Human Caused Global Warming.

As we have learnt from how Christopher Monckton presents his graphs. Now are you going to apply that same standard to the articles you cite?

 

Once again attacking people rather than discussing the data.

 

Once again attacking people rather than discussing the data.

 

Ad hominem

 

Nope. I report on the activity, not the person.

 

Not “attacking” people but pointing out hypocrisy. I would be delighted though if you actually engaged in debate in relation to the data presented

 

Various websites say various things about methanes half life. Or how potent of a greenhouse gas it is compared to CO2. I found this website to be pretty informative.


www.sealevel.info › methaneMethane - SeaLevel Info

 

Sorry mate - even if it is supporting a pro-AGW stand I do not accept blog sites - especially blog sites that are poorly referenced with few to no academic citations. The others know I am a science nerd so I will go for sites with academic rigor

 

Here is the link to the IPCCs report on the physics underpinning AGW https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-i/

 

I have already presented the data many times. I await your response.

 

Which you ignore time and again or insist that I waste MY time on analysing data that is made up, has no foundation in reality and is basically rubbish

I do not know why you want me to do this in any event. I have made it very very clear that I stand by the data presented in the IPCC. It is THOSE reports that are used by governments throughout the world to set policy. If you want to analyse those so as to change governmental policy then that would be useful, but arguing over a fact less made up bit of rubbish posted on a discredited blog - where is gain in doing that?
At present there are just four denialists on this forum there used to be dozens. That in and of itself speaks volumes

 

You have yet to enter any substantive discussion.
"Denialist" is just another attack.

 

And yet when I do - such as that so called “research paper” you linked to which claimed pacific islands were enlarging

I pointed out the data was not only incomplete but the paper itself did not address variables afpfecting sea level rise

You have NEVER answered that analysis

 

I did, actually. I pointed out that it's out of bounds to criticize a paper for not being the paper you would prefer had been written. Each author deserves to be discussed within the bounds he/she has set for himself/herself.

 

You can't get much more academic than what the link I gave showed.

 

The climate change deniers are getting very sensitive around here. Little do they realise that how their own brains work, I.e their motivations, is the most important component of the (psychological) science underpinning climate change deniers' behaviour.

 

You are joining in the attacks on people rather than discussing the data.
How Climate Change Pseudoscience Became Publicly Accepted

 

You can and if you are interested I can show you how to do what is known as “critical analysis” which is a way of telling good research from bad

This is one of the few blog sites I will quote
https://skepticalscience.com/

It is referenced throughout to an academic standard and is backed by the University of Queensland (Aus)

 

Yes some will end up on my ignore list simply because it is getting like playing chess with pigeons

 

But THAT is not how science works. Research, good research ALWAYS accounts for the variables affecting the data - that paper did not

 

Nope. The author is only obliged to address the hypothesis he is testing.

 

Keep that opinion - it is erroneous but will not affect anything in the long run

It does however explain why you are willing to accept falsified data from known dodgy sources like Monckton

Testing a hypothesis is like painting a wall - you have to do it carefully, painstakingly and with attention to detail to ensure it is all covered. You cannot throw the paint tin at it then declare finished

 

As you wish.
“Under normal conditions the research scientist is not an innovator but a solver of puzzles, and the puzzles upon which he concentrates are just those which he believes can be both stated and solved within the existing scientific tradition.”
― Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

 

I say bring it on. At current 'consensus' rates (which I find dubious, but will use for the sake of argument) Antarctica will be completely thawed in around 200 years. That will result in a sea level rise of a few dozen feet. So we'll lose some coastal land, but we'll gain en entire continent that can be settled. Some currently lush areas will become deserts, while others stay lush. But also vast areas that are currently tundra will become arable. The earth has been entirely void of any ice at multiple points in the past and life yet thrived. We can adapt. We'll be fine. We can adapt a lot easier if we dont de-industrialize and sacrifice our economy trying to prevent something that may not even be preventable or may not even happen at all.

 

And yet your reply was (by your hallowed standards) an attack on people. *snicker*

I think some deniers are very hypocritical.