Climate research too "woke" for Trump!

[RedrickTheCoat]

You have given nothing but your opinion. There is no consensus despite you ranting there is.

You want proof, that means you must prove what you assert, because you made your assertion first..

Now prove there is a consensus. Prove it. You already ignored hours of research I have posted and linked to.

Your rule, proof, start proving, just cause you said so, that ain't proof.

Start with Cook, oh, I forgot you already ignored my reply that included cook

OK. let's focus on the Lynas study that I originally posted then? What are your criticisms with that study?

I also posted you links to Nasa and the Royal Soceity? What are wrong exactly with those links? If you want to tell me that I need to prove it, then you need to tell me what is factually wrong with the links I supplied?

 

[elektra]

OK. let's focus on the Lynas study that I originally posted then? What are your criticisms with that study?

I also posted you links to Nasa and the Royal Soceity? What are wrong exactly with those links? If you want to tell me that I need to prove it, then you need to tell me what is factually wrong with the links I supplied?

Quote from the link, that is a start. I can link, so what, are we playing cards, where google is the deck?

 

[elektra]

OK. let's focus on the Lynas study that I originally posted then? What are your criticisms with that study?

I also posted you links to Nasa and the Royal Soceity? What are wrong exactly with those links? If you want to tell me that I need to prove it, then you need to tell me what is factually wrong with the links I supplied?

I dont see where you posted a link to any study or any evidence of the consensus. You made the claim, you are asking for evidence. Where is your evidence, quote, you want a link. Any moron can link. And you linked to? Nasa? Physics? Great, now quote a fact from those sites.

You are hiding from the truth or not intelligent enough to believe the truth, which is it?

 

[RedrickTheCoat]

I dont see where you posted a link to dynasty in this thread

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

Or google search:
Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature

Mark Lynas, Benjamin Z Houlton and Simon Perry

 

[RedrickTheCoat]

Quote from the link, that is a start. I can link, so what, are we playing cards, where google is the deck?

What are you linking to though? Give me a link to something that you think is evidence that anthropogenic climate change is not happening

 

[Rawley]

Trump administration moves to dissolve national climate research lab in Colorado

The Trump administration is moving to dissolve the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado.

apnews.com

Not that Trump or his Republican members give a rats ass, but their efforts to destroy as much of the planet as they can will impact their grand kids much more than themselves.

We're doing a pretty shitty job. According to your climate researchers, we should have destroyed the planet in the 1970s

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We're doing a pretty shitting job According to your climate researchers, we should have destroyed the planet in the 1970s

So you have to make up a lie in order to have anything to say.

Maybe stay in the other topics.

 

[RedrickTheCoat]

We're doing a pretty shitting job According to your climate researchers, we should have destroyed the planet in the 1970s

 

[Rawley]

Ooooops

 

[elektra]

OK. let's focus on the Lynas study that I originally posted then? What are your criticisms with that study?

Which post has your link, I looked and dont see it. I hope you included a quote and commentary on the quote. We ain't playing, "high card wins" from the top ofl a google deck of links.

 

[RedrickTheCoat]

Search Mark Lynas Climate study if you can't see my link. Maybe it's blocked?

 

[elektra]

The lungs still

Search Mark Lynas Climate study if you can't see my link. Maybe it's blocked?

The Lynas study, studied other studies. It does not ask scientist if they believe.

There is no consensus. That is the fact

 

[RedrickTheCoat]

The lungs still

The Lynas study, studied other studies. It does not ask scientist if they believe.

There is no consensus. That is the fact

???? It studied what peer reviewed papers in this field were saying?
So it's like I said. You have nothing.

It's ok though. Just give me your best source that discredits science on anthropogenic climate change.

 

[elektra]

???? It studied what peer reviewed papers in this field were saying?
So it's like I said. You have nothing.

It's ok though. Just give me your best source that discredits science on anthropogenic climate change.

You have no proof that it studied papers. It did not study papers. Post the study, it will prove I tell you facts. I bet you looked for the study but cant produce it. I know cause as I said, this debate was settled many times, there is no study of papers.

Peer reviewed, great, post one of the papers in which you speak. List the name of who reviewed it. You cant, I know you cant, you cant cause you are wrong. You just believe.

I ain't being an asshole, I just know for a fact thst the studies dont conclude what the authors claim

 

[RedrickTheCoat]

You have no proof that it studied papers. It did not study papers. Post the study, it will prove I tell you facts. I bet you looked for the study but cant produce it. I know cause as I said, this debate was settled many times, there is no study of papers.

Peer reviewed, great, post one of the papers in which you speak. List the name of who reviewed it. You cant, I know you cant, you cant cause you are wrong. You just believe.

I ain't being an asshole, I just know for a fact thst the studies dont conclude what the authors claim

OK so basically you just don't believe the review studies? The reason I gave you Lynas is because it literally gives you a link to their research data so that you can see what studies they designated as being 'for anthropoenic change' vs 'against'.

