Global warming research suppressed due to intolerance of scepticism

[futurecurrents]

and zero of them provided empirical evidence that man made co2 causes warming.
The vast majority of them addressed an entirely different issue.
I provided a link to the database a few months ago
you had no response when I gave you proof.

Of course they did. Melting ice. Rising seas. Rising CO2. All of these are evidence. All the various scientists involved in this data analysis know that man has caused temps to rise.

They have moved far beyond the basic argument about AGW. It is so unanimous that it is not even a topic of debate anymore. It's like asking biologists to always still be talking about whether evolution is a fact or not.

 

[futurecurrents]

Jem.....


over nine thousand scientists over the last year agree that our fossil fuel emissions are principally responsible for contemporary climate change, and just one disagrees.


What percent is that jem? I think it's your 0.03% LOL

 

[futurecurrents]

Back to the OP. The reason the paper was rejected was because it was shit. That's why.

Just so we're clear.

 

[FightTheFuture]

Positive results are published while negative ones are not; i.e. publication bias.

Retractions are never published, which would alert researchers, and academia that a study has been retracted due to fraud or other wrongdoing and cannot be relied upon.

The source of funding predictably affects the outcome of the research; unlimited taxpayer money.

 

[futurecurrents]

Positive results are published while negative ones are not; i.e. publication bias.

Retractions are never published, which would alert researchers, and academia that a study has been retracted due to fraud or other wrongdoing and cannot be relied upon.

The source of funding predictably affects the outcome of the research; unlimited taxpayer money.

So I see we have yet another deluded righty/libertarian in our midst.

There is no publication bias except that it be good science. This paper was not. Period.

 

[wildchild]

There is no publication bias except that it be good science. This paper was not. Period.

Godd science says when your predictions based on your 'theory' are wrong, you reject the theory.

Lets do a review.

The predictions of global warming alarmists in the 1970s have proven to be inaccurate. Did the alarmists change their 'theory'? No, They doubled down.


The predictions of global warming alarmists in the 1980s have proven to be inaccurate. Did the alarmists change their 'theory'? No, They doubled down.


The predictions of global warming alarmists in the 1990s have proven to be inaccurate. Did the alarmists change their 'theory'? No, They doubled down.


The predictions of global warming alarmists in the 2000s have proven to be inaccurate. Did the alarmists change their 'theory'? No, They doubled down.

In fact some of their predictions are 180 degrees out of wack with reality. Even in the case when they are completely wrong they try to spin it an say that it proves them correct.

An example is the drought in California. They global warming hoaxsters predicted California that California was supposed to get wetter. it actually is in a drought now and global warming hoaxsters are claiming the drought is from global warming. What? That is completely counter to your argument.

Second, the US had the coldest winter in 100 years. Global warming hoaxsters claimed it was supposed to be warmer, not colder. These idiots actually have the balls to turn around and say 'The reason it is so cold is because of global warming'. What kind of serious person makes that argument?

The consensus argument is total nonsense too. There is no consensus on what the consensus is, which tells me, there is no consensus. Even if there were, who cares? Scientific research is not done by consensus. Do yourself a favor. Go Google the scientific method and find out what it is all about. Please tell me what part of the scientific method includes consensus. In fact, the entire practice of science is to use objectivity and not consensus views. Climatology is the only branch of science where people are personally attacked if they dare question anything the elites have deemed to be correct. Why is that?

The reason is because global warming is a political movement employed by leftists to pass laws that they want BASED ON A LIE.

 

[jem]

bullshit... where is that link...
we have gone over this...

only 41 out of 11000 papers support the idea that man made co2 causes warming and most if not all of the 41 are based on failed models or speculation.

Jem.....


over nine thousand scientists over the last year agree that our fossil fuel emissions are principally responsible for contemporary climate change, and just one disagrees.


What percent is that jem? I think it's your 0.03% LOL

 

[jem]

no that just means we a warming out of a previous ice age. naturally.
using the best statistical methods there is no evidence we are warming outside natural variability.

Of course they did. Melting ice. Rising seas. Rising CO2. All of these are evidence. All the various scientists involved in this data analysis know that man has caused temps to rise.

They have moved far beyond the basic argument about AGW. It is so unanimous that it is not even a topic of debate anymore. It's like asking biologists to always still be talking about whether evolution is a fact or not.

 

[futurecurrents]

Godd science says when your predictions based on your 'theory' are wrong, you reject the theory.

Lets do a review.

The predictions of global warming alarmists in the 1970s have proven to be inaccurate. Did the alarmists change their 'theory'? No, They doubled down.


The predictions of global warming alarmists in the 1980s have proven to be inaccurate. Did the alarmists change their 'theory'? No, They doubled down.


The predictions of global warming alarmists in the 1990s have proven to be inaccurate. Did the alarmists change their 'theory'? No, They doubled down.


The predictions of global warming alarmists in the 2000s have proven to be inaccurate. Did the alarmists change their 'theory'? No, They doubled down.

In fact some of their predictions are 180 degrees out of wack with reality. Even in the case when they are completely wrong they try to spin it an say that it proves them correct.

An example is the drought in California. They global warming hoaxsters predicted California that California was supposed to get wetter. it actually is in a drought now and global warming hoaxsters are claiming the drought is from global warming. What? That is completely counter to your argument.

Second, the US had the coldest winter in 100 years. Global warming hoaxsters claimed it was supposed to be warmer, not colder. These idiots actually have the balls to turn around and say 'The reason it is so cold is because of global warming'. What kind of serious person makes that argument?

The consensus argument is total nonsense too. There is no consensus on what the consensus is, which tells me, there is no consensus. Even if there were, who cares? Scientific research is not done by consensus. Do yourself a favor. Go Google the scientific method and find out what it is all about. Please tell me what part of the scientific method includes consensus. In fact, the entire practice of science is to use objectivity and not consensus views. Climatology is the only branch of science where people are personally attacked if they dare question anything the elites have deemed to be correct. Why is that?

The reason is because global warming is a political movement employed by leftists to pass laws that they want BASED ON A LIE.

WTF are you talking about? Seriously. You are an idiot. How does one become so deluded? Steady diet of Faux News and Newscorp media?

It is NOT a political movement. It is a fact. Virtually all the world's scientists agree. It is not up for debate any more. You are simply wrong. Period.

 

[futurecurrents]

Just a reminder. There is no suppression of science going on. If a scientist came up with a credible counter theory of why temps have gone up, he or she would be instantly famous. It hasn't and won't happen. The reason is the increase of CO2 from burning fossil fuels - a ghg - has increased the greenhouse effect. It is a fact. Done. Fact. Those who argue against it are intellectually dishonest or just plain stupid or both.