Climate Change (Global Warming) 🥶🌍🌞

Everclear said:
Not "human evolution" so much as the industrial revolution.

As to debate - that has been had. Some laymen may attempt to debate it, but amongst the scientific community that debate has been settled.

See the paper: "Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature".

It is here:

ShieldSquare Captcha
Click to expand...
Have you read that report, 99% of unknown people who reviewed it agreed with it , so what, that proves nothing
there is no scientific evidence that man made co2 changes the climate
ipcc models are not proof, even the big boss of the ipcc has told people not to place too much in them
its about money and control
 
Everclear said:
Not "human evolution" so much as the industrial revolution.

As to debate - that has been had. Some laymen may attempt to debate it, but amongst the scientific community that debate has been settled.

ShieldSquare Captcha
Click to expand...
FFS Bruce, fair I should have wrote 'recent' evolution, you can't trust published materials and debates on the subject, within the confines of MSM, they have an agenda, are you so blinkered you can't see it, the huge wilfires Austrailia and North America have suffered recently, you don't think there were wildfires before the last ice age, when mankind was still in its infancy. The increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing yes, but has been proved to way higher prior to the last ice age. The masters want you to fear MMCC, that is another weapon in their arsenal of control over us, taxing us for producing CO2 when mother earth releases increasing amounts of methane, that as being a far greater greenhouse gas than CO2, how do you think the earths climate cycles are produced.
Stick yer debate settled up yer contemptuous arse counsellor.
 
Markduc said:
Have you read that report, 99% of unknown people who reviewed it agreed with it , so what, that proves nothing
there is no scientific evidence that man made co2 changes the climate
ipcc models are not proof, even the big boss of the ipcc has told people not to place too much in them
its about money and control
Click to expand...

BobTheBounder said:
FFS Bruce, fair I should have wrote 'recent' evolution, you can't trust published materials and debates on the subject, within the confines of MSM, they have an agenda, are you so blinkered you can't see it, the huge wilfires Austrailia and North America have suffered recently, you don't think there were wildfires before the last ice age, when mankind was still in its infancy. The increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing yes, but has been proved to way higher prior to the last ice age. The masters want you to fear MMCC, that is another weapon in their arsenal of control over us, taxing us for producing CO2 when mother earth releases increasing amounts of methane, that as being a far greater greenhouse gas than CO2, how do you think the earths climate cycles are produced.
Stick yer debate settled up yer contemptuous arse counsellor.
Click to expand...

You both just embarrassed yourselves by being too lazy to look at even the abstract. The linked peer reviewed paper had nothing to do with MSM or simply expressing an opinion.

Are you both that blinded by your irrelevant opinions that you can't read????

Here is an explanation of the methodology, which is aimed at determining whether there is now a consensus in peer-reviewed climate science papers:

From a dataset of 88125 climate-related papers published since 2012, when this question was last addressed comprehensively, we examine a randomized subset of 3000 such publications. We also use a second sample-weighted approach that was specifically biased with keywords to help identify any sceptical peer-reviewed papers in the whole dataset. We identify four sceptical papers out of the sub-set of 3000, as evidenced by abstracts that were rated as implicitly or explicitly sceptical of human-caused global warming. In our sample utilizing pre-identified sceptical keywords we found 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly sceptical. We conclude with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate change—expressed as a proportion of the total publications—exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature.
 
Everclear said:
You both just embarrassed yourselves by being too lazy to look at even the abstract. The linked peer reviewed paper had nothing to do with MSM or simply expressing an opinion.

Are you both that blinded by your irrelevant opinions that you can't read????

Here is an explanation of the methodology, which is aimed at determining whether there is now a consensus in peer-reviewed climate science papers:

From a dataset of 88125 climate-related papers published since 2012, when this question was last addressed comprehensively, we examine a randomized subset of 3000 such publications. We also use a second sample-weighted approach that was specifically biased with keywords to help identify any sceptical peer-reviewed papers in the whole dataset. We identify four sceptical papers out of the sub-set of 3000, as evidenced by abstracts that were rated as implicitly or explicitly sceptical of human-caused global warming. In our sample utilizing pre-identified sceptical keywords we found 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly sceptical. We conclude with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate change—expressed as a proportion of the total publications—exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature.
Click to expand...
Who funds, pays and thus owns the scientists?
 
