Dismiss Notice
Thanks for being a member of our community. Please donate toward site expenses if you can.

New Report Just Dropped A Bomb On Key Climate Change Data

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Professor Peabody, Jul 11, 2017.

Page 2 of 17
  1. Denizen

    Denizen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2013
    Messages:
    10,424
    Likes Received:
    5,355
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Peabody is long on professing and short on facts. Authors of scientific papers have to demonstrate that 'peers' they nominate are appropriately qualified instead of being blatant, lame, tame, paid, stooges.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2017
    Denizen, Jul 11, 2017
    #26
    Derideo_Te and Bowerbird like this.
  2. Professor Peabody

    Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    94,819
    Likes Received:
    15,788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Proof please......
     
    Professor Peabody, Jul 11, 2017
    #27
  3. Professor Peabody

    Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    94,819
    Likes Received:
    15,788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You need to link to proof!
     
    Professor Peabody, Jul 11, 2017
    #28
  4. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    93,106
    Likes Received:
    74,414
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Looked at four so far not one climatologist in sight
     
    Bowerbird, Jul 11, 2017
    #29
    Derideo_Te and toddwv like this.
  5. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    93,106
    Likes Received:
    74,414
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Look for it yourself

    I googled the names. All academics are easy to google, most have wiki pages
     
    Bowerbird, Jul 11, 2017
    #30
    toddwv likes this.
  6. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    93,106
    Likes Received:
    74,414
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Bowerbird, Jul 11, 2017
    #31
    toddwv likes this.
  7. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    93,106
    Likes Received:
    74,414
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Bowerbird, Jul 11, 2017
    #32
    toddwv likes this.
  8. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    93,106
    Likes Received:
    74,414
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    https://www.desmogblog.com/joseph-d-aleo

    This is fake news
     
    Bowerbird, Jul 11, 2017
    #33
    Derideo_Te and toddwv like this.
  9. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No being peer reviewed doesn't make it true. Instead of trying to refute peer reviewed research published in journals by assume a paper lacking these credentials is true, why don't you use it to give us real arguments to refute all the scientific data.
     
    Distraff, Jul 11, 2017
    #34
    Bowerbird likes this.
  10. toddwv

    toddwv Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    Messages:
    30,444
    Likes Received:
    6,429
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well. It says one of them is an economist. The main is a "meteorologist".

    Another one: "We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."

    All of them are known climate deniers. Most of them are attached to the CATO Institute or the Heartland Institute.

    This report isn't science. It's just a garbage opinion statement by a bunch of hacks with what look like self-made credentials.
     
    toddwv, Jul 12, 2017
    #35
    Derideo_Te and Bowerbird like this.
  11. toddwv

    toddwv Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    Messages:
    30,444
    Likes Received:
    6,429
    Trophy Points:
    113
    toddwv, Jul 12, 2017
    #36
    Derideo_Te and Bowerbird like this.
  12. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    93,106
    Likes Received:
    74,414
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Yeah. And the credentials amounted to not very much

    People have no real idea about peer review

    It is not a bunch of people saying "Gee nice idea". It is more like the teacher from hell marking your assignment and then passing it around so everyone can have a go.
     
    Bowerbird, Jul 12, 2017
    #37
    toddwv and Derideo_Te like this.
  13. Mrlucky

    Mrlucky Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2017
    Messages:
    4,964
    Likes Received:
    3,679
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Does Al Gore know about this?

    Al Gore develops $90 trillion scheme to rebuild every city to get rid of cars
    By ElmerB on January 28, 2015 in Al Gore, socialism
    By Mark Whittington, examiner.com

    The World Economic Forum occurring in Davos, Switzerland, held to discuss what its participants claim are vexing problems, has already been ridiculed for the large number of private planes that it has taken to bring the elites to the conference. But that little bit of hypocrisy is nothing compared to what CityMetric reported on Thursday. Former Vice President Al Gore and former Mexican President Felipe Calderon have proposed that global warming should be dealt with by banning all automobiles in urban areas. The scheme would mean spending $90 trillion to redesign all cities to make mass transit and walking viable.

    Qui Shi Huang, who built the Great Wall of China, and the pharaohs, who built the pyramids, were pikers compared to Gore and Calderon. Their scheme to get rid of cars by rebuilding every city on Earth would be the public works project to end all public works projects. The proposal goes beyond any economic stimulus project ever imagined by any government.

