Topic: Global Warming Skeptics More Factually Informed on Climate, Study Reveals (Read 1751 times)

From the prior post.


What do you notice about all 3 major classes of climate change agitators? They're all getting rich spreading lies about utter nonsense.

Science is not something you believe in. It's not a faith. It is a tool for objectively evaluating and studying our natural world. For information to be scientific it must conform to the scientific method. There is no "wiggle room" for interpretation on that point.

This assertion is true excepting where harmonic oscillation is a fundamental aspect of the system to be studied, as may be seen pointedly with titttles.  In such cases, the extraordinary presence of wiggle room is inextricably bound to the gazookas themselves, according to well established Heisenburg Principal.  The zonkers rule, and eliminating the wiggle room destroys the intrinsic top heavy, loaded scientific paradigm.

Look, just because these fun puppies have a balcony all their own, just because the hanger has brightly shining headlights of those naughty pillows, who would we be to deny the scientific method?  Study of twins has long been a mainstay of the scientific method, as any pair of kahunas will tell you.

And these are my hometown Louisiana-born, Cajun face-tious tittles:

There is no actual science that supports man-caused "global warming" or "climate change".

There is no actual science that definitively shows a warmer climate is a bad thing, but plenty of readily observable instances that show warmer = better for MOST life on this planet.

CO2 is not a pollutant, and elevated levels of CO2 do not pose any threat to humans or other life. In fact, more CO2 results in more robust plant life, which is by far makes up the majority of life on this planet.

The truth about climate change is simple:

- Pseudo-scientists get grants from government and institutions to create (read: fabricate) "studies" that appear to support a narrative, yet never according to the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

- Politicians love the idea of taxing emissions as it is akin to taxing to air we breath. Most of the collusion that drives climate change is done within the circle of UN members who are looking for ways to extract hundreds of millions of dollars from the USA, the EU and other wealthy countries under the pretense of "environmental sustainability".

- The enviro-fascists that want everyone driving priuses, advocate for shoddy tech like solar or wind in place of fuels (fuels which are quite abundant) get plenty of money in the form of donations as well as grants.

What do you notice about all 3 major classes of climate change agitators? They're all getting rich spreading lies about utter nonsense.

Science is not something you believe in. It's not a faith. It is a tool for objectively evaluating and studying our natural world. For information to be scientific it must conform to the scientific method. There is no "wiggle room" for interpretation on that point.

Global warming is like religion, except you don't get a carrot, only the stick

They should do a study on SJW's vs. Anti-SJW's. I have a feeling that it would be similar.

#1 these are tittles:




#2 He is studying the factual knowledge of humans, not climate change, so his TITLE is perfectly appropriate.

YEah those savages! How dare they expect becoming slightly more developped!

The article would be more convincing if his area was climate science. It's not. His area is Psychology.
Tittles are not worth anything if you are outside your field.
Its like a dentist talking about volcano activity. He got a tittle, but its worthless when it comes to volcanoes.

The new politically correct wording that crops up more and more is "climate change" (and no "global warming"). It covers both eventualities... 

Carrying on from the posts I made in the past refuting AGW:

You're the only one who has posted anything worth responding to, so thanks for having a coherent and well thought-out point and not derping out like everyone else. My only point here is that OPs source is intentionally misleading in that it attempts to "debunk" global warming theory by pointing out that ice in one part of the world has increased over a very finite period of time. First, that selectively ignores larger data sets which render the thesis of ice growth false, and second looking at so few data points can't be described as a study of climate, but of weather. Weather is highly variable, and climate is the weather patterns over very long periods of time. Weather changes one day to the next with high degrees of variability year-to-year, while climate changes over decades or hundreds of years. As you suggested, taking a limited look at a complex system and drawing conclusions based on very limited data points is going to lead to garbage conclusions. Rejecting OPs conclusion here has no implication for accepting the validity of global warming, it's just pointing out that the conclusion doesn't prove what the OP's source claims.

man made global warming is bullshit and if it wasn't bullshit there'd still be nothing we could do about it because third world savages keep making more of themselves and expecting to have cars and electricity

man those are the same that say ANTIWAXERS are terrorist, the same that say : OBAMA IS THE SAVIOR, the same that say : destroy these united states to replace them with the United Nation all togheter, the same that  : are flashed continuously on Wall street until their pensions are bleed out, the same that : follow every trend that there is if their handlers lead them tere, the same that : have no free will, the same that are : too lazy to research anything by themselves, the same that : are too weak to even be internally able to confront their cognitive dissonance, the same that : would prostitute their wife/daughters if they were asked too, the same that believed : ARBEIT MACHT FREI

did I say enough about them? In short NM (ie no mercy).

I don't think this is accurate.  I have seen numerous cases where skeptics discuss the overall ice situation, and attempt to generate an overall assessment and draw conclusions from that.  Yes we can point to discussions of narrower focus such as just the arctic or just the antarctic, and yes a general conclusion drawn from narrow data is likely wrong.

But the exact same statement can be made with the bolded word changed to warmer.

It's worth noting that these are intrinsicly chaotic systems, so data points do not translate well into conclusions with knowing the extent of chaos in the systems and how to draw conclusions from chaotic systems.  Linear thinking is apt to create wrong conclusions.

Posted this on sept 1st, 2014.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8619814

They're playing games with wording. For example, clicking through to their sources, they're very deliberate to point out that antarctic sea extent is increasing, which is true. They use this single data point to prove the world is not warming, but it's not proof of that at all. At the same time antarctic sea ice is extending, arctic sea ice is shrinking at a more rapid clip, resulting in overall less ice coverage as the world warms. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/02/11/antarctic-sea-ice-gains-do-not-cancel-out-arctic-sea-ice-losses-nasa-finds/ Of course, they don't mention arctic ice at all, because it disproves their point.

The article laughably points out that "it takes critical thinking skills to question global warming theories" but then tries to pull sleight of hand like this, where only critical thinking skills reveal their attempt at deceit.

More...http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/20158-global-warming-skeptics-know-more-climate-science-study-shows