Shocker: study finds global warming may be net beneficial for the global economy

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by excalibur26, Feb 9, 2020.

Tags:
  1. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Every human system is flawed. That doesn't mean we throw out all of science. If all the papers were pumping out absolutely garbage data, that would have been caught numerous times.
     
  2. dbldrew

    dbldrew Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2013
    Messages:
    1,813
    Likes Received:
    1,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    there was no thermometers 10,000 years ago, so the methods used to get earths global temperature is going to be a "ballpark" at best. Your taking an ice core sample and using that to estimate what the global temperature is, would be like looking at the temperature in Florida to estimate the whole US.. doing so is going to only be so accurate and riddled with errors. So your asking for a very accurate change in temperature over time is pointless because we dont have that data.
     
  3. dbldrew

    dbldrew Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2013
    Messages:
    1,813
    Likes Received:
    1,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    it has been caught. I posted one such change that NASA has done to its own data. You asked how that could get past the "peer review" process.. and it turns out its easy and happens all the time.
     
  4. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Those issues notwithstanding, do you believe the rate of warming over the last 100 years is any different than the previous 10,000?
     
  5. UprightBiped

    UprightBiped Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2020
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    136
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Yeah, I did too! Thanks for posting.

    He peppers his remarks with words that catch my attention, such as discernment. I like a fellow who employs discernment. Where passion meets discernment positive growth can be had.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2020
  6. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    People who aren't climate scientists posting conspiracy theories online isn't peer review. Peer review is other scientists reviewing papers and finding problems. Papers, especially high-profile papers, will get torn apart in peer review if they are based on very obviously sloppy misinterpreted data. And since many here are claiming almost all the data is wrong, then this should be happening to every single paper. It isn't. Maybe a couple, but not every one.
     
  7. dbldrew

    dbldrew Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2013
    Messages:
    1,813
    Likes Received:
    1,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    what conspiracy theory? Its not a theory that Nasa went and changed the temperature records, its a fact that they changed it. Its not a conspiracy theory that the peer review process is riddled with fraudulent papers.. that is also a fact.

    you want to believe the theory that higher CO2 and higher temperatures is going to cause a doomsday mass extinction event even in the face of 3.5 billion years of historical evidence that shows THE EXACT OPPOSITE of that theory? Be my guest
     
  8. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Simply changing data doesn't necessarily mean it was fraud. Sometimes, in the light of new evidence we need to adjust data. And if this was so fraudulent, then why did they make it public and why haven't they been taken apart in peer review?

    You are free to peddle that theory if you like.
     
  9. dbldrew

    dbldrew Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2013
    Messages:
    1,813
    Likes Received:
    1,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    those are the issues that should be stopping anyone from taking that stance. Your talking about taking a 100 years of accurate measurements that are in only a few countries and trying to compare them to very inaccurate and flawed measurements that are taken from a few parts in the world from a ice core sample. The answer you are asking for can not be answered with any amount of accuracy at all.
     
  10. dbldrew

    dbldrew Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2013
    Messages:
    1,813
    Likes Received:
    1,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There was very accurate temperature measurements in 1934 so what new evidence would cause you to go back to 1934 and change the temperature records?


    should be easy for you to disprove it then.. There have been plenty of mass extinction events that have happened in the earths history. Go find me one that was not caused by a caldera (super volcano) eruption, getting slammed by a large asteroid, or an ice age. should be easy to point to the high temp/high CO2 mass extinction event right? Let me save you the trouble.. it never happened, every doomsday scenario has happened because of a caldera, asteroid or ice age.. You know this because the doomsday pushers would love to point to it..
     
  11. BuckyBadger

    BuckyBadger Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    12,354
    Likes Received:
    11,778
    Trophy Points:
    113
    dbldrew likes this.
  12. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A lack of consistency in terms of the time and place of those temperature measurements. For example, the temperature recordings from that time period were not collected at the same time each day. Scientists have gone back and attempted to evaluate the data in light of those inconsistent recordings.
     
  13. dbldrew

    dbldrew Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2013
    Messages:
    1,813
    Likes Received:
    1,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    yes taking a very accurate measurement and throwing that out for what you think it should of been.. yep nothing to see here lol

    here is the problem, throwing out accurate data for guess work does not increase accuracy.. it decreases it.

    If the temperature readings where based on the high for the day rather then a specific time of day. then you use those same test procedure today for a comparison. You NEVER throw out accurate data for guess work.. unless you have a narrative that you want to push

    its also amazing that they only changed it for the real high temperature in 1934.. why didnt they also change the temperature in for the low years? or any other year for that matter? if the testing method wasn't accurate then why only change one year? isnt it lucky for you that they changed just 1934? oops I just noticed they also changed 1989 as well.. they had to bump that one up higher..
     
  14. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ignoring arguments does not magickally make them go away.

    No new argumentation presented.
     
  15. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sure. I like any study that adheres to the rules of logic and mathematics. Every study that I have seen from The Church of Global Warming does not adhere to those rules. I have high standards for data.

    There is nothing complicated about random numbers that are being presented as "data".
     
  16. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I ignored nothing. Your "argument" was simply to disagree with the proven science I provided you. That's invalid. You need to provide your scientific evidence and experimentation which shows the current science is wrong.

    because you stand refuted, until you can present your experiment that shows the numerous ones I've given you are wrong.
     
    MrTLegal likes this.
  17. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    this made me laugh


    nobody has presented random numbers.
     
    MrTLegal likes this.
  18. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There is no such thing as "proven science". Science does not make use of proofs. Only closed functional systems (such as mathematics and logic) have the formal power of proof. Any theory of science could be falsified at any given moment.

    There is also no such thing as "scientific evidence". There is merely "evidence", whether one is speaking of science or not. Evidence is simply "any statement that supports an argument". There are two types of evidence (supporting evidence and conflicting evidence). Science ONLY makes use of the latter. Religion makes use of the former.

    You are also now in paradox:
    [1] "proven science".
    [2] "current science".

    Which is it?
     
  19. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Dismissed, as no new arguments were presented.
     
  20. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    notice how you didn't and can't actually provide any scientific evidence or experimentation when challenged? Because I and everyone else reading notices too.
     
  21. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    you stand refuted until you can provide your scientific evidence or experimentation showing what you've been given is incorrect.
     
  22. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You are merely posting the same response again and again without addressing any of my argumentation. This is not productive discussion.
     
  23. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    See my other response.
     
  24. notme

    notme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    42,019
    Likes Received:
    5,395
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is a rate that the species on this planet go extinct. Currently it's 1,000 to 10,000 faster. That is rather dramatic.
     
  25. MolonLabe2009

    MolonLabe2009 Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    Messages:
    33,092
    Likes Received:
    15,284
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And many new species are discovered every year...

    Researchers describe 71 new species in 2019
    https://earthsky.org/earth/new-species-discovered-in-2019

    Over 270 new species described in 2018
    https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/news/2018/december/over-270-new-species-discovered-in-2018.html

    In 2016, scientists discovered 18,000 new species. Now meet the Top 10
    https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-new-species-top-10-20170522-htmlstory.html
     
    dbldrew likes this.

Share This Page