Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Off-Topic > Off-Topic > International affairs/politics  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #2021  
Old 21.12.2015, 03:54
cyrus's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Emmenbruecke
Posts: 2,898
Groaned at 37 Times in 34 Posts
Thanked 3,414 Times in 1,491 Posts
cyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

I'm seriously not sure if you're for or against the idea of man made global warming as you seem to quote anything that would just piss me off while not supporting your position. Yay CO2 is off the charts, nay in a six hundred cycle global warming doesn't exist, but yay in the last couple of years even though most studies support it there's not been a rise, unless you move a couple of years either side, in which case you're an environmental nutter.

I'm bored of finding the original studies you quote out of context.

Do you support the position of the study you just quoted or do you think it's bullshit?
Reply With Quote
  #2022  
Old 21.12.2015, 04:03
cyrus's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Emmenbruecke
Posts: 2,898
Groaned at 37 Times in 34 Posts
Thanked 3,414 Times in 1,491 Posts
cyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

What kind of person expects a minute by minute tracking of co2 and global temperature? If we stopped all atmospheric pollutants today, we wouldn't see results for years to come, they don't just disappear.
Reply With Quote
  #2023  
Old 21.12.2015, 04:13
cyrus's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Emmenbruecke
Posts: 2,898
Groaned at 37 Times in 34 Posts
Thanked 3,414 Times in 1,491 Posts
cyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Happy to answer any questions
Are worldwide current temperatures within IPCC predictions from the 1990 report outside of the predicted range? Not within one selected month(you've used), or within a couple of years ignoring years either side(you've used), but generally, over the last twenty five years, since the report was published, are the temperature ranges correct or not?
Reply With Quote
  #2024  
Old 21.12.2015, 13:53
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 9,522
Groaned at 392 Times in 340 Posts
Thanked 16,752 Times in 9,065 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
What kind of person expects a minute by minute tracking of co2 and global temperature? If we stopped all atmospheric pollutants today, we wouldn't see results for years to come, they don't just disappear.
About "What kind of person expects a minute by minute tracking of co2 and global temperature?" The kind of person who believes the theory of global warming which is the more C02 in the air the higher the global temperatures rise.
If increases in C02 are not followed by higher global temperatures over 15 years then there is a basic problem with the theory.
The theory of global warming is not "as C02 increases it sometime gets warmer globally".

Anyway I rest my case, I am tired of reading phrases like "bullshit" and "bollocks" without you providing any evidence.

BTW you mentioned "lead in petrol"; did you know the lead was replaced by Benzine which is a carcinogenic with no known safety level?
Sometimes better the devil you know?
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #2025  
Old 21.12.2015, 14:49
Sbrinz's Avatar
RIP
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Murten - Morat
Posts: 11,885
Groaned at 563 Times in 354 Posts
Thanked 11,548 Times in 5,941 Posts
Sbrinz has a reputation beyond reputeSbrinz has a reputation beyond reputeSbrinz has a reputation beyond reputeSbrinz has a reputation beyond reputeSbrinz has a reputation beyond reputeSbrinz has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ask a Scientist

Looking at the perpetual question about the causes of global warming, why does the sun's energy reach us without any noticeable problem?

The energy passes through lots of carbon dioxide, but we are informed the energy cannot leave our planet because of the carbon dioxide. Does this gas exhibit a one-way action on the energy, it allows it to arrive but prevents it from leaving?

The gas must allow most of the energy to leave, as otherwise the planet would have long ago over heated until it was nearly as hot as the sun.

The dumb science I read in the "popular" press doesn't add up for me.
Reply With Quote
  #2026  
Old 21.12.2015, 15:36
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 9,522
Groaned at 392 Times in 340 Posts
Thanked 16,752 Times in 9,065 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ask a Scientist

Quote:
View Post
Looking at the perpetual question about the causes of global warming, why does the sun's energy reach us without any noticeable problem?

The energy passes through lots of carbon dioxide, but we are informed the energy cannot leave our planet because of the carbon dioxide. Does this gas exhibit a one-way action on the energy, it allows it to arrive but prevents it from leaving?

The gas must allow most of the energy to leave, as otherwise the planet would have long ago over heated until it was nearly as hot as the sun.

The dumb science I read in the "popular" press doesn't add up for me.
In simple terms, the energy radiated back from earth has a different frequency from the energy that comes direct from the sun.


The global warming theory is that the energy direct from the sun passes through our atmosphere with relatively few losses.


The energy radiated back is partially blocked by greenhouse gases like C02, water vapour, methane etc. Depending on the concentration of the gas so the amount of blocking varies.