From the Lynas Study:
"We searched the Web of Science for English language ‘articles’ added between the dates of 2012 and November 2020 with the keywords ‘climate change’, ‘global climate change’ and ‘global warming’. C13 used the latter two phrases but not ‘climate change’ without the preceding ‘global’. (As discussed below, this was justified post-facto in our study because the majority of sceptical papers we found would not have been returned had we used the same search phrases as C13.) This wider set of search terms yielded a total of 88125 papers, whereas C13 identified a total of 11944 abstracts from papers published over the years 1991 and 2011. (Using our expanded search terms over the same 1991–2011 time period as C13 would have yielded 30627 results.)"

They go into large detail on how they clasify endoresment vs rejection.


Out of the 88,000+, here is the subset they found:

Do you really think that science is on your side in this argument? If so, why does NASA disagree with you?

If you don't like the Lynas studies or other studies, then once again, I am asking you, what sources do you have? Because unless your links are being blocked, I don't see any? Why do I have to give you so much, and then you give nothing? Could it be because you have nothing?

EDIT: to break down this image. This is 2718 that were randomly selected out of the 88,000+ dataset. of these 2718, most did not meet some kind of keyword to suggest they were either an endorsement of anthropogenic climate change or a rejection of that. This is because many studies do not necessarily say EXPLICITLY whether man made climate change is happening or not. Even if many of these studies imply it is happening, if it doesn't meet the keywords then it isn't included as an endorsement. But those that did say something distinctly, were overwhelming an endorsement.

 

[elektra]

OK so basically you just don't believe the review studies?

No, it is because it dont take a study to ask anyones opinion. A simple survey is all that is needed, not a million dollar study.

 

[elektra]

They go into large detail on how they clasify endoresment vs rejection.

The detail is not included in the colored picture you posted. The criteria they used is not included in your post. A link to the study is not included in your post.

And as I said, you are using Google, to try to come up with an answer. You are still failing.

What you did post, is the results of papers reviewed for keywords. What you post confirms what I stated, no scientist was asked.

Scientists? I am scientist. I work for SpaceX studying metal. Before this I worked on nuclear submarines. Before that I was an Electrical Power Research Institute Analyst.

I am a scientist, a term broadly used by many people. If we could just see the papers we would see that most the papers were never written, by scientists.

Hell, we are all scientists. By the loosely defined definition that the students who claim there is consensus, used.

 

[elektra]

???? It studied what peer reviewed papers in this field were saying?
So it's like I said. You have nothing.

It's ok though. Just give me your best source that discredits science on anthropogenic climate change.

No it did not, your post said it searched for keywords, nowhere does it state the study itself was reviewed

 

[westwall]

Trump administration moves to dissolve national climate research lab in Colorado

The Trump administration is moving to dissolve the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado.

apnews.com

Not that Trump or his Republican members give a rats ass, but their efforts to destroy as much of the planet as they can will impact their grand kids much more than themselves. It's just amazing how these morons oppose anything that benefits people, because they consider it backed by Democrats.

History, that they cannot change, will not be kind to these fools!

Bigly!!!

Nah, just too full of bullshit.

 

[elektra]

OK so basically you just don't believe the review studies? The reason I gave you Lynas is because it literally gives you a link to their research data so that you can see what studies they designated as being 'for anthropoenic change' vs 'against'.

From the Lynas Study:
"We searched the Web of Science for English language ‘articles’ added between the dates of 2012 and November 2020 with the keywords ‘climate change’, ‘global climate change’ and ‘global warming’. C13 used the latter two phrases but not ‘climate change’ without the preceding ‘global’. (As discussed below, this was justified post-facto in our study because the majority of sceptical papers we found would not have been returned had we used the same search phrases as C13.) This wider set of search terms yielded a total of 88125 papers, whereas C13 identified a total of 11944 abstracts from papers published over the years 1991 and 2011. (Using our expanded search terms over the same 1991–2011 time period as C13 would have yielded 30627 results.)"

They go into large detail on how they clasify endoresment vs rejection.


Out of the 88,000+, here is the subset they found:

View attachment 1195708

Do you really think that science is on your side in this argument? If so, why does NASA disagree with you?

If you don't like the Lynas studies or other studies, then once again, I am asking you, what sources do you have? Because unless your links are being blocked, I don't see any? Why do I have to give you so much, and then you give nothing? Could it be because you have nothing?

EDIT: to break down this image. This is 2718 that were randomly selected out of the 88,000+ dataset. of these 2718, most did not meet some kind of keyword to suggest they were either an endorsement of anthropogenic climate change or a rejection of that. This is because many studies do not necessarily say EXPLICITLY whether man made climate change is happening or not. Even if many of these studies imply it is happening, if it doesn't meet the keywords then it isn't included as an endorsement. But those that did say something distinctly, were overwhelming an endorsement.

After reviewing what you posted, i can say all you posted was somebody making a proclamation that they are right. There is nothing in your post that shows one scientist claiming their is man made catastrophic climate change. There is nothing in your post to debate, it is just a long winded rant stating what you are to believe.

A big nothing, Hell, the author of the propaganda (study) is nothing more than a journalist activist.

Why are you using a journalist's propaganda?