    The theory is that urban sprawl has caused people to be dependent on automobiles to get around. Most automobiles use internal combustion engines to move. Internal combustion engines exude greenhouse gasses. Greenhouse gasses are inexorably raising the temperature of the Earth that, if not stopped, will cause life to become unsustainable. For this reason, we have to spend $90 trillion to gather everybody in every city into huge centralized habitats connected by rail or other transportation systems,

    One suspects that giving everyone a Tesla electric car and a solar power system to recharge its batteries would accomplish the same goal. Why Gore and Calderon did not think of that is not something that has been revealed. But remember, Al Gore came within a few hundred votes in Florida of becoming president of the United States.

    http://www.globalclimatescam.com/al...eme-to-rebuild-every-city-to-get-rid-of-cars/
     
    Mrlucky, Jul 12, 2017
    #38
  14. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,736
    Likes Received:
    46,529
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sounds like scientific collusion to me.
     
    vman12, Jul 12, 2017
    #39
  15. Professor Peabody

    Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    94,819
    Likes Received:
    15,788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then refute the data specifically.
     
    Professor Peabody, Jul 12, 2017
    #40
  16. Professor Peabody

    Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    94,819
    Likes Received:
    15,788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes you do as I know of no such thing about them. Add links too.
     
    Professor Peabody, Jul 12, 2017
    #41
    Ddyad likes this.
  17. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    93,106
    Likes Received:
    74,414
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Does anyone think mass transit is a BAD idea for places like Beijing? But this story is light on actual facts and long on finger pointing and Blaine Seems that you cannot indulge in a little fanciful thinking unless your name is Donald Trump
     
    Bowerbird, Jul 12, 2017
    #42
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  18. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    93,106
    Likes Received:
    74,414
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Why bother - that is what the BEST project already did

    http://berkeleyearth.org/
     
    Bowerbird, Jul 12, 2017
    #43
    DivineComedy, Derideo_Te and Surfer Joe like this.
  19. Surfer Joe

    Surfer Joe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Messages:
    24,491
    Likes Received:
    15,710
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LMAO...What findings? It's fake news. Massaged statistics and myopic focus to deny an inconvenient truth.
    Luckily, the rest of the world is no longer pandering to the climate change deniers' lies and hysterics, but carry on with your little circle jerk here if it comforts you.
    The rest of us will continue to work for the benefit of the planet.
     
    Surfer Joe, Jul 12, 2017
    #44
    Derideo_Te and Bowerbird like this.
  20. Surfer Joe

    Surfer Joe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Messages:
    24,491
    Likes Received:
    15,710
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Surfer Joe, Jul 12, 2017
    #45
    Derideo_Te and Bowerbird like this.
  21. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    93,106
    Likes Received:
    74,414
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    A couple of mates saying "yeah dats gud!!" Is NOT peer review

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review

    Have you any evidence that the so called reviewers were "experts in the same field" or that the paper was examined with intent to publish in an accepted journal
     
    Bowerbird, Jul 12, 2017
    #46
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  22. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    93,106
    Likes Received:
    74,414
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    What ruse? You lot put that pile of steaming up as an equivalent to both the IPCC findings and the Berkely Earth findings so you have to validate your claims that is has equivalent authority and validity
     
    Bowerbird, Jul 12, 2017
    #47
    Derideo_Te and Surfer Joe like this.
  23. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But he sounds like a denier!

     
    Derideo_Te, Jul 12, 2017
    #48
    Surfer Joe likes this.
  24. JDliberal

    JDliberal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2016
    Messages:
    976
    Likes Received:
    277
    Trophy Points:
    63
    First, it is not in any journal that is reputable. Second, the article lacks a reference page. Third, it is sponsored by a private organization. Fourth, you hardly ever know every reviewer you have for scientific articles, unless your field of study is tiny. Any reputable journal has anonymous reviewers. Finally, the article looks like it was written by an undergraduate. They could have put some tiny effort to at least make the article look like it was written by a scientist.
    OP fake article:
    https://www.heartland.org/publicati...the-validity-of-epas-co2-endangerment-finding

    Real article from PNAS:
    http://m.pnas.org/content/102/23/8245.full

    It is quite easy to see the differences.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2017
    JDliberal, Jul 12, 2017
    #49
    Surfer Joe likes this.
  25. Jimmy79

    Jimmy79 Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2014
    Messages:
    9,366
    Likes Received:
    5,074
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The only scientists that are qualified to write and peer review global warming studies are those that are paid to study global warming and it's effects.


    Can someone tell me how that's not the opposite side of the exact same coin as those that paid by oil companies?
     
    Jimmy79, Jul 12, 2017
    #50
    IMMensaMind, drluggit, Ddyad and 1 other person like this.
Page 2 of 17

Share This Page