I do not know if anybody has proven this experimentally!


I would have thought, for example, it is relatively easy to fill a transparent tank with various amounts of C02. Then measure the energy changes above and below and to compare that result with energy changes from a similar size piece of ground covered by a similar tank but not containing C02.
Reply With Quote
  #2027  
Old 21.12.2015, 17:12
Texaner's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Zentralschweiz
Posts: 2,048
Groaned at 99 Times in 89 Posts
Thanked 2,984 Times in 1,429 Posts
Texaner has a reputation beyond reputeTexaner has a reputation beyond reputeTexaner has a reputation beyond reputeTexaner has a reputation beyond reputeTexaner has a reputation beyond reputeTexaner has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
complete bollocks
I rest my case.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank Texaner for this useful post:
  #2028  
Old 21.12.2015, 17:44
Sbrinz's Avatar
RIP
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Murten - Morat
Posts: 11,885
Groaned at 563 Times in 354 Posts
Thanked 11,548 Times in 5,941 Posts
Sbrinz has a reputation beyond reputeSbrinz has a reputation beyond reputeSbrinz has a reputation beyond reputeSbrinz has a reputation beyond reputeSbrinz has a reputation beyond reputeSbrinz has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ask a Scientist

I have never heard anyone prove it neither. Considering that it is very cold just a few kilometres above the ground, I find these small measured increases in temperature difficult to believe. I read somewhere that just one medium volcano eruption wiped out all the greenhouse gas savings for the whole year. So I am asking scientists on EF what they think.
Reply With Quote
  #2029  
Old 21.12.2015, 19:04
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Ostschweiz
Posts: 7,997
Groaned at 336 Times in 277 Posts
Thanked 10,354 Times in 5,465 Posts
Urs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ask a Scientist

The term "radiated back" is misleading as it may be understood as it being a reflection. What happens is that the radiation is absorbed which heats up the absorbing matter. Immediately or some time later or not at all, the energy may be re-emitted for instance in the form of infrared radiation (IR).

An important concept to remember here is that energy doesn't get lost, it can't disappear. It can and does change form though, for instance the energy contained in fossil fuel moves your car. So if sunlight heats something up energy is transformed from sunlight to thermal energy that perhaps will be emitted as infrared radiation later on.

In short the energy arriving from the Sun in the form of sunlight is absorbed and heats up all Earth matter (duh). The warmed matter in turn emits infrared radiation (IR), the warmer the more. This is comparable to a wood fire where a significant part of the heat you feel, if not the majority, doesn't come from the warm air around you but from the infrared radiation (IR) emitted by the flames and glowing wood/coal (that's why the skin that faces away from the fire is cold as there's no IR arriving and heating it up even if other skin parts are burned; if the skin felt hot due to the hot air the difference would be much smaller).

Now, IR waves can't pass thru solid matter so if any matter on Earth's surface emits IR it's generally directed towards the sky/space. Part of that IR is absorbed by the athmosphere (water vapor, dust, CO2, methane and what-have-you) while the remainder escapes into space, which cools Earth.

Well, the energy absorbed by the athmosphere heats it up and is again emitted as IR later on. However, this IR is not mostly directed towards the sky, instead it's emitted in all directions with no particular preference. Thus part of the energy is directed towards space while another part is directed back towards Earth's surface where it is again absorbed and emitted yet later on (rinse and repeat). While this may look like reflection it's anything but, an aspect I found very important in understanding the whole thing.

Of course the more IR(energy) emitted by Earth reaches the vacuum the less energy that initally arrived from the Sun remains to heat up Earth. Or conversely, the more that gets absorbed by the athmosphere the more it's heated up. This forms the fundamental "mechanics" underlying the greenhouse effect or climate change.

As for proof:
I don't think there can ever be proof in the scientific sense. Even if a given set of formulas and parameter values that make up the accepted model explained perfectly well what happens and made 100% accurate predictions that would not be proof in the scientific sense because accuracy and ability to predict could still be random. Granted, such would be considered extremely unlikely but that doesnt' matter for science as even 99.99999999% differs significantly from the perfect 100% required from scientific proof.

It's why for instance Einstein's Theories on Relativiy are still called "theory": They might be nothing but hot air, Einstein might have been extremely lucky, despite the fact that essentially no scientist doubts their accuracy.
Reply With Quote
  #2030  
Old 21.12.2015, 19:36
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 9,522
Groaned at 392 Times in 340 Posts
Thanked 16,752 Times in 9,065 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ask a Scientist

Quote:
View Post
The term "radiated back" is misleading as it may be understood as it being a reflection. What happens is that the radiation is absorbed which heats up the absorbing matter. Immediately or some time later or not at all, the energy may be re-emitted for instance in the form of infrared radiation (IR).

