If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Science Recorder)   The bad news: A runaway greenhouse effect is possible on Earth. The good news: Humans won't be responsible   (sciencerecorder.com) divider line 53
    More: Interesting, runaway greenhouse effect, Earth, thermal radiations, greenhouse effect, Nature Geoscience, doomsday scenarios, University of Victoria, equilibrium  
•       •       •

1974 clicks; posted to Geek » on 31 Jul 2013 at 10:44 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



53 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-01 01:11:58 PM

unchellmatt: THE GREAT NAME: NAME became a sceptic when he noticed that climate alarmists both in climatology institutions and on the net, just keep throwing weak argument after weak argument at it, since they do not have any really solid argument that would really settle things.

Let me see if I understand you correctly: 13,950 peer reviewed climate related studies done since 1991, 25 or so showing that climate change may not be happening / may not be related to humanity.


Check the methodology. The figure has no merit whatsoever. You actually think they read all 13,950 studies? Most of them only claim that humans emit some CO2 and that the greenhouse effect is real. But NAME agrees with those statements. More here: http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/04/13950-meaningless-search-res u lts.html . Basically, this supposed meta-study is just a friday afternoon fiddle with a search tool designed to produce a certain result for people who will buy into it uncritically like you. Very weak argument.

A scientist who, in fact, denied climate change, decided that rather than just nay-say, he would actually read the papers and verify their associates methods,  had a change of heart, even though his own study was financed by the Koch brothers (due in large part to his being, well, an actual scientist).

There have been changes of heart in both directions. Maybe he just figured there was more $$$ to be made on the eco bandwagon. Weak.

And to nip a potential argument in the bud regarding peer review, there is a misconception that scientists just read their peers papers and say "Ayup! This article says the best cheese comes from boll weevils. Looks good to me! Yuk yuk yuk!" This couldn't be farther from the truth. Scientists are positively GIDDY to prove other scientists wrong, even more so if it's a friend or colleague.

On peer reveiw in general: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/ . On peer reveiw in cliamtology: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/climate-scientists-subver t ed-peer-review . I will also say that peer reveiw is not actually a fundamental part of the scientific method, and has more to do with journals maintaining their reputation. And in climatology, where virtually every practitioner has a vested interest in supporting catastrophic AGW predictions, it is really just a rubber-stamp process.

Btw I notice your rhetorical tricks: "nip ... in the bud" and "common misconception". You use these to distract the reader from the fact that all you have done is make an assertion without support. Weak.

Now, climatologists, it can very easily be said, can not say definitively what will happen beyond rising sea levels, however nearly all will agree that an immense influx of methane into the atmosphere certainly won't help our situation (though it's not nearly as much as many had expected, which is good). This has been a common misconception ever since that whole non-scandal where portions from "leaked" emails were cherry picked to say "LOOK! See?! Even THEY admit it's all fake!"

In this paragraph, you haven't actually even made an assertion in favour of catastrophic AGW. It's just more rhetorical games and sort-of hints. Maybe you think enough of this sort of stuff will substitute for making a good solid case. But it will not. Really weak.

So the upshot is you can deny that climate change is happening, that it is influenced largely by humanity, and that shiats gonna get real around there here parts. You can call them "weak" arguments, even though they are, in fact, exceptionally good.

So why can't you show me the rally good ones?

People "deny" that the Earth is round, that we landed on the moon, etc.

I don't deny either of those things. I can't account for other people - it's big world with lots of room for crackpots, I guess.

However it can not be refuted. ...

Sorry, FARK's comment quoting algorithm cut you off with ellipses before you could get to anything convincing.
 
2013-08-01 01:31:01 PM

unchellmatt: - Link to an article about peer reviewed papers from 1991 to 2011


I'll just pick up on this one. NAME's optinion would fall into the endorse (2) subcategory, defined as:

(2) Explicit endorsement without quantificationExplicitly states humans are causing global warming or refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a known fact'Emissions of a broad range of greenhouse gases of varying lifetimes contribute to global climate change'
Which they fold into their overall "endorse" category. Fascinatingly, one can be more sceptical (in the UK, it's a C) than THE GREAT NAME by falling into this category:

(3) Implicit endorsementImplies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause'...carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change'
And still find yourself in the overall endorse figure. Are you starting to see how these metastudies work? I notice you found the word "consensus" in a dictionary. Do you now say that NAME, and others more sceptical than NAME, are part of the consensus?
 
2013-08-01 01:32:12 PM
Sorry about the formatting in that last one. I'll redo if anybody wants me to.
 
Displayed 3 of 53 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report