Did a google search. None of the 3 Italians are climate scientists and this is not peer reviewed. Good luck going to a dentist for a heart transplant. You ridicule all the science organisations in the world and then rely on nonsense from these 3, one who is just an engineer.|
I still don't understand how a very controversial subject like this is allowed over 700 replies, mostly by one person pushing a barrow, when other controversial posts are locked by the time they get to 20.
Reply #701. Aug 12 13, 8:19 PM
I'll check the actual data first, and also remind you the two most powerful people in the climate are the head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, who is a railway engineer, and Al Gore.|
Although I lack the ability to recognise a peer reviewed paper I will point out to everyone who also probably can't that peer review is not designed or intended to spot errors specifically, and many peer reviewed papers turn out over time to have major errors and in some cases made up entirely. A trip to the Retraction Watch website is worth a visit to see how easily things get nodded through as basically scientists innately trust each other and do not expect basic rules to be broken so are not looking for them.
I am almost definitely sure the almost totally unpublicised study by the Hebrew University earlier this year, by one of the top teams in the world collecting data from all the major sources including BEST which only recycled existing data so guaranteed to return the identical result, and said there was almost certainly no evidence of man made warming.
Why does no one ever refer to that?
Reply #702. Aug 12 13, 9:23 PM
Because it's presumably Israeli, and it would spoil the nice boycott of Israeli academia if anyone gave it credence? Oh wait - it wouldn't have anything to do with Vested Interests, would it? Mr Gore's got a lot of them! |
Reply #703. Aug 13 13, 8:12 AM
Besides casting aspersions on the actual scientists involved, it is not an original piece as I quoted "The paper corroborates prior work by Salby, Humlum et al, Frölicher et al, Cho et al, Calder et al, Francey etl, Ahlbeck, Pettersson, Segalstad". These studies have been going along parallel for some years and the overall knowledge over CO2 dwell time is so uncertain the current estimates are between a few years and a couple of hundred. In such a patchy area without long enough to measure it directly backwards rather than attempts to imagine forwards, it may well be the CO2 itself returns to earth on its own naturally, in which case however much we were to keep adding (which is only 3-4% of the total, so cannot quite work out why that would even be a problem) it will break down on its own.|
As the link only connects to the abstract it means you must have searched the names involved, although (and I would like to know this for my own usage) how anyone can find if this has been peer reviewed as well is something I am unable to work out. Here is the abstract, and as I stated originally, it is only affirming many earlier studies, which do include both climatologists and (although I have no means of knowing) most likely peer reviewed as well.
Fossil Fuel Emissions and Fossil CO2 in the Atmosphere
Luciano Lepori S, Gian Carlo Bussolino, Andrea Spanedda and Enrico Matteoli C IPCF-CNR, Pisa, Italy
The comparison of fossil fuel emissions (6.4 GtC/yr) with the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 (3.2 GtC/yr) suggests that about half of the anthropogenic CO2 has not remained in the atmosphere: it has dissolved in the ocean or has been taken up by the land. The isotope ratio C13/C12 of atmospheric CO2 has been measured over the last decades using mass spectrometry. From these data the fraction of fossil CO2 in atmospheric CO2 is straightforwardly calculated: 5.9 %(1981) and 8.5 %(2002). These results indicate that the amount of past fossil fuel and biogenic CO2 remaining in the atmosphere, though increasing with anthropogenic emissions, did not exceed in 2002 66 GtC, corresponding to a concentration of 31 ppm, that is 3 times less than the CO2 increase (88 ppm, 24 %) occurred in the last century. This low concentration (31 ppm) of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere is consistent with a lifetime of t(1/2) = 5.4 years, that is the most reliable value among other in the range 2-13 years, obtained with different measurements and methods. Contrary to the above findings on the concentration of fossil CO2 and its residence time in the atmosphere, in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change it is stated that almost 45 % of anthropogenic emissions, corresponding to 88 ppm or 24 % of the total CO2, have remained in the atmosphere with a mean lifetime of t(1/2) = 30.5 years. On these assumptions are based both the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming and the climate models.
