A Great Victory - Trump expected to withdraw from Paris climate agreement

exGOPer said:
Who is stopping you from doing the research just like that guy?

"The careful analysis by our team is laid out in five scientific papers now online at BerkeleyEarth.org. That site also shows our chart of temperature from 1753 to the present, with its clear fingerprint of volcanoes and carbon dioxide, but containing no component that matches solar activity. Four of our papers have undergone extensive scrutiny by the scientific community, and the newest, a paper with the analysis of the human component, is now posted, along with the data and computer programs used. Such transparency is the heart of the scientific method; if you find our conclusions implausible, tell us of any errors of data or analysis"
More...

Let me guess.. he is using adjusted temperature data.
 
jem said:
listen? ... I have read almost everything that has come out.
we have had extensive discussion here.

if you understood the scientific process you would know, that no serious scientist would rule out the sun or solar flares or anything else.

science does not work that way.

t
More...

He didn't rule out anything, he studied the data and arrived at the conclusions based on the data - that's how the scientific way works, why would he stick to an assumption when the data doesn't support it?
 
The Pope says that Trump withdrawing from the Climate Accord is like getting slapped in the face... Trump can kick him in his Liberation Theology cojones while he's at it for all I care. Trump is just backing out of our Left's deals with the UN. Democrat policies = UN policies, Trump policies = US policies. Obama said it best: "elections have consequences".

Merkel is still in the denial bubble with the Pantsuit and the rest of that idiotic mess.

I'm sensing a mood change since Trump brokered a $350 Billion arms deal with the Saudis. I think this "opposition" thingy is going to be yet another yawner eventually...
 
ok point to the peer reviewed paper which proved that and I will make sure it was not overlooked for the nobel prize it would have received.

you are far overstating what that group got published in those fake pay for play journals.
I read the abstracts on their links.

there papers are about temperature collection and data.
the abstract to their peer reviewed papers made on such claims regarding co2. nothing was conclusive.

on the website they do say it does not look like the sun did it.

but that is scientifically ridiculous. just because you study makes it seem like the sun was not a factor does not rule it out. That is not how the null hypothesis works.


all they can say is that in there work the sun did not seem to be a factor.
they can not and were not able to make such a silly conclusion unless they found what was causing warming.

besides since that study was published we have seen numerous papers stating the sun is a factor.


exGOPer said:
Again, nobody is disputing that but what they are saying is that the current changes cannot be explained by natural cycles alone - that's what the Berkeley project was all about, it proved conclusively that man made CO2 at least did play a part. And this guy had ZERO reasons to lie about this, he was funded by the Koch's and has been a skeptic for decades till he went out to prove his skepticism. What data sets have you collected or analyzed to prove him wrong?
More...
 
jem said:
ok point to the peer reviewed paper which proved that and I will make sure it was not overlooked for the nobel prize it would have received.

you are far overstating what that group got published in those fake pay for play journals.
I read the abstracts on their links.

there papers are about temperature collection and data.
the abstract to their peer reviewed papers made on such claims regarding co2. nothing was conclusive.

on the website they do say it does not look like the sun did it.

but that is scientifically ridiculous. just because you study makes it seem like the sun was not a factor does not rule it out. That is not how the null hypothesis works.


all they can say is that in there work the sun did not seem to be a factor.
they can not and were not able to make such a silly conclusion unless they found what was causing warming.

besides since that study was published we have seen numerous papers stating the sun is a factor.
More...

"Four of our papers have undergone extensive scrutiny by the scientific community, and the newest, a paper with the analysis of the human component, is now posted, along with the data and computer programs used."
 
java said:
And that is exactly why the democrats can't make a really big deal about Paris without making people too curious.
More...

Yes, papers listed from 1970 and many of which are not even skeptical but go in a different direction is what people are basing their curiosity on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top