Not if the author has actual data. Authors who go against a known field of study that don't actually have good data risk their careers, as they should.
Look at it this way, there are a lot of non peer reviewed place to publish your data, yes no one has published in data that shows a different thing besides the increase in CO2* to cause the energy to be trapped.
Where is this scientist who had there career ruined from being against global warming that also has good data to support another cause?
Taxes out how we pay for civilization. If we want wide scale action, then taxes will be part of it, if for nothing else then as an incentive.
Taxes are not good or bad, no matter what people say. They are how we pay for things. We can discuss if the things we pay for have merit..sadly most people aren't really qualified to have the discussion.
Man Made Clmiate Change AKA 'global warming'* is man made. That's what it mean in context. An increased in energy trapped in the lower atmosphere do you have more CO2 in the air.
Are their 'pre-human'** cycles? yes. This is an impact outside those bounds.
*AS a refresher the warming in global warming means an increase in energy. Personally I hate that name becasue it fails to show the whole picture. Hotter summers in some areas, wetter winters in others.
I don't believe you at all. I've seen to many unpopular studies get published. Maybe your data is crap? or your methodology? or the science you do? no no, it's a giant conspiracy to get YOU.
Yes, but then more and more data gets gathered and the scientific consensus shifts to support the data, exactly what HAS happened regarding climate change. We are on the 'a lot of data has been gathered and it support Man Cause Climate change' end of the science, not the 'here is some small data so most don't believe it yet side.
At this point, the scientist who don't believe in man made climate change are in the same camp of the people who don't think the earth goes around the sun.
Sure, maybe there is some other cause, but it would take a completely unknown aspect of physics to explain the data we have gathered. And to toss way volumes and volumes of data because there might be something we don't know is stupid.
funny, the first side is what sciences says we should do, among other things. also, those sides aren't actual balances in numbers, just given false balance in some media.
there are pre human cycles. we know about those. Now there is a rise on top of the pre human cycles. We know that about 60% of the CO2 humans put into the air do not go back into the carbon cycles because it's more then can be absorbed. We know CO2 traps heat. We know the normal expect cycle and the current temperature difference. So we have a pretty good idea of what our effects are.
there was no situation like that. The people who didn't get published had no facts to support them, and then whined that there was some sort of conspiracy against them.
You know what? they also won't run critiques saying gravity isn't real either.
" I'm saying that our ability to judge the severity and impact is hindered by this stupid 'silence the opposition' attitude." And you are wrong.
No. It makes predictions, and those prediction are happening. Increase in energy absorbed and held by the earth mean more extreme* summers and more extreme* Summers.
scary bit from the paper: In the late 19th century, prior to the industrial revolution, the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere was about 290 ppm. This had risen to 314 ppm in 1960, and to just over 320 ppm in 1970. and now ~400ppm.
But still, these idiots argue with no facts against mountains of facts and somehow thing their opinion should carry weight.
See, you are the problem, well you and your ilk. The Michael Mann "controversy" was media manufactured.
A) it was internal email, not scientific studies. B) The data they didn't include wan't includes becasue it wasn't relevant, not did it change in finding. It was just unneded data for that point. C) There was no Cherry picking D) The data left out SUPPORTS mankind having an impact on the global climate, so if hew as cherry picking, he would have left it in. E) Other groups doing there own studies have shown similar effects. F) It was one study; which is nothing compared to then preponderance of evidence. You would need more studies. G) You notice as soon as the actual fact came out the story was dropped like a hot potato? Why would Fox 'News' drop it if there was actually wrong doing?
Micheal Man was the product of a witch hunt being preformed by AG Cuccinelli; who is a man who will use the courts to decides Science issues when the actual science doesn't fit his belief. He's an all around pretty horrible human; at least based on the thing he did as AG.
It would be like me an you having a discussion about DBNULL values is a database and then someone coming out and saying we where making things up ebcasue we didn't include the fact that the datetime type in MS doesn't allow for nulls. Non-sequitor.
But you keep making your baseless ad hom attack ebcasue you echo chamber doesn't have any other way to explain the phenomena.
Slashdot Mirror
Global warming means above the normal cycles. They did not say normal earth cycles are cause by man.
Context is your friend
tests. they teach tests.
Post as something other then Ac if you want answers
Not if the author has actual data. Authors who go against a known field of study that don't actually have good data risk their careers, as they should.
Look at it this way, there are a lot of non peer reviewed place to publish your data, yes no one has published in data that shows a different thing besides the increase in CO2* to cause the energy to be trapped.
Where is this scientist who had there career ruined from being against global warming that also has good data to support another cause?
*and other things.
he said 'longest time'. There was a long period of time before 2500 years ago then there has been since.
Taxes out how we pay for civilization.
