|
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us. Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
|
2014 Warmest Year on Record? Wwweeeellll...
Posted on: January 19, 2015 - 9:28am
   Offline
2014 Warmest Year on Record? Wwweeeellll...
We're really only 38% sure. 38%. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915061/Nasa-climate-scientists-said-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html
|
|
Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2021.
|
So you're willing to excuse the problems of peer review and not the news media? Kind of hypocritical there?
Nope. It's called logic. Peer review results in more accurate data than unsolicited opinions. By a factor of billions. As a result, I take peer reviewed science with a grain of salt. And un-peer reviewed science as completely bogus.
Oh btw, just for you. Human made greenhouse gasses have now been directly observed to cause an increase in ambient temperature. So much for all your bullshit. LOL
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150225132103.htm
Journal Reference:
D. R. Feldman, W. D. Collins, P. J. Gero, M. S. Torn, E. J. Mlawer, T. R. Shippert. Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010. Nature, 2015; DOI: 10.1038/nature14240
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
How do you know that the data you have is correct? How do you know it is not based on faulty data? I have shown you plenty of cases where the peer review system failed. You are not based in logic, but emotion. You also don't apply the same level of scrutiny to peer review as you do the media. BTW...the media does have a bias, but at least they are more honest about it for the most part than the institutional people in the peer review committees. Too bad the peer reviewers and their funders are not given the same level of scrutiny by you as the media. But then I know you are a TRUE believer.
I can test it myself.
I can test it myself.
No, you've shown only that fraud can creep in to the peer review process. Which is hardly news. It's been happening for centuries. Those of us who have functional brains already knew about your claims.
Projection.
Because it isn't necessary. Peer review is a far more trustworthy process.
No they aren't. Faux news doesn't display a message saying "For entertainment purposes only" before every broadcast.
You're absolutely wrong on every count. Grats!
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
HOW? With computer models? YOU know as well as I do there are conflicting computer models. Unless you have 'GAWD LIKE POWERS'.
Yet...you still acknowledge there is a problem and you still trust the source. That is no different than drinking from contaminated water with some Ecoli. But then I must correct as you are attacking me personally. Congrats, in your claim of victory, you lose.
OH...PROVE IT! You made an assertion, you prove it. Again, that is no different than drinking from water that is contaminated with a small amount of Ecoli. The majority of the water may be clear but there is just a SMALL amount of Ecoli. You are engaging in risky behavior if you do.
Bitter because Fox disagrees with your world view still? Prove they are not telling the truth. I can show you that virtually ALL so-called news organizations have at least SOME bias. But then again, you are trying to divert from the fact that Peer Review is not the all knowing all sanctified process it is made out to be. Especially when you have large sums of grant money with strings attached to the process.
Hmm...projecting?
LOL you're so clueless. If you can't figure it out in less than a second, it becomes obvious why you depend on news media. You have neither the education nor the intelligence to understand a peer reviewed science journal.
Your lies and misrepresentations amuse me.
Only to a moron would that seem true..
Only in your little mind.
No. You can't understand a simple science experiment. I'm certainly not going to waste my time providing you with a complex one.
You're the one asserting that science journals are less trustworthy than news media, you prove it.
My world view is not relevant. Facts are relevant. Try again.
I never made it out to be perfect. I specifically stated the opposite. Your desperation is showing.
You certainly are.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
My my...the personal attacks of me are quite amusing. It appears the longer we go, the more personally attacking you become. Tell you what, because I'm a nice guy, I will let you have the last word. But you STILL fail to convince me. OH...and you might want to switch to decafinated coffee. It shows.
Your insistence that I'm attacking you personally is quite amusing. I'm simply stating facts. If it bothers you that you're a moron, I have good news! You don't have to be. Just go back to school (a real one this time).
The longer we go, the dumber you prove yourself to be. It's a simple correlation. Much like how you're ignoring facts and have focused on descriptions of your intellect. It's like you think my calling you a moron invalidates the fact that you can test climate change yourself and prove it is real. Quite amusing.
More like even you are smart enough to realise you can't win, so you're backing away hoping to retain some dignity. But it's way too late for that.
