Out of 13,950 only 23 article peer reviewed articles dispute Man Made Climate Change

NOTHING in this ENTIRE THREAD answers for THIS:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. "Kevin and I will keep
them out somehow– even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

Phil Jones to Michael Mann, Climategate emails, July 8th 2004.



“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out” of IPCC reports, writes Jonathan Overpeck, coordinating lead author for the IPCC’s most recent climate assessment.

“I gave up on [Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor] Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause,” wrote Mann in another newly released email. .

“I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose" ” skeptical scientist Steve McIntyre, Mann writes in another newly released email.


These new emails add weight to Climategate 1.0 emails revealing efforts to politicize the scientific debate. For example, Tom Wigley, a scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, authored a Climategate 1.0 email asserting that his fellow "Climategate scientists “must get rid of” the editor for a peer-reviewed science journal because he published some papers contradicting assertions of a global warming crisis. .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


NOTHING even comes close.

 

Then. And this is now, and you fool NO ONE with your pretense. YOu cannot cite a SYLLABLE from the OP link that changes the EMBARASSING TRUTH about the blatant Warmist corruption of the peer review process, to serve their POLITICAL agenda.

All you're doing now is trying to change the subject/distract from the actual point/ twisting on the rope.

It;s amusing, as always. Now, HURRY UP , and post some more bullcrap, pretending that there is something in the OP link disproves the astounding corruption of the peer review process, that you, of course, will be UTTERLY INCAPABLE OF PRODUCING.


Laughably idiotic, and childish...

 

Science is guesswork and conjecture. Any honest scientist would admit to that.

But in every generation, we are told that certain things are SCIENTIFIC FACT, and then in the next generation, scientists tell us that the previous generation of scientists had it wrong, but NOW WE'RE RIGHT.

I am old enough to remember previous "scares" that the scientists pulled on us: Nuclear Winter, Global Cooling, I remember, but I'm sure there were countless "scares" before that. And its all about generating fear and hysteria, which fuels the money machine to give research grants to scientists to "solve" the imaginary problem.

I'm too old to fall for another scam.

 

There are, indeed, some SCIENTIFIC FACTS; AGW is not one of them, however. It is only COMPLETELY UNPROVEN HYPOTHESIS.

 

I am not sure the people of Hiroshima or Nagasaki would agree with that

 

I think you mean to say Religion.

 

The scientists had no idea whether the atomic bomb would work until they actually tested it. The whole thing could have been a failure.

 

The best to the truth you can ever have in science is a theory. Nothing is ever really proven, not even in mathematics.

For example, it is impossible to prove the theory that 1 = 1.

And yet, all other mathematics is built on top of that.

So all of mathematics rests on top of an unproven theory, which is that 1 = 1.

And now we know Newton wasn't totally right, was he?

So now we believe in Einstein.

But someday another scientist will come along with something better, and we will no longer believe in Einstein.

 

Curry is one of the few I would listen to. She has all the right enemies and used to be a luke warmmonger.

 

Well there was a hell of a lot of correct guesses got them to that point. It might have been a lot easier if they had used theories, first principles and experiments to build the bomb

 

Which is why Mann/Jones and the Warmists are trying to ostracize her....

 

We do not know that humans are responsible for global warming, as that requires proving linear causality, which is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to establish for something on the scale as global warming. We do, however, know that human activities are exacerbating natural forcing. In turn, global temperature anomalies are dangerously high, leading to detrimental effects upon the planet. This establishes a complex framework proving non-linear causality.

 

Horsecrap. We know no such thing. Everything you claim we "know" is nothing more than unproven hypothesis.

However, we DO KNOW that the entire peer review process, at least as far as "climate change" goes, is INDISPUTABLY,and SEVERELY CORRUPTED.

 

Then point me to the experiment where the null hypothesis = "global climate is a natural event" is rejected.

That, my friend, is how science is done. It's not done by a show of hands. It's not done by counting peer reviewed articles.

You must reject the above hypothesis in a statistically significant manner.

You got nuthin.

 

Planetary climate change is a natural phenomenon. It is, however, affected by anthropogenic forcing.

 

Then you need to prove it.

You cannot.

 

Well according to the thread title there are 13950 'proofs' of man made global warming, how about you pick a couple of those, and refute them?

 

This is classic ignorance writ large. You haven't the slightest idea what proving a hypothesis entails, do you? Of course you don't. You wouldn't have written such bilge if you did.

 

Well if you are so certain of your position you should have little trouble destroying my bilgish argument should you.

 

I did.

 

What was the post number so I can review your point

 

Which part of climate change? Ocean acidification? Rising global temperatures? Rising sea levels? Coral bleaching? Deforestation?


I think there is a vast misconception that scientists study "climate change" as a whole. This is not so. There are many, many aspects to climate change and all are studied individually.

Your understanding of "null hypothesis" seems to be just wikipediaing what it means. A null hypothesis has to be very specific. "Global climate is a natural event" wouldn't make it past a 7th grade science fair.

 

Tell me a way to stop global warming that doesn't involve a complete dismantling of the American economy, and I'll listen.