Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global [W:478]

Threegoofs said:

And here's the shining example if the ludicrous argument.

Thirty years and thousands of studies, and you somehow maintain that the 'data is fudged'. It's nonsensical. Paranoid. An impossible conspiracy. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works. It's akin to Creationist arguments.

It deserves mocking.

Click to expand...

code1211 said:

Science normally can justify its predictions with accurate results. AGW cannot.

When a scientists proposes an if-then relationship in physical occurrences and the "then" does not occur after the "if" has occurred as specified, there is something wrong with the science.

If the scientist cannot see this or refuses to accept what is actually happening, then there is something wrong with the scientist as well.

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

So you say. You, the less than novice. You say. :lamo:lamo:lamo

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

And the 'cultist' doesn't like the 'novice' proving him wrong....priceless! :lamo :lamo

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

I think he's both the cultist and the less than novice, but the thing is, he hasn't PROVEN anyone wrong.

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

Well, I was speaking of, AHEM....YOU! YOU are the 'cultist' Joe....Maybe worse than a cultist....Have you found one peer reviewed article that speaks of AGW as 'scientific theory' yet?

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

Many, all linked. As one poster noted, you and he are playing a silly game. When scientist and organizations say they accept that that man plays a role in GW, they are doing what you ask for. But, sadly, you show your ignorance when you don't recognize this.

Anyway, it's not about us. It's about the science. And scientists who study this, and organizations of scientist who review this, nearly all support man contributing to GW.

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

Then it's simple...Just now, right now, pull just one of those links you say that you have provided, and show the relevant clip of a peer reviewed article where a scientist names AGW as scientific theory, along with the link to the article.

Short of that Joe, for you to say that have done so, and use the terminology that 'many' have said so is just a plain flat out lie.

So here's your chance to save your credibility on the matter, I hope you'll drop the silly game you're playing and just post it.

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

When the4 scientist says man contributed to GW, he's saying the same thing. Like I said, it's a game you guys are playing. And you have a ton of those links.

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

But I thank you for revealing that you can not point to a peer reviewed scientific article cementing it as scientific theory.

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

Then it's simple...Just now, right now, pull just one of those links you say that you have provided, and show the relevant clip of a peer reviewed article where a scientist names AGW as scientific theory, along with the link to the article.

Short of that Joe, for you to say that have done so, and use the terminology that 'many' have said so is just a plain flat out lie.

So here's your chance to save your credibility on the matter, I hope you'll drop the silly game you're playing and just post it.

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

No, it isn't. Scientific theory has parameters that denote it as such. Your answer here is telling. If you think that some like minded pseudo intellectual spouting his opinion as fact qualifies it as theory, then that is the problem here...

But I thank you for revealing that you can not point to a peer reviewed scientific article cementing it as scientific theory.

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

Something I always tell you:

Through content analysis of US prestige press—meaning the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the Wall Street Journal—this paper focuses on the norm of balanced reporting, and shows that the prestige press's adherence to balance actually leads to biased coverage of both anthropogenic contributions to global warming and resultant action.

Balance as bias: global warming and the US prestige press

First paper, discussing the problem with understanding AGW, by blaming it on reporting in the US media is not a peer reviewed study showing AGW as a scientific theory.

What Do People Know About Global Climate Change? 2. Survey Studies of Educated Laypeople - Read - 2006 - Risk Analysis - Wiley Online Library

47 Social Problems 2000 Challenging Global Warming as a Social Problem: An Analysis of the Conservative Movement's Counter-Claims

Click to expand...

Two more papers saying that the general public is just too stupid to understand AGW, therefore we don't need them....I still see no paper declaring that AGW is a scientific theory.

Care to keep trying?

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

Something I always tell you:

Through content analysis of US prestige press—meaning the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the Wall Street Journal—this paper focuses on the norm of balanced reporting, and shows that the prestige press's adherence to balance actually leads to biased coverage of both anthropogenic contributions to global warming and resultant action.

Balance as bias: global warming and the US prestige press

In other words, giving equal treatment to misinformation is bias itself.

More:

Subjects had a poor appreciation of the facts that (1) if significant global warming occurs, it will be primarily the result of an increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere, and (2) the single most important source of additional carbon dioxide is the combustion of fossil fuels, most notably coal and oil. In addition, their understanding of the climate issue was encumbered with secondary, irrelevant, and incorrect beliefs. Of these, the two most critical are confusion with the problems of stratospheric ozone and difficulty in differentiating between causes and actions specific to climate and more general good environmental practice.

