You might have seen this Climate Change pseudoscience somewhere...

You have likely seen some of these papers in our forum. Graphs copied from an anti-science blog called NoTricksZone.

Originally, NTZ posted a story about 58 papers that supposedly "debunk" Global Warming. You may have seen some of these graphs, as one of our very own conspiracy theorists loves to show them around. Snopes took a deep look at these papers. Some of the papers weren't even about Global Warming, but about weather conditions in very specific regions. Snopes reached out to the authors of these papers. Not a single one of the authors they contacted. Graphs were altered, or taken out of context, and parts were dishonestly removed, added and modified. Soon after, NTZ updated the list to almost 400. When Snopes attempted to contact the author, he flat out publicly admitted that he doesn't CARE about doing due diligence or verifying his nonsense.

However, this has not kept some posters who are adict to pseudoscience from polluting this forum with them.

Don't be fooled. Graphs are altered, manipulated, edited.... The links are embedded, so in case you have problems finding them, here again are the most relevant ones, showing examples of how those graphs and studies were manipulated.
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluat...human-caused-global-warming-james-delingpole/
https://skepticalscience.com/80_graphs_climate_myths.html

 

I'm flattered, really. And I'm happy to let readers draw their own conclusions.

 

Don’t worry we have

But this is not even new - there was a blog whose name now escapes me, who did the same thing. In fact the author enrolled on this site to defend his rubbish and was eaten alive by those of us who had critiqued his crap

But the more interesting question is - who would willing believe something so easily debunked……,

 

Only a strawman was "debunked" in order to dodge discussion of science.

 

You weren’t there

We showed the same issues as the OP identifies - they were almost random papers picked if they had any mention in the paper anywhere of temperature rises outside the Holocene or any paper that did not agree with a false narrative of a steady state rise of temps within the Holocene

 

I'm talking about this OP.

 

“We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.”
― Plato

 

Oh? You assume the OP refers to you?

You mean you HOPE readers draw their own conclusion. Because the only objective conclusion is unequivocal. It's simply that the source you use for what you call "science", has been shown to manipulate, alter and falsify charts and data.

 

I don't need pseudo science. My own experience casts considerable doubt on the ability to determine how much is man made and the ability to forecast it.

 

Now you know where I will point you to when you use one of these pieces of fabricated pseudoscience that you (and only you) call "science".

 

So you're saying you don't need pseudo-science webpages because you are more than capable to make up your own.

 

I look at the so called evidence and it is very lacking.

 

I know... what are a few thousand peer-reviewed studies published over the course of the last 120 years over a lifetime of listening to Rush and Hannity and Tucker and... the rest of the denialist media, right?

No way science can ever top that!

 

I don't watch Rush Hannity or Tucker or the rest of the denialist media.

Depending on which time period, we look at, the warming amounted to either one degree in fifty years or one degree in a hundred years. That is pretty hard to get excited about. I can get that much change from the north side of Kansas City to the south side of Kansas City on just about any day of the year. They keep claiming that 97% of the scientists agree. However, they cannot produce a single study where they actually asked the scientists. Every time we get a heat wave in some location or even a cold wave in some location, they blame it on man made climate change. When you look at the total number of weather stations, the number of observations per day and the different parameters, there are around a million a day which can result in a new record of some sort. It is not surprising there are new records every day.

I will call it "nature" for lack of a better name. Nature is wonderfully adaptable. Produce more CO2 and it is uses more CO2 for growth.

Then I look at our so called advocates. They tell us we should drive electric cars with little to no preparation. In fact, electric cars these days consume more carbon fuel than internal combustion cars. The reason is simple. Laws of thermodynamics limit the effiency of engines. On top of that there are additional transmission efficiencies and efficiencies in the cars themselves which lower their overall efficiency.

I believe man has an influence and it is most likely warming. I have considerable doubt about the ability of the scientists to determine what part of weather change is man made and their ability to forecast it.

 

Well... you certainly don't read science. So I guess you DO make up your own pseudoscience, like you said before.

 

How did you come to that absurd conclusion? Other than just making it up.

 

Or when some men, a small minority, are afraid of actual science.

 

Actual science should be challenged.

 

Still has been debunked no matter your claim

I mean it is so easy to debunk the bunkum it is almost embarrassing

 

Or don’t really understand it because they believe an obscure blog on the internet over actual science

 

Because you have yet to demonstrate……

 

Just a reminder, Koch has a paid troll army...

 

More like tens of thousands

When you take into account all the disciplines this affects it is tens of thousands world wide. Each chapter of each IPCC report will run to hundreds of papers

This is just one small chapter from one report and there are approximately 50 citations per page for 11 pages. JUST ONE SMALL CHAPTER FROM ONE REPORT

 

And to "prove" this you cite well-known advocacy sites. To each his own.

 

You'll have difficulty pointing because you avoid the peer-reviewed research that is presented.