Everclear said:
You both just embarrassed yourselves by being too lazy to look at even the abstract. The linked peer reviewed paper had nothing to do with MSM or simply expressing an opinion.

Are you both that blinded by your irrelevant opinions that you can't read????

Here is an explanation of the methodology, which is aimed at determining whether there is now a consensus in peer-reviewed climate science papers:

From a dataset of 88125 climate-related papers published since 2012, when this question was last addressed comprehensively, we examine a randomized subset of 3000 such publications. We also use a second sample-weighted approach that was specifically biased with keywords to help identify any sceptical peer-reviewed papers in the whole dataset. We identify four sceptical papers out of the sub-set of 3000, as evidenced by abstracts that were rated as implicitly or explicitly sceptical of human-caused global warming. In our sample utilizing pre-identified sceptical keywords we found 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly sceptical. We conclude with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate change—expressed as a proportion of the total publications—exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature.
Click to expand...
So they ignored 85 thousand papers and achieved the results they desired
sums the climate con up in a nutshell
lies , dam lies and statistics springs to mind
 
From the same peer reviewed paper (try and read slowly) the authors conclude:

Our results confirm, as has been found in numerous other previous studies of this question, that there is no significant scientific debate among experts about whether or not climate change is human-caused. This issue has been comprehensively settled, and the reality of anthropogenic climate change is no more in contention among scientists than is plate tectonics or evolution. The tiny number of papers that have been published during our time period which disagree with this overwhelming scientific consensus have had no discernible impact, presumably because they do not provide any convincing evidence to refute the hypothesis

Now ... if you can't understand or disagree with that, don't post a bloody opinion, write a thorough and researched scientific paper and submit it for review.

Whatever it is you "think" or is your "opinion" is completely irrelevant. You have have no qualifications and publication/research record in this field - neither do I.

Something like Brexit is a matter of public opinion. Science is not a matter of fucking opinion.
 
Twinlover said:
Who funds, pays and thus owns the scientists?
Click to expand...

Markduc said:
So they ignored 85 thousand papers and achieved the results they desired
sums the climate con up in a nutshell
lies , dam lies and statistics springs to mind
Click to expand...

Again, embarrassing for you.

3 academics authored the paper using a randomised sample of 3000 academic papers.

To try simpleton stuff like "it woz rigged" doesn't wash within the system of PEER REVIEW of scientific articles FFS.
 
Everclear said:
Again, embarrassing for you.

3 academics authored the paper using a randomised sample of 3000 academic papers.

To try simpleton stuff like "it woz rigged" doesn't wash within the system of PEER REVIEW of scientific articles FFS.
Click to expand...
3 people took a very small sample and achieved the result they wanted or were payed for
post the actual provable scientific evidence that shows co2 drives the climate
 
Twinlover said:
I feel the house may be empty, but I will knock once more…who funds, pays and thus owns the scientists/academics?
Click to expand...
Answer the question Bruce, who asked for a peer review, chose the three authors, funded them, gave them 3000 randomised papers, why and what was the agenda?
Has it not been noted that all through history have been forced to follow an agenda perpetrated by those in power, classic example being
Galileo Galilei and his house arrest by the catholic church.
 
Twinlover said:
I feel the house may be empty, but I will knock once more…who funds, pays and thus owns the scientists/academics?
Click to expand...

Clearly you are a conspiracy nutbag. Are you saying that the authors of all 3000 Climate Science papers were owned? Authors:

Mark Lynas, Visiting Fellow, Cornell University, Global Development, Alliance for Science, B75 Mann Library, Ithaca, NY 14850, United States of America

Benjamin Z Houlton, Professor, Cornell University, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and Department of Global Development, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14850, United States of America

Simon Perry, Fellow, Alliance for Science, Ithaca, NY 14850, United States of America
 
BobTheBounder said:
Answer the question Bruce, who asked for a peer review, chose the three authors, funded them, gave them 3000 randomised papers, why and what was the agenda?
Has it not been noted that all through history have been forced to follow an agenda perpetrated by those in power, classic example being
Galileo Galilei and his house arrest by the catholic church.
Click to expand...

Oh Christ, that is primary school stuff, not worth a reply.
 
