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

Oh brother.

 

Well we are not out of the old ice age yet

 

Are you sure about that? An ice age would still leave us good climate closer to the equator. Warming is more likely to bring on a mass extinction event.

 

Its prolly that crazy flaming ball of fusion in the center of our solar system....

Just a guess though.... but I hear its pretty hot....

 

Well it wasn't global either so.......

- - - Updated - - -

So the sun only shone on some of the world.... that's an interesting theory that I look forward to you expanding on

 

Prolly Whale farts....

 

Nonsense.

Greater cold means less food production and more starvation.

Warming means increased food production.

 

The climate of North Africa would disagree with you

 

psst... Its on the equator... Its kinda hot on the equator....

It might have something to do with the sun.... Just a guess though...

 

Since we can't create a planet where we haven't existed since the industrial age, how can it be proven that we caused any changes? All the science leads to one conclusion. The earths temp was X during this date and now its Y. Since man has been around, man must have caused the Z% change. Its so brilliant, I don't need a degree=) It can NOT be proven how much of an effect we've had. It can only be GUESSED that we did it. It makes sense, but it can't be proven, much like many theories. It makes sense that there are other planets with aliens on them that may or may not look like us, but at the present moment, it can't be proven, unless an alien actually shows up and says "Hi, I'm from that star over there...". I want to believe they're out there.

Its all based on faith, much like any religion and those that believe in it strongly enough are fanatical. These same scientists were saying back in the 80s that FL would be in the ocean right now. Hey, I'm still here. What happened? If all those scientists can claim with 100% certainty what the EXACT temps around the globe will be in 10 yrs and they're right, then I'll believe them. And no using multiple models that allow you to be right no matter what isn't fair. Tha'ts the trick how scientists protect themselves. If they're wrong, they have to commit suicide on national TV. Lets see how many put their lives on the line. I'm guessing not a single one would do it.

Look at Hurricane models. Their paths can't even be predicted with any real accuracy. They have to use multiple models that cover almost any direction, which allows them always to be sort of right, even when they're wrong. If they can't even predict hurricane, why should we believe they can predict climate change? If all these scientists were so brilliant they should easily be able to predict the exact city a hurricane will hit, well before it even starts really moving....since they're know everything right?

 

And at that time, verification of proposed scientific theories was not available... the testing not obtainable. Also, the number of peer scientists were few. Are you a Godster?

 

Geography is not really your strong suite is it?

 

Medieval warming WAS global – new science contradicts IPCC

 

Well the ancient Greeks noticed that during Luna eclipses the Earth shadow was curved. Also approach ships coming over the horizon would show their masts then there hulls, this indicated they were watching something moving over a slope. Even today if you stand on a headland and look at the ocean you can notice a slight curve visible.

 

North Africa is a desert too.... Its usually kinda hot in a desert....

 

No all that article suggests is Antarctica experienced warming, so far the jury is out on Australia Africa and the North Atlantic while we definitely know Europe and South America did experience warming

 

Isn't it ironic you have a thread today that speaks of their double talk.

 

Excellent, however the point is, during the ice age the area was lush well watered country

 

No it doesn't.

 

I had no idea people were driving cars and such during the ice age.....

That must be why earth got all hot and stuff, back then...

- - - Updated - - -

People were driving cars and such on Antarctica too? Those bastards !!!

Didnt they know it was gonna get hot and such if they drove their cars down there?

 

The sample is in no way a valid representation of scientists as a whole. As a sample, it is totally biased (non-random) and statistically insignificant (13,950 articles on a particular search engine is not a large sample size when you consider the entire body of scientific work that has been left out). There are potentially millions of other scientific articles and texts that could be relevant to "climate change" which this sample neglects to include. For instance, the author could have used "physics" or "chemistry" as his search criteria. Does he not think "physics" and "chemistry" peer-reviewed articles might have some passing relevance to "climate change"? This is nothing more than classic confirmation bias!

That's a massive bone of contention. The difference between 1x10^-9 Celsius and 1 Celsius is quite significant. I mean, it's pretty easy to conclude that human CO2 emissions have some impact on "climate change", but that tells us almost nothing useful. Virtually anything could be said to have a "impact" on the "climate" in some way shape or form.

I don't think I've ever heard anyone deny "climate change". Sounds like a strawman to me!

Their research grants and prestige are minor considerations, I'm sure.

What mess? Last time I checked, the Earth's climate was relatively stable. And assuming there was a mess, no one has really settled what role, if any, man has to play in it. There are dozens of top scientists who dispute the conventional wisdom of global warming. You think you know better than them?

 

I think 13950 articles means, George Soros has alotta money...

 

What makes you think "verification" is part of science? You do not verify, you only fail to reject.

 

We need to shut down our system of capitalism immediately!