If we want wide scale action, then taxes will be part of it, if for nothing else then as an incentive.
Taxes are not good or bad, no matter what people say. They are how we pay for things. We can discuss if the things we pay for have merit..sadly most people aren't really qualified to have the discussion.
Man Made Clmiate Change AKA 'global warming'* is man made. That's what it mean in context. An increased in energy trapped in the lower atmosphere do you have more CO2 in the air.
Are their 'pre-human'** cycles? yes. This is an impact outside those bounds.
*AS a refresher the warming in global warming means an increase in energy. Personally I hate that name becasue it fails to show the whole picture. Hotter summers in some areas, wetter winters in others.
** I called them pre-human for brevity.
I don't believe you at all.
I've seen to many unpopular studies get published. Maybe your data is crap? or your methodology? or the science you do? no no, it's a giant conspiracy to get YOU.
Yes, but then more and more data gets gathered and the scientific consensus shifts to support the data, exactly what HAS happened regarding climate change.
We are on the 'a lot of data has been gathered and it support Man Cause Climate change' end of the science, not the 'here is some small data so most don't believe it yet side.
At this point, the scientist who don't believe in man made climate change are in the same camp of the people who don't think the earth goes around the sun.
Sure, maybe there is some other cause, but it would take a completely unknown aspect of physics to explain the data we have gathered. And to toss way volumes and volumes of data because there might be something we don't know is stupid.
.
funny, the first side is what sciences says we should do, among other things.
also, those sides aren't actual balances in numbers, just given false balance in some media.
which is why it should be ran by the government at zero cost*.
*Zero cost means that the price charged is what it take to run it, not 'free'.
At the majority of them believe in gravity.
You're point?
FOX news.
there are pre human cycles. we know about those.
Now there is a rise on top of the pre human cycles.
We know that about 60% of the CO2 humans put into the air do not go back into the carbon cycles because it's more then can be absorbed.
We know CO2 traps heat.
We know the normal expect cycle and the current temperature difference.
So we have a pretty good idea of what our effects are.
No, it didn't. You should probably get actual facts and not repeat you dumb ass echo chamber.
No one is saying that. Only people desperately grasping at straws claims that incorrect ad hom.
there was no situation like that. The people who didn't get published had no facts to support them, and then whined that there was some sort of conspiracy against them.
You know what? they also won't run critiques saying gravity isn't real either.
" I'm saying that our ability to judge the severity and impact is hindered by this stupid 'silence the opposition' attitude."
And you are wrong.
Create a lab experiment with a tank and increment CO2 levels and see if it traps the energy; oh wait, that's been done. repeatedly.
alternatively:
plant a trillion trees, drop the CO2 to 290ppm, then cut them down and watch it return to 400. Monitor the effects.
No. It makes predictions, and those prediction are happening.
Increase in energy absorbed and held by the earth mean more extreme* summers and more extreme* Summers.
The rest of you comment is nonsense.
*EXTREME!
Hey moron: Global climate change means more extreme winters and more extreme summers.
Just thought you should know.
Only if you trust their judgment in fields outside their expertise.Then you would be stupid.
scary bit from the paper:
In the late 19th century, prior to the
industrial revolution, the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere was about
290 ppm. This had risen to 314 ppm in 1960, and to just over 320 ppm in 1970.
and now ~400ppm.
But still, these idiots argue with no facts against mountains of facts and somehow thing their opinion should carry weight.
traces! that's like saying you may find traces of water in the ocean!
the way the toilet is design to make it swirl, jut like every where else.
His stupidity doesn't scare me, but the fact he can vote does.
See, you are the problem, well you and your ilk.
The Michael Mann "controversy" was media manufactured.
A) it was internal email, not scientific studies.
B) The data they didn't include wan't includes becasue it wasn't relevant, not did it change in finding. It was just unneded data for that point.
C) There was no Cherry picking
D) The data left out SUPPORTS mankind having an impact on the global climate, so if hew as cherry picking, he would have left it in.
E) Other groups doing there own studies have shown similar effects.
F) It was one study; which is nothing compared to then preponderance of evidence. You would need more studies.
G) You notice as soon as the actual fact came out the story was dropped like a hot potato? Why would Fox 'News' drop it if there was actually wrong doing?
Micheal Man was the product of a witch hunt being preformed by AG Cuccinelli; who is a man who will use the courts to decides Science issues when the actual science doesn't fit his belief. He's an all around pretty horrible human; at least based on the thing he did as AG.
It would be like me an you having a discussion about DBNULL values is a database and then someone coming out and saying we where making things up ebcasue we didn't include the fact that the datetime type in MS doesn't allow for nulls.
Non-sequitor.
But you keep making your baseless ad hom attack ebcasue you echo chamber doesn't have any other way to explain the phenomena.