Everclear said:
Clearly you are a conspiracy nutbag. Are you saying that the authors of all 3000 Climate Science papers were owned? Authors:

Mark Lynas, Visiting Fellow, Cornell University, Global Development, Alliance for Science, B75 Mann Library, Ithaca, NY 14850, United States of America

Benjamin Z Houlton, Professor, Cornell University, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and Department of Global Development, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14850, United States of America

Simon Perry, Fellow, Alliance for Science, Ithaca, NY 14850, United States of America
Click to expand...
The lights are on, but there’s obviously no one at home…ciao😁
 
Everclear said:
3000 climate science publications is a "small sample"????

Genuinely idiotic comment. You have the IQ of a 3 toed sloth.
Click to expand...
Yes dear .. try thinking for yourself
IMG_1507.webp
 
Interestingly at 15:00, he claims co2 records are at record high.

If you weren't selling bolloxs and have a half full glass, couldn't that also be be read as, food (co2), is at a record high enabling record production of O2 ?

It won't be mentioned as they prefer bad maths. If you just say record co2 it's deliberatly said that way to sell a product in this case, the green industry.

If you say record co2 production has led to record plant growth and record green growth, that doesn't sell the green industry nonsense as much
 
Noobie said:
Interestingly at 15:00, he claims co2 records are at record high.

If you weren't selling bolloxs and have a half full glass, couldn't that also be be read as, food (co2), is at a record high enabling record production of O2 ?

It won't be mentioned as they prefer bad maths. If you just say record co2 it's deliberatly said that way to sell a product in this case, the green industry.

If you say record co2 production has led to record plant growth and record green growth, that doesn't sell the green industry nonsense as much
Click to expand...

It's clear he doesn't have a political barrow to push - there is nothing polemic or preaching in the vid.

Your confirmation bias in not wanting to accept what is a matter of fact vid explaining the science going back 500 million years is evident.

I'm not qualified to question what is presented - he clearly has expert knowledge.

The fact that you as a layman think you are qualified is embarrassing for you.

Science is not a matter of opinion like everyday politics, it's bizarre that quite a few on here think it is and believe they are overnight experts. :sneaky:

It seems some people confuse activists (like Thunberg or Extinction Rebellion) with clear-eyed non-political scientific knowledge.

If you needed neurosurgery would you try and debate the surgeon on the best way of performing the surgery?
 
Everclear said:
.Your confirmation bias in not wanting to accept what is a matter of fact vid explaining the science going back 500 million years is evident.
Click to expand...

Given humans have only been on earth for 300,000 years, who recorded the other 470 million years? Them scientists are great at producing "models", "Projections" and data no one was here to collect

Everclear said:
.If you needed neurosurgery would you try and debate the surgeon on the best way of performing the surgery?
Click to expand...

I'd certainly have questions if he claimed qualifications that he couldn't have possibly attained, so yeah.
 
Everclear said:
You both just embarrassed yourselves by being too lazy to look at even the abstract. The linked peer reviewed paper had nothing to do with MSM or simply expressing an opinion.

Are you both that blinded by your irrelevant opinions that you can't read????

Here is an explanation of the methodology, which is aimed at determining whether there is now a consensus in peer-reviewed climate science papers:

From a dataset of 88125 climate-related papers published since 2012, when this question was last addressed comprehensively, we examine a randomized subset of 3000 such publications. We also use a second sample-weighted approach that was specifically biased with keywords to help identify any sceptical peer-reviewed papers in the whole dataset. We identify four sceptical papers out of the sub-set of 3000, as evidenced by abstracts that were rated as implicitly or explicitly sceptical of human-caused global warming. In our sample utilizing pre-identified sceptical keywords we found 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly sceptical. We conclude with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate change—expressed as a proportion of the total publications—exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature.
Click to expand...

This ^^^ means absolutely fuck all without knowing ;

A. How were the 'randomised' 3000 papers chosen?
B. What keywords or keyword chains were used in their algorithm to come to their conclusions?
C. What context were those keywords actually employed within the papers?

'Man made global warming is real' as a keyword chain would find the desired result for the authors.

But what if the context was 'man made global warming is real is the claim of a deluded bunch of knob-ends and paid for shills'?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom