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

Far from it. You Carbonista look to pin this global climate on man's action. There's a way to prove that and you'll never get there. The bar is high and your objection to meeting the standard is no doubt all I would expect.

You need to reject the hypothesis as stated. You cannot. That makes you cross. Too freeeekin bad. That's the game.

It's quite specific. You hate it, that's all.

Either the current climate is the product of natural events, inside the bounds of normal expectations, or it isn't. How else to phrase it?

.

 

That's not specific at all. "Natural" is not a cause. Nor is "global climate" a specific subject.

 

Gibberish born of desperation. No surprise.

 

It's not my fault you don't have a remedial understanding of basic science. Go do some actual research on what a null hypothesis is and get back to us.

Here are some pointers. You will need a specific subject. If you are trying to conclude that climate change is natural, you would have to do it piece by piece. Scientists didn't come to a consensus based on one big broad study of the global environment. There are many different factors to climate change such as rising global land temperatures, rising global sea temperatures, ocean acidification, coral bleaching, deforestation, rising sea levels,erosion, deceasing arctic ice, ect. You would need a specific one for your theoretical null hypothesis.

"Natural" is not a causation. A factor from the natural world would be. Solar cycles, wind and ocean currents, or zooxanthellae just jumping out of corals would be causations.

So work on it.

 

You mean "experiments" plural

Sure which ones do you want?? Which natural event in particular are you wanting to disprove as the cause of global warming

I mean I am game for this but I am rather betting you will back out of this challenge when you realise you are about to lose.............................badly

And LB is right - you do not really understand science because when I talk of experiments I am not talking of one large experiment but hundreds of experiments done over decades on numerous aspects of climate change

 

read the Garnaut report and the Stern Review - both of those have been written by economists

 

Prove it

Prove that they were so influential that they altered behaviour and allegiance in tens of thousands of scientists world wide

 

You apparently do not understand how meaningless this study is since he missed hundreds of papers through a combination of incompetence and cherry picking.

There were 13950 results that has the key words "global warming" and "global climate change". The search was not limited to results for "anthropogenic global warming" (man-made global warming).

1. The full search results are not available online so it cannot be validated.
2. It has not been confirmed that all the results were peer-reviewed.
3. It has not been determined what context the phrases appeared in the results.

 

And you can read peer-reviewed papers refuting the Stern Review on my list.

 

In my opinion, given two possibilities I tend toward the one with Data to support it. Unfortunately the one in this case is naturally unpopular due to the likely result of it being valid.

It has become painfully obvious our planet is unbalanced and heading toward a new climate pattern...it is also unlikely we can prevent it.

Preparation and what minor changes we can enact are pretty much all we can do at this point.


I personally do not care much who understands this and who does not.....it will effect us all equally, and in fact already is to an extent.

Those who ignore it do so at their own, and their childrens peril.

 

{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{snort!!}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

Mine tinks it hilarious dat you are accusing someone of copying what that blog has done

I have been through that "list" before - a large proportion of papers are from "Energy and Environment" the journal you have when you aren't having a journal and another very large number actually support the hypothesis in general - they just disagree on the fine points

 

So tell us, what percentage of what you call a mess has man played a part? Are you insinuating that there should never be any dissension from people who don't trust government, and their usual idiotic remedies? The fact remains Truman, you have no idea that if humans were wiped off this planet, that there would be any change in climate changing at all. Just remember the libturd liberal loon solution to all things, "you have to pass it before we can read what is actually in it".

 

Hmmmm eight papers three of which are from "Energy and Environment" that is not many for a paper as seminal as the Stern Review

Your very first "paper" is actually a critique of two other critique papers another is a response to the critique of the other papers.............

Nice fail.........................

 

The level that man has affected the environment is open to debate, and that's a very salient point that needs to be considered as history has proven man tends to overreact to situations. If something appears good everyone jumps on the bandwagon, if something appears bad then you get just as bad of an over correction. I'm not an expert on climate science, but I do feel man has definitely had a roll in how the climate is changing.

And as far as having no idea if humans were wiped of the planet would there be any change in the climate, I disagree with that. We can see from fossil records how certain species over the course of time have changed our planet just through being alive, ironically it was sometimes the smallest living creatures, like bacteria that have had profound affects in causing mass die offs etc... It's ineffective argument to make, as the only way to definitively prove it is to die, and I don't think any of us are nihilistic enough to want to take that drastic of a step. Mankind has reshaped the world more than any other species than we know of, from damming up rivers, building massive cities, changing verdant forests into farm land just to name a few. We have radically changed the ecosystem everywhere we go and to make a statement that if man were to disappear tomorrow that there would be no changes to the climate is disingenuous at best.

That's a problem Man has always had, we take for granted what we have today and give little or no thought to what will happen as a result tomorrow. The use of fossil fuels is a perfect example. Many of the early designs for the internal combustion engine were based on using alcohol as a fuel, but petroleum was found to be easy to drill for, cheap because no one wanted the stuff and had a good energy return for the little needed to get it out of the ground. But was there ever any real studies on what this could do over an extended period? Not really, we just jumped in with both feet and never thought to think about the consequences.

And this debate is hardly the type that is behind closed doors. The initial article I quoted is a study based on internet searches of peer reviewed data, so this is information anyone can find with a bit of effort. There are far more articles that are not part of the public arena that we often don't see or read about as they are published in specific journals and never make it to the internet.

 

This guy Robert Tracinski, isn't a writer of scientific literature, nor is he qualified to determine the validity of peer review.

He's a right wing commentator and tea party activist.

This is not the word of one dissident scientist against the establishment, as conservatives are presenting it. It is the word of a conservaitive political activist pushing a political agenda that requires denying the scientific consensus.

 

You're the one doing the emotion demogogary.

As the top poster noted, global warming is the overwhelming scientific consensus, and has been for well over a decade now.

No matter how many times American right wingers cite their favorite screeds from oil company shills, that fact remains.

The idea that global warming is actually an international conspiracy of eggheads to get grant money is also so ridiculous that it merits a laugh out loud.

Yet this very idea was advanced by pulp novelist Michael Crichton in a speech before the American Enterprise Instittue.

Which is fitting when you think about it.

When the scientific consensus world wide is that the continued use of your products harms the planet, the fossil fuel industry uses one of the political institutions it controls to promote their line by using a science fiction writer to rididule science.

 

Yep, you are right, so what is your answer to the human infestation of this planet? The estimates for human growth is 9 billion by 2050, don't you think that will have a negative affect on our planet? The truth is, humans are a cancer to planet earth, and through catastrophic change, we will be wiped out, earth will regenerate, and the process starts all over again. Governments will scramble and spend trillions upon trillions to mitigate this, but the reality is it will have the same affect as rearranging the deck chairs on the TItanic

 

I think if people will start to actually discuss these topics instead of automatically disregarding them as fake that we could stand a chance to at least moderate our affect on the planet as a whole. But it takes real communication, and a willingness to accept other points of view if enough information is presented to support the claims.

I don't believe everything that those in favor of massive regulation favor, but I know if we do nothing that the worst will come to pass so that is the reason for starting a thread like this. It doesn't change many people's way of thinking as we can see. On a forum like this many people who comment are pretty set in their ways. I hope by starting this conversation that the lurkers out there will read our commentary and make a decision for themselves on what feels right. Then maybe we can start to get to some common ground and make some decisions.

All I see at this point though, is that the polarization of our politics not only in America but in the world as a whole are holding us back from issues that don't affect just one nation, but our race as a whole and we allow this to prevent changes that need to take place.

Sadly, you're probably correct and I have a bad feeling that mankind is likely to allow prejudice, distrust and past grievances to drive this bus off the road and doom us all. Might be better for the world in the long run, but I wish our children wouldn't have to live through it.

 

It is you without clue. YOU are trying to prove a cause other than natural change, historic variation, the normal order. YOU wish to pin it on man. Step one is to reject Ho where the climate is assumed to be within the bounds of natural variation.

I wish to prove NOTHING. I have the upper hand here until your combination of politics and science bugger the world with fraudulent assumptions.

 

I actually think this is a decent point: the fact that people with degrees think something doesn't make it true. Truth by association = bad.

Find out the truth or fallacy of climate change on your own.

 

Einstein's science was confirmed by experimentation. AGW is allegedly "confirmed" by a collection of government-paid stooges.

 

So would you say that damming a river has no affect on the local environment? Or that massive clear cutting of forest doesn't make a change? Or that taking farm land and building a city of millions doesn't change anything?

These are just the large scale obvious changes that man has implemented and we can see, feel or touch easily. Everybody with eyes can see these changes.

The ones that prove harder to detail are those that are not readily evident. Like for instance Asbestos, we used that material for just about anything that needed heat resistance, until it was discovered that asbestos caused cancer. Do you think that the companies who developed asbestos didn't argue vehemently that Asbestos wasn't at fault? I see the same thing here, the industries that stand to loose to competing technologies that are not as detrimental to our environment are fighting tooth and nail to disprove any type of climate change is taking place for multiple reasons, ranging from loss of market to legal liability.

And we have those who would blindly accept the corporate stance just so they won't have to change either.

But just as Asbestos was found to cause cancer, we will find out the hard way that climate change is something we have affected, maybe not the total cause but Mankind is at least a contributing factor.

 

Alright, if you want confirmation, then prove to me that each and every one of these so called stooges are government paid. If you demand proof, then provide proof of your own argument.

I would also say that considering the scope of what you want proven, it can only be done as a simulation in a computer. Which many of Einstein's finds still are, theories that are often not proven without a shadow of a doubt, or that the interpretation is still being resolved to this day.

 

What a bunch of feel good nonsense.

You're considering changing THE ENTIRE GLOBAL ECONOMY FOR THE WORSE.

You don't even know what causation you need to correct.

You don't know what any single dollar you pee away will do to change climate.

You know only what you feel.

Shame on you.

 

What are you talking about? The very first paper is a critique of the stern review,

The Stern Review: A Dual Critique (PDF)
(World Economics, Volume 7, Number 4, pp. 165-232, October–December 2006)
- Robert M. Carter, C. R. de Freitas, Indur M. Goklany, David Holland, Richard S. Lindzen, Ian Byatt, Ian Castles, Indur M. Goklany, David Henderson, Nigel Lawson, Ross McKitrick, Julian Morris, Alan Peacock, Colin Robinson, Robert Skidelsky

The paper after that (not counted) and is preceded by an asterix * is a rebuttal to a comment on this paper.

There are actually seven papers.

Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal that has been cited by the IPCC multiple times and is indexed in the Thompson Reuters (ISI) Social Sciences Citation Index.

Yes, nice fail by you indeed.