Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

AG Warming: Evidence left out!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Truthseeker
    replied
    Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
    Before you get too excited by Alec Rawls’ nonsense have a look at these pages:
    “Changes in solar activity have contributed no more than 10 per cent to global warming in the twentieth century, a new study has found.”
    http://www.iop.org/news/13/nov/page_61749.html
    “Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions.”
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/sola...termediate.htm
    Who is Alec Rawls anyway?
    https://watchingthedeniers.wordpress...ag/alec-rawls/
    That made me read this (by Rawls): http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/2...-unscientific/
    Now, the paper by Rawls that made me create this thread was published in 2012. Since then, he has not retracted the paper. Indeed he continues to make serious charges against the AGW crowd.

    Leave a comment:


  • firstfloor
    replied
    Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
    I 've thought for a long time that leading climate change alarmists misrepresented or misinterpreted the available evidence. They also made unrealistic assumptions in their climate models, though I couldn't very well argue that. HOWEVER this article surprised me. Even shocking.
    Before you get too excited by Alec Rawls’ nonsense have a look at these pages:
    “Changes in solar activity have contributed no more than 10 per cent to global warming in the twentieth century, a new study has found.”
    http://www.iop.org/news/13/nov/page_61749.html
    “Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions.”
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/sola...termediate.htm
    Who is Alec Rawls anyway?
    https://watchingthedeniers.wordpress...ag/alec-rawls/

    Leave a comment:


  • Truthseeker
    replied
    Show us how you came to decide that the author of the paper that contained the estimate of an 80-year lag is a kook. Of course it couldn't simply be because you simply disagreed with the paper's conclusion

    Leave a comment:


  • Epoetker
    replied
    Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
    Because there is a great deal of utility in rejecting out of hand outrageous accusations made by kooks.

    Your source is WUWT. This particular author is an economist and his article runs from PRATT to PRATT, without getting called on it by Watts, surprise, surprise. You call the scientific consensus, led by every national academy on the planet, including our own, "alarmists." Your religious tradition has a long history of rejecting science. That's a lot of good reasons to line up on the other side.

    And you're posting this in Civics.

    You want details? Great. Educate yourself. Got questions? Post them in Nat. Sci.
    Why should any of us care about where your refutation is posted, since you can ad hom, post weakly related links, and brag about the inevitable victory of the invisible pink scientific consensuses here or there? Nat Sci is unofficially creation vs. evolution only, there's like only one or two actual global warming threads there, and the most interesting one by Glenn Morton has been lost to the ages. Fight here or fight elsewhere and link there, or shut up.

    Leave a comment:


  • Juvenal
    replied
    Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
    The article does cite a claim that CO2 levels lag temperature by about 800 years give or take several centuries. Please, lao Tzu, explain IN DETAIL why we should take the alarmist side on this question.
    Because there is a great deal of utility in rejecting out of hand outrageous accusations made by kooks.

    Your source is WUWT. This particular author is an economist and his article runs from PRATT to PRATT, without getting called on it by Watts, surprise, surprise. You call the scientific consensus, led by every national academy on the planet, including our own, "alarmists." Your religious tradition has a long history of rejecting science. That's a lot of good reasons to line up on the other side.

    And you're posting this in Civics.

    You want details? Great. Educate yourself. Got questions? Post them in Nat. Sci.

    As ever, Jesse

    Leave a comment:


  • Truthseeker
    replied
    Originally posted by Epoetker View Post
    It's a link not actually directly contradicting the article, but posted as pretending to deal with it in lieu of actually dealing with it, in the style of leftist journalism and manager-ese. Toss that weak crap back to Upworthy and show me that you can actually string an argument together before I throw you in with the fusionists as the miserable careerist failures who bear primary responsibility for the loss of trust and excellence in American science.
    The article does cite a claim that CO2 levels lag temperature by about 800 years give or take several centuries. Please, lao Tzu, explain IN DETAIL why we should take the alarmist side on this question.
    Last edited by Truthseeker; 07-27-2014, 03:43 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Epoetker
    replied
    Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
    It's a PRATT.
    It's a link not actually directly contradicting the article, but posted as pretending to deal with it in lieu of actually dealing with it, in the style of leftist journalism and manager-ese. Toss that weak crap back to Upworthy and show me that you can actually string an argument together before I throw you in with the fusionists as the miserable careerist failures who bear primary responsibility for the loss of trust and excellence in American science.

    Leave a comment:


  • Juvenal
    replied
    It's a PRATT.

    Leave a comment:


  • Teallaura
    replied
    Ouch...

    Leave a comment:


  • Truthseeker
    started a topic AG Warming: Evidence left out!

    AG Warming: Evidence left out!

    I 've thought for a long time that leading climate change alarmists misrepresented or misinterpreted the available evidence. They also made unrealistic assumptions in their climate models, though I couldn't very well argue that. HOWEVER this article surprised me. Even shocking.

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by seer, Today, 06:17 AM
0 responses
8 views
0 likes
Last Post seer
by seer
 
Started by Bill the Cat, Yesterday, 02:21 PM
5 responses
51 views
3 likes
Last Post Cow Poke  
Started by Cow Poke, 01-20-2022, 01:20 PM
12 responses
75 views
0 likes
Last Post Cow Poke  
Started by rogue06, 01-20-2022, 09:16 AM
34 responses
201 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by Cow Poke, 01-20-2022, 09:15 AM
3 responses
38 views
1 like
Last Post Sparko
by Sparko
 
Working...
X