Convincing you is hardly a goal worth pursuing. The time investment necessary alone would require a return of some kind. Unless you're rich beyond compare and/or have an extensive network of contacts in industry, commerce, and politics; it would be a poor investment.
Coffee keeps me going. Decaf sucks.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
For posterity...I wrote stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OLPL5p0fMg
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
More personal attacks as usual. You go on and on about calling me names. Is that all you have? If convincing me is not a goal worth persuing, why do you keep trying? You must be concered about what I have posted or you wouldn't be so upset and attacking. The fact is that you are falling for some fallacys; appeal to authority, and appeal to consensus, plus you throw in some "PEER REVIEWED" material that you have not dared to question. I have shown examples, and can pull WAY more examples of fraud in the research process, including peer review. It is a fact and you can try to deny it all you want, but those facts will not go away.
Failure to acknowledge reality, and attempting to change the subject.
By the way, you're the one who started with the personal attacks. So not only are you a clueless idiot, you're also a hypocrite. LOLOL
I could ask that of you.
I'm not trying. I'm simply pointing out how stupid you are to any potential observer so your stupidity doesn't infect them. Believe whatever you like. But don't expect your bullshit to be left alone as if it had any validity to it. It never will be. Not here. Even if I stop destroying your posts, someone else will step in and take over. Your time here will be an endless repitition of your failure. LOLOL
Projection. So the reason you called me a nazi is that you are concerned with what I'm writing. Not a good excuse, but whatever.
Not a one. You, on the other hand....
Nope.
More blatant lies.
Lol
It doesn't matter. For every fraud you can find in the peer review process, I can find a billion frauds in the news media. Peer review > news.
You have no facts, only lies and stupidity. You can try and convince yourself otherwise, but you'll never convince anyone here.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Are you calling this a lie?
http://www.naturalnews.com/045808_global_warming_fraud_data_manipulation_NOAA.html#%23ixzz36EOG14pU NOAA caught in a lie about warmest year. They were forced to change their website.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/16/on-the-hijacking-of-the-american-meteorological-society-ams/ Member of the American Meteorological Society calls BS on global warming.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mIVZnnqm7o#t=149 Lead advocate for Global Warming/Climate Change was debunked on Australian TV by other scientists no less.
http://www.sott.net/article/276813-Peer-reviewed-paper-says-its-OK-to-manipulate-data-exaggerate-climate-claims Paper telling Global warming scientists to manipulate data.
Please cite SPECIFICALLY in ANY of these links that are NOT factual or you are just looking for a pissing contest merely using this issue as camouflage for your own personal grudge.
A lie is generally defined as intentionally claiming something that one knows to be false, so no, most of those are not lies. Only some of them are. Some of them are misinformed. Some of them are genuinely informative sources which you've misinterpreted to match your views.
It's not necessarily that simple. You could cite a real scientific scam. In that case, there is nothing wrong with the source, just with your logic.
See post #4, #14, #20, #87, #94.
And this is not including other threads. I'm still waiting.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Also, since you don't read anything I write, but appear to place substantial weight on how many websites you can paste off google to support your position, I do have a good site in mind.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
Of course, it's only one link, so you're still winning, lol.
There is an enormous amount of information here and much of it is rather dry reading. Of course, real scientific discussions on anthropogenic climate change, in contrast to blogs and the media, is generally very dry. Nobody is going to read about subtle fluctuations in the hadley circulation or mathematical calculations concerning the atmosphere radiation budget. Oh no, it's much easier for everyone to pick out sound bites and '#lines' to make a strong assertion and feel like they're saying something relevant. But, to an extent, that very fact indicates that it's legitimate science; it doesn't care how catchy it is. Just like how not catchy, apparently, my posts are, since you possess no patience and/or desire to read it. Obviously, I haven't read all of it either or even most of it. But, unlike you, I am still willing to discuss whatever questions might come up when you read it (not holding my breath). So, whenever you want to stop waving around your ironically erroneous perception of skepticism and discuss the actual science, I've made it slightly easier for you.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Those sources aren't qualified to assess the various scenarios they attempt to. Try again.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
You are dodging. Please cite which part of what they say is incorrect.
You are dodging. Please cite a SPECIFIC section, or item of what is said that is incorrect.
