First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Post Reply ‘Propaganda’: Top MIT Climate Scientist Trashes ‘97% Consensus’ Claim
Banned
Ejanss 
16609 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/24/17 , edited 6/24/17

Rujikin wrote:


Dr. Richard Lindzen is sick and tired of the media repeating the so-called “97 percent consensus” statistic to show just how strong the global warming agreement is among climate scientists. It’s purely “propaganda,” argues Lindzen.


"Propaganda"? Sure!
The Propa-gander marries the Mama-gander, and they all raise a bunch of little goslings! (spitspitspitspitspitspitspit!)
92 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 6/24/17


Do you even know what your posting? Smh climate change deniers post random graphs not knowing what they mean and assign their own meaning to it.

They are called Milankovitch cycles, and we aren't in the right cycle. Also you do know about things called asteroids, like when they hit the earth they destabilize the climate? Not to mention the projected increases in temperatures even as shown in the graph you posted is definitely not normal especially from 2050-2100. Like do you have random pictures of climate change graphs saved from conspiracy websites that you just post thinking your gonna BTFO everyone? We actually learn about these things in school and have them explained to us.

Regardless, even if assuming this was natural and it happened normally, sea levels are still rising, and the climate is changing to be more extreme. This is gonna have serious effects on the economy(i.e major coastal areas are gonna get flooded) and it certainly doesn't help to make it even more extreme by pumping more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Ignoring this reality by claiming it isn't real just as a knee jerk reaction to people you don't like is literal autism.
21764 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M / Between yesterday...
Online
Posted 6/25/17

sundin13 wrote:


gvblackmoon wrote:
Hate to break this to you but the theory you are using was debunked by the guy that proposed it about ten years ago. So yeah it just doesn't work that way and he proved it using Koch brother money.


Do you have a link by any chance? I'm always interested in reading these debunkings.


The Professors name is Richard Muller he used to have a page up with all his research it was part of the Berkeley Earth project found here. Personally I always felt it was money well spent by the Koch brother and have always found it funny that science kicked they butts.

If you google him you can see all his stuff both side of the argument in one person pretty interesting stuff when you read it and watch how he changed. But then that is how science works you come up with a theory and then go about disproving it, you don't prove it by trying to prove it you prove it by disproving it.
21764 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M / Between yesterday...
Online
Posted 6/25/17
I'm just going to post this here since it goes through and debunks all of the arguments used so far to disprove climate change. Nice easy to read and truthful science kids, it's an unforgiving mistress that does not like those that try and twister her to their ways. https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

So from now on if you feel like you have an argument against climate change please refer to this site see if it is there and then don't just don't go there. If you want to argue against it disprove it if you can't disprove it then it is reality.
19377 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 6/25/17 , edited 6/25/17
Isn't the Sun suppose to burn hotter as it approaches the older it gets, as it approaches the end of the main sequence lifespan?
Banned
21752 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
53 / M / In
Offline
Posted 6/25/17 , edited 6/25/17
12994 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
☆Land of sweets☆
Offline
Posted 6/25/17
reminder of what some in the House Committee think about Global Warming / Climate Change


I mean think about it, if your ice cube melts in your glass it doesn't overflow, its displacement.
- House Committee on Science Space and Technology
85 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/25/17
Nobody is denying that global warming isn't a natural process, after all the Earth goes through a cycle of warm and cold periods, scientists are saying that human activities accelerate the process. What is supposed to happen in thousand of years is happening now, like arctic ice melting causing flooding of small islands, and this in turn affect people/animals living on those islands.

I don't see anything wrong with reducing man made pollution? Do you want everywhere to be like China, where you can't see the sunlight in the middle of the day?
Calling climate change awareness "propaganda" is like saying the phrase an apple a day keeps the doctor away is propaganda, doing a positive thing is propaganda now I guess.
35641 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 6/25/17

namealreadytaken wrote:

reminder of what some in the House Committee think about Global Warming / Climate Change


I mean think about it, if your ice cube melts in your glass it doesn't overflow, its displacement.
- House Committee on Science Space and Technology



"Technically, we're all half centaur."
- House Committee on Science and Space Technology
43545 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 6/25/17
Scientists were pulling out of that study as soon as they saw their agreement was not what the politicians were claiming.

