Global Warming: For Experts Only

I don't get you piezoe, you lean left on 90% of the issues yet you are anti climate change? Even if you don't believe in climate change itself aren't there some positive environmental side effects to the treatment of climate change that you could believe in? Cleaner air, water ect..ect?

I'm sure there are people on the left who might not believe in the science of climate change but "climate change" is now the primary environmental focus of the left. These people care about the environment but might not believe in the science of climate change. However, the solutions to combat climate change align with their original "old school" environmental beliefs like saving the rain forests, wet lands, clean air and drinking water ect...

What I am saying is maybe you don't believe in the disease (climate change) but the "cure" to climate change might align with any of your original environmental beliefs before climate change became the primary environmental focus on the left.
thinkLet me give you one last off-the-wall analogy. Let's say that you are a doctor and a patient with high blood pressure and lungs that are in poor condition comes to you and says "If I quit smoking then the ghosts will stop haunting my house". Rather than argue if ghosts exist or not wouldn't the benefits of the patient no longer smoking be a better outcome than proving that ghosts don't exist?


He's a trojan horse. Working for a think tank. The strategy is to win respect and friends on the left in all other areas so his denial of the climate science is more respected. The right need no convincing. No real gains can be made there.

The think tanks have people like him throughout the internet on sites like this. That's a fact. And they usually pose as some kind of scientist to gain credibility. Some of them ARE scientists. Just like the "scientists" that worked to counter the science on the hazards of smoking tobacco.

Millions of dollars from conservative and libertarian fossil fuel related groups and individuals go toward paying people - scientists like Salby and non-scientists - to spread doubt about the science.
 
Last edited:
This makes absolutely no sense.


Sure it does. The rantings of someone like jem are easy to dismiss. He's a crazed right wing ideologue. Those of piezoe are less so since he has the respect of many on the left. Heck, I agree with him on virtually every other matter.

Do you know the Trojan horse story? Get in the gates as a friend first.

The libetarian think tanks don't care about the social issues. It's the fossil fuels where the money is.

Maybe a double agent is a better name.
 
Last edited:
The rantings of someone like jem are easy to dismiss. He's a crazed right wing ideologue. Those of piezoe are less so since he has the respect of many on the left. Heck, I agree with him on virtually every other matter.
Jem's posts are excellent and well thought out---Piezoe's are not---yours are not. Thinking he is infiltrator on this site is one of the most ridiculous beliefs I've ever run across. Stop watching so much TV.
 
show us some science stu...

post a link to the large amount of papers... or we will know you were lying about science again.

"the very large amount of published peer reviewed scientific papers, which explain how anthropic CO2 is causing warming."

No point in posting a link. Everyone who takes any rational interest in the subject knows the internet is full of links to published peer reviewed papers explaining how anthropic CO2 is causing warming. Same for evolution and gravity and moon landings.

You are someone still in denial of the very large amount of links on the internet that show, explain, describe and confirm an ex-president's birth certificate. So no amount of scientific data is ever going to convince you about any fact or piece of information when it stands in the way of the climate denial you want to believe in.

You'll always just keep repeat dredging the same old things as you do above, even though non of it has been validated , not formally published, not peer reviewed , not independently scientifically validated, against the vast amount of independently scientifically verified published peer reviewed papers, which explain how anthropic CO2 causes warming.
 
"The real question is, does anything Keating say against Nir Shaviv's ideas have real scientific merit."

They don't. That's why I responded as ridiculously as I did. Nothing more measured would have been appropriate. My hands were tied. I believe absurdinity deserves to be responded to by ridiculosity.

All I can do is suggest you view Shaviv's youtube presentation and then read Keating's critique. Keating's remark that solar irradiance is down by 0.1 (units not, specified, shall we assume W/sq. meter?, time period not specified) leaves me with no choice but to respond by saying "##*!", and other words to that effect. Keating's response had nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with Shaviv's brilliant hypothesis, which has to do with (you decide after viewing Shaviv's presentation). I an not saying Shaviv is right. I am saying Keating is crazeeee.. And then to add a second link to a science journalist' s work, well that was just too, too much! I hope you enjoyed the maraschino cherry sundae I served up.

Dude, for goodness sake! The links I made direct further inquiry towards the hard science out there. It reveals your reluctance to follow through and is another reason why providing links is a waste of time .
Shaviv and Salby need to make presentation to places like the Royal Society, not youtube.:rolleyes: There is already confirmed science at the RS and everywhere else that matters, which directly pulls the rug from under their so called hypothesis. Their notions simply do not work in scientific terms. If anything, they do more to confirm the current science that anthropic CO2 is causing current excessive global warming as correct , and the solar affect which Shaviv promotes, cannot be correct. After years and years and years, neither Shaviv nor Salby (nor anyone else) has presented a formal scientific proposal for validation which undermines GW science. And for good reason. Their ideas don't scientifically stand. The science that stands is the science that more science cannot knock over. That is why GW science stands. :banghead:

With both Shaviv and Salsby you seem to have been suckered by watching a couple of semi-charismatic you tube self-promoters. For life long cure, try a few minutes of Justin Bieber instead.
 
Last edited:
yet you are anti climate change
Only if you equate "climate change" with Hansen's hypothesis. No one is anti climate change unless they are insane. People have completely lost sight of the crucial issue, which is whether man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 is going to result in a catastrophic increase in the Earth's surface temperature.
 
I typed this search..

anthropic co2 causing warming

no links to peer reviewed science

there is zero peer reviewed science showing man made co2 causes warming if there were the author would be more famous than al gore and have all sorts of science awards. (that is not based on now failed models)

you lied again stu its you who makes claim you can not substantiate.
I just keep explaining you lie.




No point in posting a link. Everyone who takes any rational interest in the subject knows the internet is full of links to published peer reviewed papers explaining how anthropic CO2 is causing warming. Same for evolution and gravity and moon landings.

You are someone still in denial of the very large amount of links on the internet that show, explain, describe and confirm an ex-president's birth certificate. So no amount of scientific data is ever going to convince you about any fact or piece of information when it stands in the way of the climate denial you want to believe in.

You'll always just keep repeat dredging the same old things as you do above, even though non of it has been validated , not formally published, not peer reviewed , not independently scientifically validated, against the vast amount of independently scientifically verified published peer reviewed papers, which explain how anthropic CO2 causes warming.
 
Back
Top