Peer review is done via respected rags and journals. There's typically a "request for comments". Authentic science is not done anonymously. I looked at the first minute of the video, made me laugh! I'll look at the rest of it later. Strictly speaking, I don't believe any of it to be true or untrue. Like a great many other scientists, I am anxiously searching for the raw data so that I can run my own numbers to decide myself if it's true or untrue. According to a number of recent Freedom of Information requests, it appears that the raw data does not exist. The Register is reporting that in Great Britian some of the climate change "scientists" are facing charges of fraud. The truth is, even if climate change is manmade, IMO absolutely none of the measures being proposed today would make the slightest dent in reversing the effects. The oceans regulate the O2/CO2 mix in the atmosphere (remember "osmosis" from high school chemistry?). MY OPINION (and I have no research to back this up) is that massive farming of the oceans may be changing it's ability to regulate the atmosphere.
Science isn't done anonymously, but YouTube accounts are. When I have the time I will get you the data and peer reviewed reports. But as I mentioned earlier, I'm on an iPhone while at work so expecting be to give a lecture with all my sources cited from a smartphone is unreasonable. I did, however, give you a link to someone who made a video in which all of his claims are supported by peer reviewed reports and you only managed to watch a minute of it. And that was a YouTube video. I shudder to think what your attention span would be if faced with page upon page of text and analytical data. The farming of the sea maybe be having an effect on it's ability to process co2, but that doesn't mean climate change isn't happening and that we are responsible. You seem to be flip flopping here. Could you tell us exactly what your argument is? I think before we proceed you should tell us exactly what it is you are claiming, just so we know what we are arguing against. Also, could you tell us which of the following statments you think are true. Co2 absorbs long wave radiation co2 in te atmosphere has increased due to our actions. You seem to want it both ways. You seem to want to accept the science while denying it's effects.
Then, anonymous YouTube accounts aren't science, are they? No, they aren't. It can't be peer reviewed just because an anonymous person claims they were. An anonymous YouTube video anonymously claims that anonymous peers anonymously reviewed his anonymous statistics? Bush's claims of WMDs in Iraq had more credibility than that! And, if you had any experience in these matters, you would know that hockey stick projections are always crap. Especially the famous global warming hockey stick, now known to be false. It's what bad researchers use to justify notoriously bad conclusions. Unlike you, I'm not glued to my computer all day. I just finished looking at the video. It's entertaining, but it proves absolutely nothing. My argument is that, according to the present scientific debate, there exists no accurate data that details the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere over time because the data that has been used since 2001 has been proven to be falsified. Without that data, it all falls apart. And, I am accurate because this post has been peer-reviewed!
Corwin he gives you the titles of the papers and links to them. Remember when I said you were prepping the ground to allow you to regect the evidence? Well thanks for proving me right. It's pitiful if you are now going to reject peer reviewed papers on the grounds that you don't believe the claim that they are peer reviewed. If the video proves nothing refute his points. You still havnt answered my question. I'll ask it again, for a third time. Which of te following is untrue. 1. Co2 absorbs longwave radiation 2. Man is, through burning fossil fuels, releasing vast amounts of co2 into the atmosphere. You are starting to sound like a creatuonist. Sacrificing your integrity In order to protect a belief.
Lets start with the data the video is basing it's conclusions on. Notice the "HadCrut" at the top of the chart. For those of you unaware, HadCrut is short hand for the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia. Emails leaked from this organization show efforts by it's "scientists" to make their numbers look like the chart you see above. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-emails-climate-jones-chinese http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html If that weren't bad enough, Russian scientists then point out that same organization basically ignored most of the data coming out of Russia that didn't agree with their findings: http://en.rian.ru/papers/20091216/157260660.html If the moron in the YouTube video want's to have a non-political discussion about scientific facts, it would be better if he started with "facts" that had not already been politicized. In other news there are many scandals afoot with would be "Scientists" presenting bad data at best, and rumor and innuendo at worst. Given these scandals, the political fight to recruit global warming believers from the non-scientific population of the planet has a long and difficult road ahead of it. Most of the true believers have fallen back to the basics by talking about the undeniable role greenhouse gases play in the atmosphere. Consistently left out of the discussion, assuming the premise that AGW is even a real, are things such as: Alternative outcomes other than an Ice Age/Natural Disaster Alternative means of dealing with the problem other than cutting CO2 production With such crappy "scientific" presentation, it pisses me off when people, like the one in that YouTube video try and cloak themselves in the holy shroud of science to push what is unquestionably a political agenda.
Christ, we have an intellectual giant weighing in now. Put down your pens folks, obamanation has it all figured out unsurprisingly enough his defence is the same as corwins. When the evidence is given to them they question it's validity. Predictible and weak. So which is it? Does co2 not absorb longwave radiation or are we not emitting it? One of them has to be false for your premise to be anything other than ignorant parroting of shit you heard on tv. For people who supposedly like science you are very quick to quote tabloids and obscure Russian organisations. Hang on, doesn't Russia provide most of europes gas? I'm sure that didn't influence rhe secretive states "findings" lol.