An important concept to remember here is that energy doesn't get lost, it can't disappear. It can and does change form though, for instance the energy contained in fossil fuel moves your car. So if sunlight heats something up energy is transformed from sunlight to thermal energy that perhaps will be emitted as infrared radiation later on.

In short the energy arriving from the Sun in the form of sunlight is absorbed and heats up all Earth matter (duh). The warmed matter in turn emits infrared radiation (IR), the warmer the more. This is comparable to a wood fire where a significant part of the heat you feel, if not the majority, doesn't come from the warm air around you but from the infrared radiation (IR) emitted by the flames and glowing wood/coal (that's why the skin that faces away from the fire is cold as there's no IR arriving and heating it up even if other skin parts are burned; if the skin felt hot due to the hot air the difference would be much smaller).

Now, IR waves can't pass thru solid matter so if any matter on Earth's surface emits IR it's generally directed towards the sky/space. Part of that IR is absorbed by the athmosphere (water vapor, dust, CO2, methane and what-have-you) while the remainder escapes into space, which cools Earth.

Well, the energy absorbed by the athmosphere heats it up and is again emitted as IR later on. However, this IR is not mostly directed towards the sky, instead it's emitted in all directions with no particular preference. Thus part of the energy is directed towards space while another part is directed back towards Earth's surface where it is again absorbed and emitted yet later on (rinse and repeat). While this may look like reflection it's anything but, an aspect I found very important in understanding the broad "mechanics" involved.

Of course the more IR(energy) emitted by Earth reaches the vacuum the less energy that initally arrived from the Sun remains to heat up Earth. Or conversely, the more that gets absorbed by the athmosphere the more it's heated up.

As for proof:
I don't think there can ever be proof in the scientific sense. Even if a given set of formulas and parameter values that make up the accepted model explained perfectly well what happens and made 100% accurate predictions that would not be proof in the scientific sense because accuracy and ability to predict could still be random. Granted, such would be considered extremely unlikely but that doesnt' matter for science as even 99.99999999% differs significantly from the perfect 100% required from scientific proof.

It's why for instance Einstein's Theories on Relativiy are still called "theory": They might be nothing but hot air, Einstein might have been extremely lucky, despite the fact that essentially no scientist doubts their accuracy.
About "The term "radiated back" is misleading as it may be understood as it being a reflection." Not really, if it was a reflection then the frequency of the returned radiation (energy) would not change.

About "It's why for instance Einstein's Theories on Relativity are still called "theory"" Not really a good example, there have been a lot of tests of different aspects of General Relativity and the result has always been exactly 100% as forecast by Einstein's theories, look here.

It is still called a theory because the convention in Physics is "theory" became the neutral term for a logically structured attempt to explain something.

There has never been a theory in Physics proven beyond reasonable doubt; everything is open to testing, review and potential change unlike the "Climate change proven beyond a reasonable doubt" statement.

Consequently many physicists find it hard to accept the "Climate change proven beyond a reasonable doubt" statement.
Reply With Quote
  #2031  
Old 21.12.2015, 21:39
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Ostschweiz
Posts: 7,997
Groaned at 336 Times in 277 Posts
Thanked 10,354 Times in 5,465 Posts
Urs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ask a Scientist

"Not really, if it was a reflection then the frequency of the returned radiation (energy) would not change."
How many people without a math-based scientific background can say that or draw that conclusion with certainty?

"beyond a reasonable doubt" AFAIK (I'm not a native English speaker) is a legal term, not a scientific one. Or else, what probability is assigned to that term by the scientific community?

Perhaps it's written poorly but you completely misunderstood the Relativity Theory example. Take particular note of my last half-sentence
Reply With Quote
  #2032  
Old 21.12.2015, 21:57
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 9,522
Groaned at 392 Times in 340 Posts
Thanked 16,752 Times in 9,065 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ask a Scientist

Quote:
View Post
"Not really, if it was a reflection then the frequency of the returned radiation (energy) would not change."
How many people without a math-based scientific background can say that or draw that conclusion with certainty?

"beyond a reasonable doubt" AFAIK (I'm not a native English speaker) is a legal term, not a scientific one. Or else, what probability is assigned to that term by the scientific community?

