Even the Pope sides with Futurecurrents

The point is, we have to accept what the scientific community says at least take it seriously, because we aren't anywhere near qualified to do so ourselves. What futurecurrents has been trying to say is this, BECAUSE THAT IS ALL WE CAN DO!. WE ARE NONE OF US EXPERTS!

Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility: Only 1 of 9,136 Recent Peer-Reviewed Authors Rejects Global Warming

http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/0...y-1-9136-study-authors-rejects-global-warming

At least, it should be given some consideration. The guy even allows you to reproduce the study YOURSELF!!!! Forget about politics. Let your reason shine through, while keeping the healthy skepticism and be able to change your mind on a dime if someone comes along and crys fowl!

As has been stated many times, you are entitled to your opinion. What you are not entitled to is a scientific opinion and neither is futurecurrents. For that both of you have to publish and get peer reviewed.
 
Last edited:
nitro said:
The point is, we have to accept what the scientific community says at least take it seriously, because we aren't anywhere near qualified to do so ourselves. What futurecurrents has been trying to say is this, BECAUSE THAT IS ALL WE CAN DO!. WE ARE NONE OF US EXPERTS!

Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility: Only 1 of 9,136 Recent Peer-Reviewed Authors Rejects Global Warming

http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/0...y-1-9136-study-authors-rejects-global-warming

At least, it should be given some consideration. The guy even allows you to reproduce the study YOURSELF!!!! Forget about politics. Let your reason shine through, while keeping the healthy skepticism and be able to change your mind on a dime if someone comes along and crys fowl!
More...

8GStgt3.png
 
It is what you asked.

Arxiv is not technically peer reviewed but I am willing to read.
clearly you understood because you produced a hansen paper I am reading now.


nitro said:
That is not what I asked. Let me rephrase it, if I produced a paper on the arxiv, would that pass as peered reviewed in your eyes? The reason I ask is, because:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArXiv

So I am trying to understand what qualifies as peered reviewed in this case by you?
More...


nitro said:
That is not what I asked. Let me rephrase it, if I produced a paper on the arxiv, would that pass as peered reviewed in your eyes? The reason I ask is, because:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArXiv

So I am trying to understand what qualifies as peered reviewed in this case by you?
More...
 
whether you believe or don't believe in God should have nothing to do with real science.
(unless perhaps you are talking about quantum physics schrodinger type stuff.)

you evaluate hard science based on whether the results are repeatable. belief and consensus do not matter at all.

Whether or not a scientist believes in God or not has nothing to do with whether the cosmological constant is tuned to 120 decimal places or whether the very finely tuned constants in the standard model physics were confirmed when the higgs boson was predicted and then found at CERN.

Many scientists are believers.

this is obviously a partial list...

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

similarly in court you examine facts and evidence... character evidence is rarely admissible.






nitro said:
A gotcha. Well, that is the hardest question in science.

BTW, your religious affiliation has everything to do with these debates or any other debate. I think you can understand that given the political climate we are in. For example, I state unequivocally that I do not believe in a religious God. People then know if it is worth their time trying to reason with me or not, or whether I should be their POTUS. If I tell you that I believe the Earth is 6000 years old, or that if I blow myself up killing infidels, then I will have 60 virgins that I can ravage every night in some place in the sky waiting for me, you don't think that is worth knowing before you begin a lengthy discussion with me?

Sort of the right to face your accuser in a court of law?
More...
 
Last edited:
futurecurrents said:
the models are still valid and temps are well the range of predictions.
More...


Even when the temperature doesn't go up for two decades the climate hoaxers say that it's well within the range of predictions.

That non falsifiable thing again. Nothing, but nothing can falsify this joke of a theory.
 
1. Nitro... we have been over this..
Powell ignored 100s of papers... here is a link .
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

2. here is powells link to the papers... you can see about the same amount support the idea that man made co2 causes warming. I have cut and past the first few...

http://www.jamespowell.org/DIY/diy.html


1,2-Dichlorohexafluoro-cyclobutane (1,2-c-C4F6Cl2, R-316c) a Potent Ozone Depleting Substance and Greenhouse Gas: Atmospheric Loss Processes, Lifetimes, and Ozone Depletion and Global Warming Potentials for the (E) and (Z) Stereoisomers
125 years of high-mountain research at Sonnblick Observatory (Austrian Alps)-from "the house above the clouds" to a unique research platform
200-MW chemical looping combustion based thermal power plant for clean power generation
2050 Scenarios for Long-Haul Tourism in the Evolving Global Climate Change Regime
A 2 degrees C warmer world is not safe for ecosystem services in the European Alps
A C-Repeat Binding Factor Transcriptional Activator (CBF/DREB1) from European Bilberry (Vaccinium myrtillus) Induces Freezing Tolerance When Expressed in Arabidopsis thaliana
A canonical response of precipitation characteristics to global warming from CMIP5 models
A catalogue of putative unique transcripts from Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) based on 454 transcriptome sequencing of genetically diverse, drought stressed seedlings
A climate change-induced threat to the ecological resilience of a subtropical monsoon evergreen broad-leaved forest in Southern China
A closed-circuit gas recycling system for RPC detectors
A COLLABORATIVE FUZZY-NEURAL SYSTEM FOR GLOBAL CO2 CONCENTRATION FORECASTING
A comparative estimate of life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from two types of constructed wetlands in Tianjin, China
A comparative study of three different methods for flare gas recovery of Asalooye Gas Refinery
A comparison of electricity production technologies in terms of sustainable development
A comparison of statistical and dynamic modeling of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) fungal diseases under the climate change
 
Nitro wants us to change our entire economy and lives because "what if they're right?"

Hey Nitro. Maybe you ought to think about changing your life because

What if the bible is right?
 
reading climate papers is more like hitting slow pitch softballs.
once you get the nomenclature -- its not that difficult.

there are only so many ways you can say warming cooling or that when you look at the proxies using statistical methods you have to to account for the lack of precision in the data... after all they are proxies and not instrument records.

or when using satellite data you have to account for orbit degradation or change in other inputs.

so


hansen did a survey of past climate periods and tried to figure out what drove climate from warmth to cold or vice versa. he basically believe he can deduce climate sensitivity to co2 by looking at past data... and then warns... we don't have much of a cushion and we could experience strong amplyfying feedbacks if we warm just a little bit.

Who knows he could be correct... but so far climate models on real time data have failed. ... So we have no reason to believe the models used in this paper have any tie to reality.





nitro said:
For example, here is a random one I found on the arxiv:

http://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/1105/1105.0968v2.pdf

I read that paper, and I can't even begin to make some of those arguments. Can you?

"...Global temperature change during the first half of the Cenozoic is consistent with expectations based on knowledge of plate tectonics (continental drift)..."

Can you hit a 100MPH fast ball after seeing three off-speed pitches?
More...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top