Obamanation, well said, well said!!! O.K., stOx, enough with you making demands. Enough of you ignorantly parroting propaganda you've heard on TV. I am throwing down a challenge to you to Put Up or Shut Up. Prove it to us as if this was a high school science project. That means you don't plagiarize someone else's work. It's been pretty well established that there are students on the internet that try to bait others into doing their own research. One has already been outed on DP, and I am beginning to suspect that you are one, also. Show me the science that demonstrates that CO2 absorbs longwave radiation. Explain your model in detail. No, don't link to someone else's research - PROVE IT YOURSELF. Start with the definition of longwave radiation, show me the mechanism how you think CO2 absorbs it, and how the energy of the radiation is converted. And, if your answer is a link to someone's crappy webpage, or some gutless passive-aggressive insult designed to prove someone to do your research, or if I find your exact derivation somewhere else on the internet, then you will be forever exposed as the fraud you are - and get an "F". Ready, Set - GO!
Ad Hom Ad Hom Your "scientific" training has taught you to accept things without questioning them? Explain the logic of that. My post was about scientists fudging their warming data. You digress into the general concept of the effect of CO2 gas on the temperature. Didn't someone predict that? Most of the true believers have fallen back to the basics by talking about the undeniable role greenhouse gases play in the atmosphere. Oh yeah, it was me. I notice you didn't address the HadCrut scandal because the scandal comes from their own admissions. QUOTE=stOx;13639469]For people who supposedly like science you are very quick to quote tabloids and obscure Russian organisations. Hang on, doesn't Russia provide most of europes gas? I'm sure that didn't influence rhe secretive states "findings" lol.[/QUOTE] Didn't someone just try to characterize the questioning of the data or the source of the data as "Weak"? "unsurprisingly enough his defence is the same as corwins. When the evidence is given to them they question it's validity. Predictible and weak." Oh yeah, that was you. Did you just call yourself predictable and weak? By the way, the "obscure" Russian Organization who you are busily trying to discredit is the same organization that provided the data HadCrut cherry picked to create their AGW findings. To discredit them is to discredit HadCrut. And to think you are the guy who posted the youtube link which starts out complaining of the politicization of the data. Corwin, I've pointed out Stox's failed style of argumentation many times in the past. Your claim that he is intentionally baiting people to get others to do his research is interesting. Considering he is a master baiter, I find it highly plausible.
Lmao corwin. Have you stooped so low and desperate that you need me to prove something we have known for over a hundred years? We will be here forever. Ok, I'll prove that co2 absorbs longwave radiation if you prove, using your own experiments, that longwave radiation And co2 exist. Shoot.
No, I want you to prove that you know what you are talking about. I suspect that you will find ways to chicken out and avoid answering. And, I'm anxiously awaiting to see how you address the HadCrut scandal.
What scandal? Tell me exactly what part of it was scandalous and ill tell you what i think about it. So is accepting the findings even if they contradict what you previously thought.
let's face it, fossil fuels are running out. We're going to need to find alternative fuels. if Global warming is an issue and fossil fuels are adding to it, then hey we need find new enengy sources. if we can save the environment while we are at it that's great.
It doesn't have to be a law. In fact, in most science it can't be a law as laws only exist in mathematics and physics. There can exist no law which proves, for instance, that mosquitoes spread malaria. We accept it as fact though because of the evidence. You shouldn't get caught up in the false idea that laws, theories and principles are varying degrees of certainty. A theory is no less factual than a law, it just explains a different thing.
the evidence shows fact. we believe in the facts. evidence just helps that. there are scientific laws. law of thermodynamcis
So why didn't HadCrut accept the findings (Raw data actually) from Russia which contradicted their beliefs? Why don't you? According to the scientists in Russia, they only accepted the figures which showed significant change and discarded the rest. Here are some specifics you asked Corwin for on the HadCrut scandal. There are many more, including their own email based admissions of inability to explain cooling data and data fixing. I've already read the excuses warmist political supporters are using to attack the emails, and I'm sure you will just parrot them out like a good zealot, so why don't you address the scientific data presented above.
that is not accurate, the reason why they are hypothesis, theories and laws is based on certainty. it explains things differently. we need to get caught up in it. there are facts that back up a theory but the theory is not a fact.
This, alone, shows such a shockingly sad ignorance of science it's laughable. Seriously, I could NOT stop laughing when I read it! And it explains a lot. I'd ask stOx to prove what he wrote, but so far in this thread he has been embarrassingly unable to prove absolutely anything he's written, while blindly and childishly ignoring any and all proof shoved in his face here. If ignorance is bliss, stOx must be in paradise... stOx gets an "F"!