Perhaps it's written poorly but you completely misunderstood the Relativity Theory example. Take particular note of my last half-sentence

You also might have misunderstood my reply. Einstein's theories are called theories because that is the scientific convention; even if they were 100% proven they would still be named theories.


Just to throw some dust in the air; by the time sunlight reaches the ground it is mostly infrared radiation (see the picture attached).
So the more C02 in the air then the less sun (warming) energy reaches the ground. Consequently less energy is re-radiated as infra red because there is less energy around to be re-radiated so there is some sort of balancing effect.
Attached Thumbnails
global-warming-what-s-behind-solar_spectrum_en.svg.png  
Reply With Quote
  #2033  
Old 22.12.2015, 00:35
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Ostschweiz
Posts: 7,997
Groaned at 336 Times in 277 Posts
Thanked 10,354 Times in 5,465 Posts
Urs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ask a Scientist

Quote:
View Post
You also might have misunderstood my reply. Einstein's theories are called theories because that is the scientific convention; even if they were 100% proven they would still be named theories.
Each and every aspect of language bar none(!!) is convention.

What used to be called a natural law (Newtons Three Laws of Motion for example) is nowadays called a theory. But that's just that, meaning of words and phrases are bound to change over time.

Within the "Naturwissenschaften" (physical sciences? biology, physics, chemistry, etc) there's no such thing as (definitive positive) proof. One may be able to disprove a theory (usually the least difficult thing to do) or demonstrate that a concept works in practice, or you may be able to show ex-post that a given prediction by theory XY is indeed correct. But one can not provide scientific proof positive for any theory within the Naturwissenschaften. That's simply impossible.

Quote:
View Post
Just to throw some dust in the air; by the time sunlight reaches the ground it is mostly infrared radiation (see the picture attached).
So the more C02 in the air then the less sun (warming) energy reaches the ground. Consequently less energy is re-radiated as infra red because there is less energy around to be re-radiated so there is some sort of balancing effect.
Apparently you define "mostly" as "width in a chart with linear x-axis that doesn't even start at zero" when intellectual honesty and fairness would have the author consider the huge relative changes and scale the x-axis accordingly.

And of course there's no such thing as "spectrum at/around sea level" as absorption, which determines the resulting spectrum for a given input spectrum, depends on atmospheric conditions including clouds, rain, smog, etc, and of most of all day-/nighttime. That's why scientists rely on the spectrum far outside the atmosphere.

Anyway, that's got nothing at all to do with total amount of energy transported by the waves within a particular spectrum range, which is the main factor influencing energy absorbed (and perhaps remaining) within the atmosphere. Amount of energy is inversely correlated to wave length, and of course you need to take into acount the commonness(?) of rays with a given (range of) wavelength.

Oh, and lest I forget:
To what extent was the radiations energy absorbed by the atmosphere (say, 200 years ago) and by what amount does that change by a CO2 increase of 10, 20, 30, 50% ?
Reply With Quote
  #2034  
Old 08.01.2016, 21:02
Texaner's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Zentralschweiz
Posts: 2,048
Groaned at 99 Times in 89 Posts
Thanked 2,984 Times in 1,429 Posts
Texaner has a reputation beyond reputeTexaner has a reputation beyond reputeTexaner has a reputation beyond reputeTexaner has a reputation beyond reputeTexaner has a reputation beyond reputeTexaner has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Yep, it's real...
Attached Thumbnails
global-warming-what-s-behind-12509492_1111638045555678_2097356786997993166_n.jpg  
Reply With Quote
  #2035  
Old 09.01.2016, 00:31
FrankZappa's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: France, near Geneva
Posts: 850
Groaned at 8 Times in 7 Posts
Thanked 2,666 Times in 697 Posts
FrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

So, Gore's an idiot and hypocrite. You already knew that . Doesn't stop the sea level rising tho'.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...siege-of-miami
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank FrankZappa for this useful post:
  #2036  
Old 09.01.2016, 12:55
Texaner's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Zentralschweiz
Posts: 2,048
Groaned at 99 Times in 89 Posts
Thanked 2,984 Times in 1,429 Posts
Texaner has a reputation beyond reputeTexaner has a reputation beyond reputeTexaner has a reputation beyond reputeTexaner has a reputation beyond reputeTexaner has a reputation beyond reputeTexaner has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Forbes: Alarmists Are In Way Over Their Heads On Rising Ocean Claims
featuring Dr. Fred Singer, expert in remote sensing measurements, founding director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, vice chair of the U.S. National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere, deputy assistant administrator for policy at the EPA, reviewer for several of the IPCC reports, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Physical Society, and the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics, professor emeritus at the University of Virginia, director of the Science & Environment Policy Project which has produced a series of scientific Non-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NICPP) report studies which often take issue with IPCC conclusions. NICPP’s new publication “Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science” is available at no cost on-line.
__________________
"Live every day as if it were going to be your last; for one day you're sure to be right." — Harry Morant
Reply With Quote
  #2037  
Old 09.01.2016, 14:57
FrankZappa's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: France, near Geneva
Posts: 850
Groaned at 8 Times in 7 Posts
Thanked 2,666 Times in 697 Posts
FrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Ah, Fred Singer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer - one of the key "Merchants of Doubt" - described in a great book and now a film, in which dear old Fred (still going strong at 90) features.

