GLOBAL COOLING? 60% MORE ICE?

[Lyons]

This proves global warming is and always was a hokes .

 

Wow, just wow.

[Vitalius]

Global warming is real. If you dont want to listen to real scientific opinion, written in scientific peer reviewed journals, then gtfo. You might as well join Jenny Mcarthy and start telling me that vaccinating your kid will cause autism. 

Wow, just wow.

This---V

 

Because peer review necessarily adds credibility...

[nicehat]

Because peer review necessarily adds credibility...

 

I dont know what you're trying to do here, but yes, yes it does. Its called the scientific method. If you dont know what that means, go wiki it, come back to me and we'll talk about it.  

[NinjaStyle013]

I don't even care about global warming all its done so far is make grouse summer days but made car companies make fwd rubbish 4 cylinder crap boxs.

[Lyons]

This---V

 

 

You have to be blind, deaf, and dumb to deny that global warming is a serious issue. Like, seriously, this is the largest single health crisis the human race has ever faced, and there are still fools out there who don't believe it. It amazes me; this is the kind of thing that frustrates me to no end, the only thing worse is that some of those people are POLITICIANS. How can anybody think that our footprint on the earth could have zero effect on it? The Earth has been around for 4.5 billion years and we've only been pumping shit into it for a couple of hundred, and the signs are already appearing. Wake up everyone, denying climate change is LITERALLY on the same level as denying the fact that smoking causes cancer. The world doesn't have room for non-progressive, non-environmentally-conscience people any more.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

 

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/fact-checking-the-global-warming-deniers-20130912

 

http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/

 

http://www.livescience.com/topics/global-warming/

 

http://climate.nasa.gov/

 

http://www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/

 

 

And might I add, calling global warming a 'hoax' is fucking idiotic.

[Vitalius]

I dont know what you're trying to do here, but yes, yes it does. Its called the scientific method. If you dont know what that means, go wiki it, come back to me and we'll talk about it.  

He said "necessarily", meaning that it can but does not always do so.

And in the basic Scientific Method, there is no mention of peer review, only of communicating your results, not receiving feedback, among other things, on said results.

Just saying: Just because it is peer reviewed does not necessarily mean it is credible. 

[nicehat]

He said "necessarily", meaning that it can but does not always do so.

And in the basic Scientific Method, there is no mention of peer review, only of communicating your results, not receiving feedback, among other things, on said results.

Just saying: Just because it is peer reviewed does not necessarily mean it is credible. 

 

Let me stop you there before you hurt yourself. Yes, scientific method includes peer review. The scientific method is how we have all decided to progress ourselves since the 4th century BCE. If you dont like it, or you want to delude yourself into thinking otherwise then thats your business. 

[berna]

Even if the all global warming thing was a hokes, I prefer that this kind of "propaganda" against pollution continues because that's a really issue, there are cities you can't breath because of the smoke, the plastic islands on the pacific, the oil we throw at the sea, because humans affect the earth's ecosystem thats no hoaks.

[Lyons]

Let me stop you there before you hurt yourself. Yes, scientific method includes peer review. The scientific method is how we have all decided to progress ourselves since the 4th century BCE. If you dont like it, or you want to delude yourself into thinking otherwise then thats your business. 

 

He's quoted bible verses to support his posts and said you can only be good if you're religious in the past, don't bother.

[Vitalius]

Let me stop you there before you hurt yourself. Yes, scientific method includes peer review. The scientific method is how we have all decided to progress ourselves since the 4th century BCE. If you dont like it, or you want to delude yourself into thinking otherwise then thats your business. 

He's quoted bible verses to support his posts and said you can only be good if you're religious in the past, don't bother.

I really did not expect such condescending tripe from this forum. 

Very well. Haters gonna hate. I guess there has to be somebody like this in every forum.

[Lyons]

I really did not expect such condescending tripe from this forum. 

Very well. Haters gonna hate. I guess there has to be somebody like this in every forum.

 

Time for a reality check.

 

And I have zero shame in advocating the truth.

[nicehat]

I really did not expect such condescending tripe from this forum. 

Very well. Haters gonna hate. I guess there has to be somebody like this in every forum.

 

Look, if you want to be taken seriously, look up how scientific articles are published. Look up how they affect how we go about using this knowledge to further our understanding of the universe around us. A small part of this process is peer review. Not by me or you, but by other experts in the field. Dont argue. Its the way it is.  

 

Read. Think. Speak. 

And yes, I am a hater. I am a hater of people like you that shroud themselves in a blanket of ignorance. Not by circumstance, but by choice. Look up the evidence, make up your mind...And if you are so inclined, speak of the topic...Not the other way around. 

[Lyons]

Look, if you want to be taken seriously, look up how scientific articles are published. Look up how they affect how we go about using this knowledge to further our understanding of the universe around us. A small part of this process is peer review. Not by me or you, but by other experts in the field. Dont argue. Its the way it is.