No you are dodging. Giving sources that are equivalent to an English teacher grading a math test is a demonstration of how much effort you are putting into denying reality. You have yet to provide a single credible source to overturn the science of climate change. You're just making a fool of yourself.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
We had the technology to keep CO2 under damaging levels almost 100 years ago. Solar technology was arround back then. Human greed of established oil, even today prevents a quicker change. It isn't a matter of can we do something, we have no choice but to try. The GOP and big oil certainly aren't going to help.
The problem with why humans don't accept climate change is because they stupidly look out the window one day when it is cold and go "its cold" therefore climate change is bullshit.
I heard one scientist use a different term "Climate volitility" and I like that better. It describes the exteme weather much better. Like the abnormal 7 feet of snow the North east had.
I don't see all life going extinct because of it, but the longer we wait and do nothing the worse it is going to get and will lead to more conflict wordwide. It certainly has the potential to knock out a lot of the world's population. But it also wouldnt surprise me if we go extinct because of our lack of action.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
CO2 is not the demon that the media portrays it to be. There is a limit to the effect carbon can have on temperatures, and that limit is not beyond human habitability.
And the solar technology of a hundred years ago was roughly equivalent to boiling an egg on a rock in a desert. It certainly could not have replaced fossil fuels in any meaningful way.
Fucking idiots on all sides in this shit.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I simply have poked holes in the sources you run to. You cannot deny the facts of those articles I have posted. At least you don't even try. All you do is try to reflect back with accuasations and diversion with no sources. It is a game with you.
A blatant lie, since none of your sources is qualified to discuss the subject or interpret the data. You are dodging. You have no evidence, just propaganda.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Well...if they are not qualified to discuss the subject, then you should be able to FACTUALLY discredit them. Just because you point a finger and accuse them is no fact. YOU are DODGING and YOU KNOW IT.
I don't have to factually discredit them, scientists already did. YOU have to factually discredit the scientists, and using discredited media articles will never accomplish that.
YOU ARE DODGING AND YOU KNOW IT! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Hmm....except that those scientists were found to be fudging data and committing FRAUD. Fraud does not have to be done by someone with a PhD. If a PhD has committed fraud, what makes them qualified to even claim they are scientists? Better yet, what makes you qualified to declare them qualified?
Oh...but while you are avoiding answering the questions, you might actually want to go back and READ the links I posted. In more than one of them, the reporter happens to have a PhD in a science field. There is one link, the forum where there are 5 editors of 5 scientific journals who have guess what....PhDs in guess what...a science field. So you can make all the excuses you want and believe your little religion but you are unable to convince me of your dogmatic stand. Oh...you ought to apologize to Brian for calling him religious. Maybe you do need to 'EVOLVE'.
You have failed to prove the vast majority of the scientific community has committed fraud.
Oh but while you avoid reality, you might want to stop reading crackpot right wing zombies and conspiracy theorists and tabloids and go back to school so you can learn science yourself. Once you graduate, if you have the brains to (which I doubt), you can use actual facts and data to reveal to the whole world that climate change is a lie. Or you'll find out it's true.
Btw, you're as religious as Brian is.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Hmmm...
When you say
Since you are accusing me of not having an education, what proof do you have? Do you have my school transcripts? Getting personal now aren't we. But since you are bringing up my qualifications, what are YOURS?
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority "> https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority (could I please get a mod to fix this link? Thank you).
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/bandwagn.html
All of them.
No it is a statement of fact directly relevant to the conversation. An ad hominem is a distraction from the topic at hand, not a statement directly relevant to the topic at hand. While you're back in school learning about science, you might want to brush up on your logic as well. You can start by reading your own link.
No, I'm not. The vast majority of the scientific community agrees climate change is real. There are papers and petitions all over the world demonstrating this. Look it up. You won't give me links proviing your bullshit so I won't give you links to reality.
Therefore they must ALL be participating in fraud if it is a lie. But as we've seen, you simply lack the brain power to add 2 plus 2.
I have your posts, which demonstrate that you know shit about English media in general, and science especially. Since both are requirements for graduation, you must never have graduated from a real school.
Infinitely better than yours, obviously.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
This comment has been moved here.
This comment has been moved here.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
O.o
Trollception.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
No longer! lol
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.