Although he changed his mind and threatened to sue: http://www.theguardian.com/environme...-of-doubt-film. Something that he often does to try and shut up his numerous critics.

Before climate denial his main claim to fame was denying that passive smoking was bad for the health. Are you with Fred on this subjet too, Texaner?

AFAIK his last peer-reviewed, i.e. legitimate, scientific paper dates from the eighties..
__________________
Whatever works
Reply With Quote
  #2038  
Old 09.01.2016, 20:48
Texaner's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Zentralschweiz
Posts: 2,048
Groaned at 99 Times in 89 Posts
Thanked 2,984 Times in 1,429 Posts
Texaner has a reputation beyond reputeTexaner has a reputation beyond reputeTexaner has a reputation beyond reputeTexaner has a reputation beyond reputeTexaner has a reputation beyond reputeTexaner has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Ah, Fred Singer...
His list of credentials tops anything I've seen in this thread, including your own.

(Can't produce viable predictions or counter-arguments, so it's just more ad hominem then…?)

Quote:
View Post
...his main claim to fame was denying that passive smoking was bad for the health. Are you with Fred on this subjet too, Texaner?...
Wrong man to ask. I grew up where grilling all manner of meats and smoking the likes of briskets and pork shoulders was routine. Folks were exposed to "passive smoke" on a regular basis, but to the best of my knowledge, Texas doesn't have a significantly higher rate of lung cancer than any other place. I personally dislike cigarette smoke (no comparison to oak, pecan, mesquite, or even pipe tobacco…), but remain unconvinced from personal observation and experience that ANY "passive smoke" has a significant effect on health in general. But I dunno what Fred has said/written, so can't be certain whether I'm 100% "with Fred" or not.

Quote:
View Post
...his last peer-reviewed, i.e. legitimate, scientific paper dates from the eighties..
The legitimacy of AUTHENTIC "peer review" has EVERYTHING to do with WHO is allowed to qualify as a "peer." When proponents of opposing viewpoints and genuine critical analysis are sytematically rendered "non-peers," you have a system in which gatekeepers manipulate the so-called "peer review" process to achieve a prejudiced outcome — which is an ideological or political process, NOT authentic peer review, hence NOT authentic science.

If you're comfortable with that kind of system, your definition of "peer review" is little more than a pretense that true science requires only validation from like-minded (i.e., narrow-minded) "peers". In which case, count me out.
__________________
"Live every day as if it were going to be your last; for one day you're sure to be right." — Harry Morant

Last edited by Texaner; 09.01.2016 at 21:09.
Reply With Quote
  #2039  
Old 09.01.2016, 21:23
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 9,522
Groaned at 392 Times in 340 Posts
Thanked 16,752 Times in 9,065 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
So, Gore's an idiot and hypocrite. You already knew that . Doesn't stop the sea level rising tho'.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...siege-of-miami
If you care to look at the highly accurate US Government sponsored Satellite sea level measurements (attached) then we are looking at around 24 - 30 cm (say 10 inches) increases per century.
Nobody seems to have a good theory as to why the Satellite sea level measurements are significantly lower than the Tide Gauges measurements and much lower than the alarmist predictions.
Attached Thumbnails
global-warming-what-s-behind-sealevel.png  
Reply With Quote
  #2040  
Old 09.01.2016, 21:38
baboon's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rheintal
Posts: 3,947
Groaned at 146 Times in 129 Posts
Thanked 6,800 Times in 3,140 Posts
baboon has a reputation beyond reputebaboon has a reputation beyond reputebaboon has a reputation beyond reputebaboon has a reputation beyond reputebaboon has a reputation beyond reputebaboon has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
...but remain unconvinced from personal observation and experience that ANY "passive smoke" has a significant effect on health in general.
This tells me all I need to know about your attitude to science
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
climate change, climategate, co2, global warming




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 09:37.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0