Pécresse to dismiss Allègre’s book L’imposture climatique, claiming the book was "full of factual mistakes, distortions of data, and plain lies". Swedish paleontologist Håkan Grudd called the changes that Allègre made in hand-redrawing a graph of his, misleading and unethical. [SUP][10][/SUP]
Claude (Jean) Allègre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Allègre
In 1996, Allègre opposed the removal of carcinogenic asbestos from the Jussieu university campus in Paris, describing it as harmless and dismissing concerns about it as a form of "psychosis created by leftists".[SUP][12][/SUP] The campus' asbestos is deemed to have killed 22 people and caused serious health problems in 130 others.[SUP][13][/SUP]
In 1999, the Canard enchaîné, and subsequently several other media, published Allègre's claim, initially stated during a radio interview, that, if one drops a pétanque ball and a tennis ball at the same time from a tower, they will reach the ground at the same time. Allègre claimed that there was a popular misconception to the contrary, and that schoolchildren should be made to understand that two objects always fall at the same speed. The Canard responded that this was true only in a vacuum, and not in all cases as Allègre had said. Allègre responded in turn, maintaining his initial statement. Georges Charpak, Nobel prize for Physics, intervened to explain that Allègre was wrong; Allègre maintained his statement yet again.
In 2010, more than 500 French researchers asked Science Minister Valérie Pécresse to dismiss Allègre’s book L’imposture climatique, claiming the book was "full of factual mistakes, distortions of data, and plain lies". Swedish paleontologist Håkan Grudd called the changes that Allègre made in hand-redrawing a graph of his, misleading and unethical. [SUP][10][/SUP]