What Do People Know About Global Climate Change? 2. Survey Studies of Educated Laypeople - Read - 2006 - Risk Analysis - Wiley Online Library

47 Social Problems 2000 Challenging Global Warming as a Social Problem: An Analysis of the Conservative Movement's Counter-Claims

Click to expand...

Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.

Click to expand...

“Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems,” senior UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) official Henning Steinfeld said. “Urgent action is required to remedy the situation.”

Cattle-rearing is also a major source of land and water degradation, according to the FAO report, Livestock’s Long Shadow–Environmental Issues and Options, of which Mr. Steinfeld is the senior author.

“The environmental costs per unit of livestock production must be cut by one half, just to avoid the level of damage worsening beyond its present level,” it warns.

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

yes, it is. It acknowledges the theory. It isn't a football game or a potato. You'll do anything to avoid the truth of the issue. But I posted more for you anyway.

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

Something I always tell you:

Through content analysis of US prestige press—meaning the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the Wall Street Journal—this paper focuses on the norm of balanced reporting, and shows that the prestige press's adherence to balance actually leads to biased coverage of both anthropogenic contributions to global warming and resultant action.

Balance as bias: global warming and the US prestige press

In other words, giving equal treatment to misinformation is bias itself.

More:

Subjects had a poor appreciation of the facts that (1) if significant global warming occurs, it will be primarily the result of an increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere, and (2) the single most important source of additional carbon dioxide is the combustion of fossil fuels, most notably coal and oil. In addition, their understanding of the climate issue was encumbered with secondary, irrelevant, and incorrect beliefs. Of these, the two most critical are confusion with the problems of stratospheric ozone and difficulty in differentiating between causes and actions specific to climate and more general good environmental practice.

What Do People Know About Global Climate Change? 2. Survey Studies of Educated Laypeople - Read - 2006 - Risk Analysis - Wiley Online Library

47 Social Problems 2000 Challenging Global Warming as a Social Problem: An Analysis of the Conservative Movement's Counter-Claims

Click to expand...

Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.

Click to expand...

“Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems,” senior UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) official Henning Steinfeld said. “Urgent action is required to remedy the situation.”

Cattle-rearing is also a major source of land and water degradation, according to the FAO report, Livestock’s Long Shadow–Environmental Issues and Options, of which Mr. Steinfeld is the senior author.

“The environmental costs per unit of livestock production must be cut by one half, just to avoid the level of damage worsening beyond its present level,” it warns.

Click to expand...

Threegoofs said:

What is it with this bizarre line of reasoning?

Its ignorance of science at its very basic level.

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

No, it is ignorant to refuse to respond directly to a direct question. Still hasn't been done, would you care to try?

Click to expand...

Threegoofs said:

If you don't get it, you won't understand without a basic science education, which I can't provide here.

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

Boo Radley said:

Something I always tell you:

Through content analysis of US prestige press—meaning the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the Wall Street Journal—this paper focuses on the norm of balanced reporting, and shows that the prestige press's adherence to balance actually leads to biased coverage of both anthropogenic contributions to global warming and resultant action.

Balance as bias: global warming and the US prestige press

First paper, discussing the problem with understanding AGW, by blaming it on reporting in the US media is not a peer reviewed study showing AGW as a scientific theory.



Two more papers saying that the general public is just too stupid to understand AGW, therefore we don't need them....I still see no paper declaring that AGW is a scientific theory.

Care to keep trying?

Click to expand...

Well, more that it is confused. the same tactics you embrace were used to cloud the smoking issue. Which does prove you can fool some people all the time.

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

No, you posted more dancing around, trying to paint those who oppose AGW as some kind of kooks...That is not what was asked for, but you know that.

Click to expand...

ttwtt78640 said:

I will accecpt your basic premise: CO2 (and other gases) affect the climate, man (and his habits) produce CO2 (and other gases).

Explain this fact and why global warming alarmists still focus on transportation changes:



Cow 'emissions' more damaging to planet than CO2 from cars - Climate Change - Environment - The Independent


United Nations News Centre - Rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gases than driving cars, UN report warns

HowStuffWorks "Do cows pollute as much as cars?"

Cow Emissions Harm Planet Far More Than C02 From Cars

Click to expand...

Lord of Planar said:

So how about telling us something we don't know?

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

So you say. You, the less than novice. You say. :lamo:lamo:lamo

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

I think he's both the cultist and the less than novice, but the thing is, he hasn't PROVEN anyone wrong.

Click to expand...