A statistically representative climate change debate

futurecurrents said:
So what percent of the earth's greenhouse effect is from CO2?

Quote:
Originally Posted by piezoe View Post
With time, we are being reminded just how unreliable correlation, even a very strong one, can be when looking for cause and effect. The data we have today is far better than what was available in the 1980s, when this CO2-global warming hypothesis was first proposed by Hansen. Meanwhile politics and emotions have made dispassionate science quite difficult. Recently there has been a deluge of hard data and sharp analysis that is inconsistent with the original Hansen hypothesis. It seems most of it is being ignored. Ultimately there will be great embarrassment and ruined careers. It's a pity, because had this issue not been politicized and made into a media circus, the inevitable negative fallout could have been avoided.

If a single observation is inconsistent with an hypothesis, the hypothesis must be rejected. Ultimately the Hansen hypothesis will have to be either considerably modified or rejected altogether. In the meantime, how much time and money will be wasted following the wrong road?
More...

You completely missed the point. And why did you respond to Piezoe here? This was posted in another thread.
 
Wallet said:
You completely missed the point. And why did you respond to Piezoe here? This was posted in another thread.
More...

No, YOU and Piehole miss the point. CO2 levels are mostly what determine the temperature of the earth. If you like I can post the science.

It's very simple. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We have raised it's levels by 40%. Can you guess what would happen? No? Didn't think so.
 
post the science... not failed models... showing man made co2 causes warming.
if you do... you will garner a noble prize. the science does not exist.

futurecurrents said:
No, YOU and Piehole miss the point. CO2 levels are mostly what determine the temperature of the earth. If you like I can post the science.

It's very simple. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We have raised it's levels by 40%. Can you guess what would happen? No? Didn't think so.
More...
 
its starts out o.k. it includes deforestation and other man made activities.
which may have an impact... could be cooling could be warming.

Then it meaders into IPCC "attributions" aka... non scientific b.s.
And the illusion of models... pure b..s curve fit models... which fail to make accurate predictions when going live.

you have no science...



futurecurrents said:
Your BRAIN has failed, not the models. LOL

Here is the science. Not that you will acknowledge it. You're pathetic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change
More...
 
Taxpayers paid more than $5 million to create climate change games, including voicemails from the future warning that “neo-luddites” will kill global warming enthusiasts by 2035.

Columbia University’s Climate Center has received $5.7 million from the National Science Foundation for the university’s “PoLAR Climate Change Education Partnership,” to “engage adult learners and inform public understanding and response to climate change.”

Based on the theory that games “motivate exploration and learning of complex material,” the school created “Future Coast,” a website that features hundreds of made up voicemails painting a dire picture of the future as a result of climate change.

http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/05/23/taxpayers-paid-56-million-climate-change-games
 
Lucrum said:
Taxpayers paid more than $5 million to create climate change games, including voicemails from the future warning that “neo-luddites” will kill global warming enthusiasts by 2035.

Columbia University’s Climate Center has received $5.7 million from the National Science Foundation for the university’s “PoLAR Climate Change Education Partnership,” to “engage adult learners and inform public understanding and response to climate change.”

Based on the theory that games “motivate exploration and learning of complex material,” the school created “Future Coast,” a website that features hundreds of made up voicemails painting a dire picture of the future as a result of climate change.

http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/05/23/taxpayers-paid-56-million-climate-change-games
More...

And some people on this forum cannot understand why the majority of the educated population views "Climate Change" as propaganda put together by the government that has no basis in scientific fact.
 
jem said:
its starts out o.k. it includes deforestation and other man made activities.
which may have an impact... could be cooling could be warming.

Then it meaders into IPCC "attributions" aka... non scientific b.s.
And the illusion of models... pure b..s curve fit models... which fail to make accurate predictions when going live.

you have no science...
More...

And you are a liar. Or very very stupid. Or both.
 
gwb-trading said:
And some people on this forum cannot understand why the majority of the educated population views "Climate Change" as propaganda put together by the government that has no basis in scientific fact.
More...

You are part of the majority and the majority of people are morons. Congrats, you fit right in. LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top