Reply #704. Aug 13 13, 1:57 PM
Comparing Gore, Maggie Thatcher, the IPCC etc. to the people you rely on is ridiculous. They do not set themselves up as experts on the research. They rely on the professional Climate Change Scientists who use rigorous scientific peer review. You use data from non climate change scientists who are not peer reviewed. If the scientific method is not used you are relying on anyone being able to claim anything because it is not tested.|
The climate is changing because evil pixies are sprinkling firedust into the clouds. Using your logic this is given equal weight to the science. If you are so sure of your facts please submit to any of the many science authorities to get it peer reviewed. If you are right you may be up for a Nobel Prize.
Reply #705. Aug 13 13, 8:21 PM
Perhaps the reason this thread runs ad nauseam is because "The two" who, let's be serious run this tired thread are in secret cahoots with the "moderators". They also believe in the lie. Therefore "The two" have carte blanche abilities to say what they will. With of course total approval from the "moderating" cabal.|
By golly don't post anything that may be thought provoking. Your thread may be shut down.
So sit back and enjoy "The two" and their drivel. Your drivel isn't as important or politically safe.
Reply #706. Aug 14 13, 11:30 AM
I'd still like to know the answer to how you know what has or hasn't been peer reviewed, please?|
No one is forced to read or join this conversation, but sharing new information on what is behind one of the greatest political movements in history is pretty darn important to me, especially when my energy bills are going up around 10% extra every year or so as a direct result.
Reply #707. Aug 14 13, 6:04 PM
Whatever will happen will affect all of us, including the people who think it's clever to point and jeer and insult strangers. Unfortunately paying the "green" tariff isn't optional. Would that it were, and that only the people who believe in GW were required to pay it. The rest of us are a bit too grown-up to be blethering about pixie dust. |
Reply #708. Aug 14 13, 7:30 PM
Coolest summer on record here in the Midwest. The whole global warming hypothesis has been so thoroughly disproven that only someone with no grasp of even very basic scientific principles could believe it. Unfortunately, that's 99% of the population. This hot air about "peer review" is just that; peer review doesn't really matter in such a small field where virtually every "peer" has a vested interest in perpetuating this arrant nonsense.|
Reply #709. Aug 14 13, 9:22 PM
I suggested this in another post and got a private mail from the moderator about feeling insulted. They did shut down 2 long running anti climate change propaganda posts on the forums but let this one remain. I have questioned this with no reply. So this means I can get onto one of my controversial topics such as Anti US Imperialism and I will be able to make 90% of the comments that a lot of people will find controversial and that is OK even if it gets to over 700 posts. There is a double standard going on here.|
You anti's are so fringe now it is scary. The World Bank was reported today to getting involved as they fear the threat to the economy of the world by climate change. The US, last year, had the second highest costs from extreme weather events. The World Bank is now part of this commie plot to destroy the industrial world. LOL LOL LOL
Reply #710. Aug 14 13, 11:43 PM
Guggly, I won't go for it because it just goes around in circles, causes angst in a site called "Funtrivia" and also because, having looked through locked posts, it would be locked after about 20 to 30 replies. Unlike this posting which has 711 replies even though it is very controversial. Why is this subject and poster exempt from normal funtrivia protocols. I still cannot get an answer. I am not the only one on here who is mystified.|
Reply #712. Aug 15 13, 10:48 PM
Mountaingoat, do I take it that you wish to terminate any dicussion where people disagree with you and you cannot adequately defend your arguments?|
Reply #713. Aug 15 13, 11:53 PM
I noted a shift in topic subject after the Cold Midwest was cited. It went from subject: Global Warming to subject: Climate Change, the same shift in nomenclature that the Carbon Taxers have now advocated to be used in lieu of the unsupportable Warming Atmosphere argument. The fear being stoked now is wild climate/weather swings from extreme to extreme.|
When those positions are exposed as being normal climate events, the topic slowly slides back to being about Global Warming. Fear Mongers at work!