There still is no science behind man-made global warming. Every study that have been put out have had parts that had false data in it. Which is not surprising since one of the head scientists that is pushing climate change has publicly told scientists it is fine to make up data to get people to believe in climate change.

The reason is is a political argument is because there IS NO SCIENCE TO SUPPORT IT. And it is the people who are pushing climate change that are the people who are getting rich by pushing it. No one seems to complain about THEM getting rich off of tax payer dollars. :p
10835 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Australia
Offline
Posted 6/25/17
It's funny how Australia has had a carbon tax and sells alot of its coal and uranium over seas and people here cry about using coal yet dont want us to go nuclear.
Funny how it's made abig deal here (climate change and emmisons and carbon tax) even though our population is fuck all and on a global scale we contribute a spec of sand on the global emmsions/polution.
And where i live we pay like the most for power utilities almost in the entire world...

Anyways, iam pretty sure that a natural volcanic erruption dose about as much damages in that one erruption as humans do it about 2000 years?

But yeah places like China nad India dont help. And us westerners. But i find it weird how every now and then here in Australia they will say that it's been the hottest day in 100 years or the longest heat streak in 100 years and things like that, if the world is heating up i mean.

And my old man tells me that the world was going to freeze was the thing back in his day.

Here where i live it was always known to be very dry and hot. But in recent times it's been a bit more humid/wet and hot in recent summers. So i guess climate is changing.
Winter hasn't been that cold yet, overall. (first month of winter here currently).


14840 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 6/25/17 , edited 6/25/17

gvblackmoon wrote:

The Professors name is Richard Muller he used to have a page up with all his research it was part of the Berkeley Earth project found here. http://berkeleyearth.org Personally I always felt it was money well spent by the Koch brother and have always found it funny that science kicked they butts.

If you google him you can see all his stuff both side of the argument in one person pretty interesting stuff when you read it and watch how he changed. But then that is how science works you come up with a theory and then go about disproving it, you don't prove it by trying to prove it you prove it by disproving it.


Yeah, I actually looked into it a bit since then. These new claims seem to be largely based on analysis by Anthony Watts and it seems to largely be another case of someone not really understanding how the science works. He basically made a flawed assumption and said: "how about this?", only to be corrected by the entire climate science community.

Actually, in response to his non-peer reviewed poor science, NOAA performed a peer reviewed analysis on the impact of poorly seated thermometers and found a slight cooling effect overall, so there goes that theory.

https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf
31775 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29
Offline
Posted 6/25/17

Mariox777 wrote:And it is the people who are pushing climate change that are the people who are getting rich by pushing it. No one seems to complain about THEM getting rich off of tax payer dollars. :p


Of all the lame, bogus, unoriginal arguments against climate change that are thrown around endlessly, the moneybags scientist myth has got to be the most baffling. But it explains a lot about climate change deniers--no one who knows anyone in science or academia would actually believe that scientists can get rich by any means other than, ironically, working for oil companies or other big businesses. Nobody gets rich doing government-funded science; they have to apply for grants all the time to get just enough money to survive and do research, so their modest income isn't even stable. Which is why most of them also do teaching work.

When it comes to global warming itself, trying to argue against conspiracy theories is a hopeless task. Someone who will declare global warming a hoax without even bothering to google "global warming science" isn't going to listen to anything anyone has to say on the topic, unless it fits what they already believe, or they can twist the data or arguments to make it seem that way. Nobody wants global warming to exist, but insisting that it doesn't won't make it disappear.
35641 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 6/25/17

kotomikun wrote:
Someone who will declare global warming a hoax without even bothering to google "global warming science" isn't going to listen to anything anyone has to say on the topic, unless it fits what they already believe, or they can twist the data or arguments to make it seem that way. Nobody wants global warming to exist, but insisting that it doesn't won't make it disappear.


I would be fine with that if they did not also insist that the rest of us should listen to them.
Banned
Ejanss 
16609 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/25/17 , edited 6/25/17

uncletim wrote:



Just a joke? Wait till the next January cold-snap, when we get the annual blitz of Fox News "There can't be global warming, it's too COLD!" articles.

(That don't quite seem to know how the concept of "Temperature extremes" works into the theory...)
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.