Actually, I could not care less what "posters believe". What I do care about is evangelizing and spreading misinformation based on belief and not actual science in a science thread. Look, I could not care less what you believe. Believe in global warming, believe that the Pentagon orchestrated 9/11, believe that Prince Charles is the leader of a world-wide pedophile ring. I honestly could not care less. But start trying to spread that kind of belief without actual proof, then I will call you on it. There is a reason I stopped watching the Conspiracy Theory areas. Most of them are so mentally damaged that it is a waste of time. Me, I deal in facts, pure and simple. That is a major reason why I avoid all the "Religion" threads, unless it deals in areas of history and not belief. You, you are an evangelical, and trying to spread a belief system. That is not science. And in almost every science thread I see you in, it is the exact same thing. No references, you dismiss any references you do not agree with and only expound on your beliefs. I could honestly not care less what you believe. But that is not science, and is not applicable.
Then tell us once again, how "global warming" is causing the South Pole Ice to melt. And that is one of over a dozen by now scientific facts that you ignore, deflect, or outright refuse to answer.
As have I. However, were they not melting 25,000 years ago? Were they not melting 200 years ago? Were not some still growing 200 years ago? This is why you keep failing. I actually do not deny the planet is warming, it has been warming for tens of thousands of years. Tell me, what did Homo Sapiens (not Homo Sapiens Sapiens) and Neanderthal have to do with the planet suddenly starting to become warmer?
What I've pointed out is what NASA, NOAA, and other climate science agencies are projecting and has been accepted by the world of climate scientists. I've cited what they say. If you think there is a mistake somewhere, then CITE a reputable source of science.
No, you vomit up a random link, and scream you have won the issue. You "cite" nothing. You know, like in the thread about pandemics, where I just handed you your ass because your "cites" said you were wrong, and actually said something else was to be credited? But I admit, it is funny to see you do that.
This has been answered more than once, using cites from sources of science. How many times do you need to hear it? If this were to be answered one more time, would it make ANY difference? If you were actually interested, how about reading the thread on Antarctic glaciers?
No, you just vomit up a reference URL and nothing else. WHich is why I laughed when I used your own reference against you in anther thread.
We've again reached the point where YOU NEED TO STOP POSTING TO ME. Since you can't even be truthful or civil, you need to go away.
And I will say it once again, as your comprehension is almost nothing. I do not post to you. I post to the others, to show that you speak in circles, actually reference and prove nothing, and simply talk in circles. If you do the above, I will continue to post. Not to you, but for the other readers in here so they can see the silly things that I do and realize how little what you post matters. And do not feel bad, I do the exact same thing when the Neo-Nazis, Klukkers, and other types like that make posts also. I know they are beyond redemption, I am posting in the hopes that some others will realize the things I point out and therefore dismiss what they say as nonsensical.
OK, then do that. A few papers, without response showing why the majority disagree, doesn't challenge world wide consensus.
I've not seen you do this with even one of the papers you cite. You cite papers along with argument in favor of what the paper said. That does not show why the vast majority of scientists disagree with the idea that your papers falsify anthropogenic climate change.
I think 1,000 papers are worth noting. 1000 Skeptical Peer-Reviewed Climate Papers “Should Put UN IPCC To Shame,” Says Harvard Astrophysicist! By P Gosselin on 3. January 2017 Claims that the earth is rapidly heating up because of man-made CO2 and thus heading for a “climate catastrophe” have taken a serious body blow over the past three years as a huge and fresh body of science emerges. More than 1000 peer-reviewed papers published over the last 3 years expose climate alarmism as fake science. […]
Being peer reviewed does not mean the conclusion of the paper is valid. The missing piece here is the response from the full field of climatology. The question is, are there reasons that the IPCC and others have not seen the paper you cite as refuting what the vast field of climatology has so far recognized or accepted.
You don't seem to grasp that the "vast majority" manta is DOA. Very little current research, as opposed to IPCC propaganda, still embraces the "we're all gonna burn to death unless we do something in the next ten minutes". (hyperbole alert!"
You keep clinging to that vast number lie. It's been disproven repeatedly. It was drawn from a collection of papers at a particular conference and what it actually said was that 97% of the papers submitted acknowledged that human actions MAY have had SOME part in observed global warming. Less than a third attributed MAJOR human cause.
And yet you're continually claiming that, by proxy. Which applies to the collection of papers YOU embrace. quote=Willreadmore] >>> Please remember that YOU REGULARLY point to papers where the scientists in that field find flaws that could not have been found in the review that takes place before the papers are published. For YOU, of all people, to claim that one paper invalidates that entire field of science is especially surprising - it violates everything you claim about the credence that should be given to a science paper.[/QUOTE] The papers he cites ARE PART of the field of science just as much as those you chose to embrace. Climatology is a strange field because unlike many other sciences creating experiments to prove or disprove a thesis is near impossible. We have models and observations and a vast void in a field that comprise millions of factors, and influences, and interactions. Ten or twenty years from now we'll all be laughing at how naive we were.
Then find out why they are not seen as reversing climatology. There are many thousands of papers written on climate related sciences. Finding one where the author claims that all the rest of the papers are wrong is NOT a justification for flushing all the rest of the papers.
It doesn't matter. Those papers still have to prove themselves. You do not know why the vast majority of scientists are not impressed enough to trash the last 75 years of climatology.
There is no alternative to consensus. So, we just have to get used to that. As with Einstein's relativity, the consensus does move when superior ideas present, even in the absence of proof. I recognize your hyperbole, but the catch is that it obfuscates what you are really trying to say.