Read. Think. Speak.

And yes, I am a hater. I am a hater of people like you that shroud themselves in a blanket of ignorance. Not by circumstance, but by choice. Look up the evidence, make up your mind...And if you are so inclined, speak of the topic...Not the other way around.

Thank you for being among us

[techswede]

Global warming.. a hoax?.. so you mean to tell me that i've left my benz on idle constantly for nothing?

[Vitalius]

Time for a reality check.

 

And I have zero shame in advocating the truth.

 

I did not know advocating the "truth" required being a condescending ass (as in the donkey). 

Look, if you want to be taken seriously, look up how scientific articles are published. Look up how they affect how we go about using this knowledge to further our understanding of the universe around us. A small part of this process is peer review. Not by me or you, but by other experts in the field. Dont argue. Its the way it is.  

 

Read. Think. Speak. 

And yes, I am a hater. I am a hater of people like you that shroud themselves in a blanket of ignorance. Not by circumstance, but by choice. Look up the evidence, make up your mind...And if you are so inclined, speak of the topic...Not the other way around. 

"Dont argue. Its the way it is. "

"Look up the evidence, make up your mind"

Very contradictory statements^

Do you want me to be a sheep and let others think for me or do you want me to learn and come to my own conclusions based on the evidence given as is? Because I have been doing the latter for quite a while. 

And what you said has little to do with the Scientific Method. "How Scientific Articles are published" =/= "How the Scientific Method is done." It is semantics, but I find it irritating when people are calling me ignorant because they are using the terms wrong.

I just want to clarify that this conversation came from me pointing out that peer review does not automatically give a scientific article credibility. If I read a scientific article that was peer reviewed, then find out that the people who mostly reviewed it all held the same opinion as the person who wrote it prior to him writing it, then that article is not very credible in my eyes. That, versus an article that was peer reviewed by someone who is opposed to their opinions or the inferences that can be attained from said article. Which, imo, is far more credible.

I do not remember the part where I effectively said Global Warming was a hoax. It is not right in the way it is explained, but the idea that humans influence the weather by way of pollution is a sound one, and one I agree with. 

The claimed effects of that, imo, are questionable at best. Such as all the Doom and Gloom stuff, but at the same time, I am not saying such things are not going to happen. I am saying I have little reason, yet, to believe they will. 

[Mentalguy]

I did not know advocating the "truth" required being a condescending ass (as in the donkey). 

i see what you did there.

 

i loled

[Guest]

First of all it's ' hoax'

 

Second, 1 article proves global warming doesn't occur?

 

What?

[Vitalius]

i see what you did there.

 

i loled

I try.

 

First of all it's ' hoax'

 

Second, 1 article proves global warming doesn't occur?

 

What?

This^

[nicehat]

ughhh (facepalm)

 

 

Aright Vitalius, you win. I honestly dont care to be trolled anymore, I got stuff to do. Make sure you dont miss your nightly episode of Hannity 

[Vitalius]

ughhh (facepalm)

 

 

Aright Vitalius, you win. I honestly dont care to be trolled anymore, I got stuff to do. Make sure you dont miss your nightly episode of Hannity 

If I am a troll, I do it unconsciously, because as far as I can tell, I have reason for everything I say. And it is never to waste people's time.

As I said, semantics. 

[someone]

TRUTH!!!:

global warming BULLSHIET

Global cooling THE SAME SHIET

earth never had has and will have a stable climate it is COMPLETELY natural

END.

[xox]

Fair enough, but the Daily Mail?!?!

 

Please please don't read that paper. It is unacceptable, even to a Tory like me

 

Nicel Farage, even the SNP opposes you

[threadysparrow]

I am going to agree with skepticalscience.com before I agree with cherry picked data, blogs, Fox News, or anyone who thinks that one year's sea ice level can completely refute years and years of data gathering.

 

There is no hoax. Anthropogenic global warming is a reality. One year's sea ice is not climate. That is weather. Look at the bigger picture and you will see all of the evidence that points to AGW.

 

13,000 peer reviewed scientific journal entries discuss global warming. Of those, 24 refute global warming. What about the rest?

[JaeDee884]

hey guys. what happened to that ice age we were getting into in the 80s?

people need to stop comparing global warming to recent events and compare it to the entire history of the earth. how much land right now historically is an ocean? most deserts are remnants of oceans and current temps are still lower than the average from history.

[Canoas]

You say "proves" here. I can't really see how much evidence for global warming OR cooling proves anything that would happen on a hundreds of thousands year scale.

 

What you fail to understand is that a hundreds of throusands year scale is completely irrelevant when a few dozen years is enough to wipe out the human race.

 

 

TRUTH!!!:

global warming BULLSHIET

Global cooling THE SAME SHIET

earth never had has and will have a stable climate it is COMPLETELY natural

END.

 

So I can put you in an oven because your body temperature is not stable?