Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
And like I said, when you only study cold countries, that tends to happen.
why can't you argue the OP? Are you so limited in your ability to converse that you're rendered to a dummass?Jc456 as a climate scientist could make for a terrible streaming comedy.
What a goofy premise to a goofy OP.
No.This guy does regular studies. If he used a certain cross section, there was a reason. Do you know what it was.
My point is that if you leave out all the hot countries when studying if heat kills, then you can't use the study to conclude heat doesn't kill.Your point that he used a limited number of countries does seem valid on the surface, but is not a reason to dismiss the study outright.
No.
How does that affect my point?
My point is that if you leave out all the hot countries when studying if heat kills, then you can't use the study to conclude heat doesn't kill.
No.
How does that affect my point?
I can see why you might be concerned about questioning motivations. It could head off my inquiring whether you are here to discuss the environment or to correct our poor, befuddled logic.So your critisism is simply based on some inate belief that you have that you are right.
I don't know the ins and outs of the study. But apparently neither do you.
Your statement therefore is intellectually lazy.
I can see why you might be concerned about questioning motivations. It could head off my inquiring whether you are here to discuss the environment or to correct our poor, befuddled logic.
Most of the people here have been arguing about this same topic (anthropogenic global warming (AGW)) for years. You've missed all that. So when we bring out an argument or a point of science that we've brought out a dozen times before, the anger and frustration that accompanies it probably looks very much like arrogance. I and a few others accept and support mainstream science. The majority here do not. The deniers have argued a variety of positions but one of their most popular is that all the climate scientists on the planet have fabricated the entire thing in order to get rich from research grants and/or to destroy capitalism / destroy the world / put us back in the stone age, because they're all liberals and that's what liberals do. They have others, but they are all equally as unsupported and unsupportable. You encourage them via one significant mistake you have already made: you have suggested a rational equivalence to our two positions. If you're an educated fellow, you really ought to be aware that there simply is no debate on the reality of global warming and its cause. It is at least as certain as the theories of evolution and plate tectonics. The deniers here are the dupes of a very well funded PR campaign run by the fossil fuel industry, very much akin to that conducted by the tobacco industry on which it was modeled.I don't know what your befuddled logic is.
What I do know is that when someone calls a study into question and dismisses it on such basic terms.....without looking at it.....well....you figure it out.
As to the rest, you don't seem prone to "discussing" much of anything. I don't claim to be knowledgeable in this area, but when something smells arrogant it probably is.
Or they are like me and base their beliefs on empirical climate evidence instead of flawed computer modeling like you do.Most of the people here have been arguing about this same topic (anthropogenic global warming (AGW)) for years. You've missed all that. So when we bring out an argument or a point of science that we've brought out a dozen times before, the anger and frustration that accompanies it probably looks very much like arrogance. I and a few others accept and support mainstream science. The majority here do not. The deniers have argued a variety of positions but one of their most popular is that all the climate scientists on the planet have fabricated the entire thing in order to get rich from research grants and/or to destroy capitalism / destroy the world / put us back in the stone age, because they're all liberals and that's what liberals do. They have others, but they are all equally as unsupported and unsupportable. You encourage them via one significant mistake you have already made: you have suggested a rational equivalence to our two positions. If you're an educated fellow, you really ought to be aware that there simply is no debate on the reality of global warming and its cause. It is at least as certain as the theories of evolution and plate tectonics. The deniers here are the dupes of a very well funded PR campaign run by the fossil fuel industry, very much akin to that conducted by the tobacco industry on which it was modeled.
If you'd like to educate yourself on the state of the science, go to www.ipcc.ch where you can find the various volumes of the sixth and latest Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (AR6 of the IPCC). The full report is assembled by three "Working Groups" who assess published science regarding man made global warming. Working Group I produces "The Physical Science Basis". This volume includes a lengthy report (~2500 pages) as well as a technical summary and a summary for policymakers. The latter is the shortest and the most aimed at the lay public. Working Groups II and III produce reports on "Impacts, Adaptations and Vulnerabilities" and "Mitigation of Climate Change", respectively. There is an enormous amount of material in those reports. The WG I's Summary for Policy Makers in "The Physical Science Basis" is probably the best place to start. The full report also has a FAQ attached to each chapter and there is a compilation of all the FAQs available separately for download; a valuable resource.
If you wish to familiarize yourself with the opposition's technical material, you probably ought to ask someone else but from what I have seen here, I would look at a website called "WattsUpWithThat" abbreviated WUWT, as well as websites for Dr Roy Spencer, Dr Judith Curry, Bjorn Lomborg and Dr Will Happer. The latest denier notable seems to be Dr John Clauser, a Nobel winning physicist, though he has actually written very, very little on the topic of global warming. The fossil fuel industry have funded a number of "science" and "research" organizations that are all simply covers for pro-oil propaganda disguised as serious research findings. The internet can give you a list. These folks will present the more rational of denier arguments. If you roam around the forum here you can easily find examples of the more extreme positions. I'd give you a few names but I'd be denying you the pleasure of shocking new discoveries.
Most of the people here have been arguing about this same topic (anthropogenic global warming (AGW)) for years. You've missed all that. So when we bring out an argument or a point of science that we've brought out a dozen times before, the anger and frustration that accompanies it probably looks very much like arrogance. I and a few others accept and support mainstream science. The majority here do not. The deniers have argued a variety of positions but one of their most popular is that all the climate scientists on the planet have fabricated the entire thing in order to get rich from research grants and/or to destroy capitalism / destroy the world / put us back in the stone age, because they're all liberals and that's what liberals do. They have others, but they are all equally as unsupported and unsupportable. You encourage them via one significant mistake you have already made: you have suggested a rational equivalence to our two positions. If you're an educated fellow, you really ought to be aware that there simply is no debate on the reality of global warming and its cause. It is at least as certain as the theories of evolution and plate tectonics. The deniers here are the dupes of a very well funded PR campaign run by the fossil fuel industry, very much akin to that conducted by the tobacco industry on which it was modeled.
If you'd like to educate yourself on the state of the science, go to www.ipcc.ch where you can find the various volumes of the sixth and latest Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (AR6 of the IPCC). The full report is assembled by three "Working Groups" who assess published science regarding man made global warming. Working Group I produces "The Physical Science Basis". This volume includes a lengthy report (~2500 pages) as well as a technical summary and a summary for policymakers. The latter is the shortest and the most aimed at the lay public. Working Groups II and III produce reports on "Impacts, Adaptations and Vulnerabilities" and "Mitigation of Climate Change", respectively. There is an enormous amount of material in those reports. The WG I's Summary for Policy Makers in "The Physical Science Basis" is probably the best place to start. The full report also has a FAQ attached to each chapter and there is a compilation of all the FAQs available separately for download; a valuable resource.
If you wish to familiarize yourself with the opposition's technical material, you probably ought to ask someone else but from what I have seen here, I would look at a website called "WattsUpWithThat" abbreviated WUWT, as well as websites for Dr Roy Spencer, Dr Judith Curry, Bjorn Lomborg and Dr Will Happer. The latest denier notable seems to be Dr John Clauser, a Nobel winning physicist, though he has actually written very, very little on the topic of global warming. The fossil fuel industry have funded a number of "science" and "research" organizations that are all simply covers for pro-oil propaganda disguised as serious research findings. The internet can give you a list. These folks will present the more rational of denier arguments. If you roam around the forum here you can easily find examples of the more extreme positions. I'd give you a few names but I'd be denying you the pleasure of shocking new discoveries.
It does no such thing.Climategate makes everything in the IPCC going forward untrustworthy....
