How did global warming existing become a democrat/ republican divide?

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Man doesn't control hurricane intensity. Co2 level in the ocean changes the temperature of the ocean which has effects on our climate.

But since you live in CA, I'm sure you'll see the effects soon enough given how fast the ice is melting.

Does co2 raise temperature or does temperature raise co2 levels?

 

[MarcoW]

Does co2 raise temperature or does temperature raise co2 levels?

If you don't understand the science, maybe do some research on it first before you try and engage the topic in conversation.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

If you don't understand the science, maybe do some research on it first before you try and engage the topic in conversation.

Oh, i didnt realize we had to be climate scientists to discuss this. Why didn't you just answer the question instead of being a douche?

 

[MarcoW]

Oh, i didnt realize we had to be climate scientists to discuss this. Why didn't you just answer the question instead of being a douche?

because honestly I have never met so many clueless people as in the war room and posting in here is incredibly tiring.
I'm not sure why it is my responsibility to explain things to people who will argue my scientific evidence with links to joe rogan's youtube channel.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

because honestly I have never met so many clueless people as in the war room and posting in here is incredibly tiring.
I'm not sure why it is my responsibility to explain things to people who will argue my scientific evidence with links to joe rogan's youtube channel.

So you give up before you start, but act like I'm the one being stifling to the discussion? Seems like a clever way to dodge somebody

 

[MarcoW]

So you give up before you start, but act like I'm the one being stifling to the discussion? Seems like a clever way to dodge somebody

I have no interest in the discussion because I know the science.
You could easily find it if you looked up good sources.

Its more about being lazy than being afraid of discussion.
I'm here to encourage you to open your mind.
Not to force information down your throat and hope you learn it.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

I have no interest in the discussion because I know the science.
You could easily find it if you looked up good sources.

Its more about being lazy than being afraid of discussion.
I'm here to encourage you to open your mind.
Not to force information down your throat and hope you learn it.

I understand. The moment you got challenged, things got too tough for you. At least you admit it

 

[PhitePhan]

I have no interest in the discussion because I know the science.

You could easily find it if you looked up good sources.

Its more about being lazy than being afraid of discussion.
I'm here to encourage you to open your mind.
Not to force information down your throat and hope you learn it.

 

[PhitePhan]

who never hears about it? its in every single thread in this forum about climate science, and always has been.

Really? Can you post a thread where funding for proAGW and skeptical research is compared? I have honestly never seen it brought up.

lol hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

so....once again, what are you telling me here? fossil fuel companies have too much integrity to try? they dont have as much money as "ProAGW" funding? wowzers....who are these proagw funders? or scientists without integrity, and who are willing to fake data, simply tell the fossil fuel companies that their money and grants are no good?

Apparently I'm not explaining myself clearly. Yes, fossil fuel companies are trying to influence research. No, they aren't putting as much money into AGW research as the proAGW side. As far as I can tell, majority of funding comes from government and private/NGO sources.

I am sure these are not approved sources, but it's the best I could find. If you have anything disputing this I am happy to see it.

"In total, over the last 20 years, by the end of fiscal year 2009, the US government will have poured in $32 billion for climate research—and another $36 billion for development of climate-related technologies. These are actual dollars, obtained from government reports, and not adjusted for inflation. It does not include funding from other governments. The real total can only grow."

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/massive-climate-funding-exposed/

"Two environmental activist groups – Greenpeace and The Nature Conservancy – raise more than $1 billion cumulatively per year."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamest...m-dwarf-warming-denier-research/#e1b87f9545fe

Do you think that fossil fuel companies are putting 1.5 - 2.5 billion a year into antiAGW research or propaganda? Do you have any sources to support such a position?

and when this happens, guess how theyre caught. its almost always their own system; the peer review system. its beautiful. ambition is set against ambition. your own career is furthered by pointing out trash that other scientists publish, or just that their research was wrong, or unreplicable.

Actually, the system DOES NOT promote replication. From the survey I linked earlier:

"A minority of respondents reported ever having tried to publish a replication study. When work does not reproduce, researchers often assume there is a perfectly valid (and probably boring) reason. What's more, incentives to publish positive replications are low and journals can be reluctant to publish negative findings. In fact, several respondents who had published a failed replication said that editors and reviewers demanded that they play down comparisons with the original study. Nevertheless, 24% said that they had been able to publish a successful replication and 13% had published a failed replication."

by whom? purely objective and unpoliticized sources?