Reply #714. Aug 16 13, 12:58 AM
"they fear the threat to the economy of the world by climate change" And because it's a bank professing fear, it must all be valid? Because we really trust banks, don't we? |
Academics are frightened by the potential loss to their "research" funding when the global warming hoax is finally blown up.
Politicians are frightened of losing control when they can no longer keep the uninformed population living in fear.
Fear not, they have more up their sleeves. When we have all stopped believing in another Flood, there will be more threats. The next one will be an alien invasion. Watch this space.
By the way, Daver: yes. Anything that does not agree with any particular posters must be destroyed. Of course it's always much easier to destroy than create.
And yes to mehaul too. It's fear that makes the world go round. Where would we be without it?
Reply #715. Aug 16 13, 6:09 AM
Lesley, I'll third that those replies! You're correct as well, they lose power when we have no more to fear. They need us to be afraid, needy and ignorant and any challenge to their attempts to keep us that way makes us "right-wing loonies" or some other kind of "undesirables". In the United States and I'm sure similarly overseas, what used to be common sense is now somehow Fascism. It's astonishing how well they've succeeded in their aim to turn people's minds to quivering mush.|
Reply #716. Aug 16 13, 8:57 AM
Just a reminder that this is a thread on "fear of global warming" and not a debate about any factions of any political parties.|
Please adhere to the rules of the site and keep any political (or religious) debates off the chatboards.
Subject: Chat Board Rules
Date: Feb 17 10
On the left-hand menu of each board is a link entitled 'Posting Rules', which gives the general Chat Board rules.
In addition to those, the following also apply to ALL boards:
[a] Highly controversial topics, such as religion and politics, are not allowed, this includes any reference to a deity. We do encourage thoughtful discussions, but please respect others.
[b] Please do not post any legal, medical, or veterinary advice on the boards.
[c] Do not post any personal information, including your age (if under 18).
[d] Please choose the board that best fits the subject of your post. If you are unsure, contact a Moderator first. Before starting a new topic, read other threads to see if you can add to one of those. Duplicates will be deleted.
[e] Do not post anything that requires a single answer; such posts belong on AskFuntrivia.
[f] If you are looking for members to join your team, please post here: http://www.funtrivia.com/minigame/localboard.cfm?boardid=general_joinmygroup.
[g] Please do not use 'all capitals' in the title of your thread; this is reserved for Mods to bring a particular thread to your attention. No replies to these threads, please.
[h] Please do not flood the boards with replies intended to earn you the Chatterbox badge. Such replies disrupt the boards and will be deleted.They may result in posting privileges being suspended.
[i] Please do not post threads/topics asking for donations to charities.
Reply #717. Aug 16 13, 4:30 PM
As I started this thread (and the other two) I will address MG's points.|
Firstly this is not an anti-climate change thread, it was a genuine question as to what people are scared of. The fact the majority of replies were not scared wasn't expected or planned.
Secondly there should be nothing controversial about science. I present many studies, quite often peer reviewed as well, which cast incredible doubt on the normal material we hear in the media, precisely because they are very rarely reported elsewhere, otherwise there would be no need for anyone else to do so. But that is the nature of science and was and is not supposed to be controversial in itself.
Reply #718. Aug 16 13, 8:15 PM
Thanks ozfei for the rule clarification. Can you please explain how this topic is not CONTROVERSIAL. No Daver, I have no problem with debate but I do see a problem with one controversial topic being allowed to run and run while others get shut down when people such as myself start to fight back and give the scientific and logical responses. Next we will have a 1000 response posts on anti-vaccination loonies or how the US spreads democracy (LMAO).|
Reply #719. Aug 17 13, 7:48 PM
Oh, and Lesley, the World Bank would have TRILLIONS from oil and gas money and maybe tens of MILLIONS from solar, wind energy etc.. The financial conspiracy argument does not hold water. The intellect required to make this connection is not that high, but what can you expect from a country where a third of the population believe that humans roamed with dinosoars.|
Reply #720. Aug 17 13, 8:23 PM
This thread has been closed to new replies.
Legal / Conditions of Use