The problem is that once valid sources suddenly become invalid once they go against the grain.

For example, Judith Curry worked with the IPCC and noted her experience in part, "I was actually a reviewer for the IPCC Third Assessment Report... So it's not so much as finding things that were wrong, but rather ignorance that was unrecognized and confidence that was overstated." In retrospect, she laughs, "if people expert in other areas were in the same boat, then that makes me wonder."

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101101/full/news.2010.577.html

To be honest, there is really no shortage of scientists who have spoken out regarding the IPCC and/or AGW issues of concern.

really?

well one side at least has the peer review system and scientific method on its side, despite the flaws that admittedly exist. what does the other side have? armchair shit talk, quote mining fallacies, and data cherrypicking? its great for page hits and ad revenue i suppose.

What is this other side you refer to? I have posted a former IPCC scientist who has published over 100 studies.... there are very accomplished scientists who don't "shit talk" or "quote mine." What is funny, is that you are displaying major bias, first by apparently wholesale dismissing skeptical science (I assume any research funded by fossil fuels is unacceptable?), and second by characterizing any dissent (even that which you admit you are ignorant of) in derogatory terms.

Yes, peer review is better than nothing. Good enough to base far reaching public policy on, not yet.

who has suggested such a thing? certainly not my intention. but really, point to a person who publishes empirical data, that is finding climate science to be BS. find me one. if youre not publishing empirical data....guess what youre doing? cherrypicking and BS'ing.

LOL! You just shit all over dissenting opinion without any knowledge of it, do you not see the irony? Nonetheless, here you go, a list of skeptical scientists and their publications.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/peerreviewedskeptics.php?s=156

idk. if science can be bought, idk who'd have a bigger stake in this game, or a bigger ability to pay than the fossil fuel industry. who has more buying power

Lets talk about this point after you accept/reject the figures I posted above.

muddying the waters just like the right wing pundits do (granted, some right wing folks acknowledge the science and are proposing right wing solutions, which i think REALLY need to be heard. brave souls). "its really complex, so idk how anyone could claim to understand climate science. im not a scientist, but from my armchair this shit looks unknowable."

Wow. So stating the obvious (i.e. climate change is a complex topic) is muddying the water? Do you consider this subject to be simple? Do you understand what controls are, or double blind designs, or placebo? These are all tools that researchers can use to get closer to valid research outcomes in other fields. These tools don't exits (for the most part) in climate research.

 

[Throttlehead]

Being global warming hysteria is an Al Gore/leftist conspiracy to get more tax dollars and over regulate pretty much everything.

Climate change is where it's at.

NO, just had to dumb it down for the Inhofe type people of the world.

 

[Throttlehead]

http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/02/e...-more-electricity-than-average-u-s-household/

Last September alone, Gore devoured 30,993 kWh of electricity. That’s enough to power 34 average American homes for a month. Over the last 12 months, Gore used more electricity just heating his outdoor swimming pool than six typical homes use in a year.

And you have spewed more hate and bullshit than 66 real christians. Whats your point?

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/02/e...-more-electricity-than-average-u-s-household/

Last September alone, Gore devoured 30,993 kWh of electricity. That’s enough to power 34 average American homes for a month. Over the last 12 months, Gore used more electricity just heating his outdoor swimming pool than six typical homes use in a year.

That's not 34x more that the average house keeping in mind his house is much larger than average , he also pays 500 a month to get his electricity from clean sources and has solar panels and geo thermal , he also buys carbon offsets to be carbon neutral.

He is no way hypocritical as he doesn't ask anyone to radically change their lifestyle and focuses on larger structural changes mainly from industry and government.

Feel free to disagree with him but he is a good man working hard on what he views as the greatest threat to the planet

I for one am always skeptical when people attack the messenger rather than the message

 

[ripskater]

Whats your point?

He wanted a source for that information. So I posted it.

 

[ripskater]

That's not 34x more that the average house keeping in mind his house is much larger than average

Maybe Gore should get a smaller house and then he'd have a smaller carbon footprint and could better help in saving the environment?

 

[BARNUM]

It's hard to take a flat earther who doesn't think the earth orbits the sun seriously on this issue

......impossible actually

Not so if you read everything you get your hands on.
Have you watched the documentary, The Principile?
What about scientists who believe in Geocentrism?
Have you listened to Eric P. Dollard's (Tesla 2.0) opinion on what the sun actually is?
It's fascinating to me that most the population do not question anything. They think we've got all the answers.
Edit: Open Your Mind