Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 48   Go Down

Author Topic: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science  (Read 10975 times)

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1480
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #500 on: August 21, 2019, 10:24:13 am »

You're just a rude person.  Have a nice day.

Probably I am, but if someone shows me a reasoned and documented argument(*) I'm honest enough to consider it, even if it's contrary to my initial beliefs. I'll take that over faux civility.

(* case in point - Joe Kitchen's argument for nuclear power)
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14805
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #501 on: August 21, 2019, 10:45:26 am »

Funny thing about that Bernard's OP article. In the very first few paragraphs, the authors betray the political bias with which the article is written. They use two acronyms: CCS and CCC, Climate Change Scientists and Climate Change Contrarians, suggesting that only the former are scientists and the latter are not, poisoning young and impressionable minds, like Bernard's and Jeremy's ;)

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1480
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #502 on: August 21, 2019, 10:52:03 am »

Funny thing about that Bernard's OP article. In the very first few paragraphs, the authors betray the political bias with which the article is written. They use two acronyms: CCS and CCC, Climate Change Scientists and Climate Change Contrarians, suggesting that only the former are scientists and the latter are not, poisoning young and impressionable minds, like Bernard's and Jeremy's ;)

I'm flattered that you imagine me to be young :-)
Logged

faberryman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1031
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #503 on: August 21, 2019, 11:16:34 am »

...poisoning young and impressionable minds, like Bernard's and Jeremy's ;)
Adopting RSL's conflation of geriatric with reasoned?
« Last Edit: August 21, 2019, 02:20:14 pm by faberryman »
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12648
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #504 on: August 21, 2019, 05:55:57 pm »

Funny thing about that Bernard's OP article. In the very first few paragraphs, the authors betray the political bias with which the article is written. They use two acronyms: CCS and CCC, Climate Change Scientists and Climate Change Contrarians, suggesting that only the former are scientists and the latter are not, poisoning young and impressionable minds, like Bernard's and Jeremy's ;)

Yes. They believe that climate change is man driven. Like 97% of the scientific community. Hardly surprising.

Can you point how this bias has influenced the objectivity of their analysis of the media coverage about scientific publications about global warming?

If you can't point out any wrong doing, please explain why I should not read your comment as an ad hominem attack on the people whose view differs from yours?

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: August 21, 2019, 07:57:17 pm by BernardLanguillier »
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12648
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #505 on: August 21, 2019, 06:08:20 pm »

But the premise is simple according to global warmists.  Since CO2 is increasing as is the temperature, they leap to the conclusion that the first must be causing the second.  The entire science is based on the faith that a single variable changes the climate.  Now why can't we have such a singular equation to make money in the market? :)

The climate models used by the large majority of scientists believing that GW is man driven take into account a complex set of mechanisms. The effect of CO2 is just one of them.

- Some of these mechanisms have a warming effect (such as CO2, water vapor,...) because they prevent heat from escaping earth atmosphere,
- Some have a cooling effect (aerosols - including man made gases and volcano ashes for example) because they reduce the income of heat into the atmosphere (currently decreasing),
- Some may have either warming or cooling effects such as long term periodic ocean’s heat exchanges and the variations of solar activity (currently decreasing).

They map these to the marked measured increase of temperature these past years to tune their models and extrapolate a plausible effect of CO2 on the future increase of earth. These models are able to explain why the sixties showed a mild cooling although CO2 was already increasing and provide a good match to the current situation.

So it’s completely untrue and misleading to state that they only look at CO2.

Do all models agree about the degree of impact of CO2 on the pace of increase of temperature? No, they don’t. Hence the pretty wide range of temperatures increase that would result from a doubling of Co2 in the atmosphere (the so-called sensitivity).

But there are two common points among the work of a large majority of scientists working on analyzing the impact of man activity on global warming:
1. CO2 has a major impact on global warming
2. Man’s emission are a dominant factor

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: August 21, 2019, 07:59:53 pm by BernardLanguillier »
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4526
    • Flicker photos
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #506 on: August 21, 2019, 06:39:34 pm »

The climate models used by the large majority of scientists believing that GW is man driven take into account a complex set of mechanisms. The effect of CO2 is just one of them.

- Sone of these mechanisms have a warming effect (such as CO2, water vapor,...) because they prevent heat from escaping earth atmosphere,
- Some have a cooling effect (aerosols - including man made gases and volcano ashes for example)
- Some may have either warming or cooling effects such as long term periodic ocean’s heat exchange or the variations of solar activity.

They map these to the marked measured increase of temperature these past years to tune their models and extrapolate a plausible effect of CO2 on the future increase of earth. These models are able to explain why the sixties showed a mild cooling although CO2 was already increasing and provide a good match to the current situation.

So it’s completely untrue and misleading to state that they only look at CO2.

Do all models agree about the degree of impact of CO2 on the pace of increase of temperature? No, they don’t. Hence the pretty wide range of temperatures increase that would result from a doubling of Co2 in the atmosphere (the so-called sensitivity).

But there are two common points among the work of a large majority of scientists working on analyzing the impact of man activity on global warming:
1. CO2 has a major impact on global warming
2. Man’s emission are a dominant factor

Cheers,
Bernard

So they made a mistake in the 60's because they missed some of the variables in their calculations.  What confidence is there that they aren't missing other variables now?  Why can;t the scientific community agree on what's a good diet, which foods are good?  They have been changing their recommendations every couple of years, despite the huge testing that has gone on with millions of people as subjects.  Meanwhile, with climate change, they have to wait 50 years to verify their calculations and algorithms.  That doesn't make one feel that confident they're capable of knowing all the variables or exactly what weight to give each one. 


Then there's the issue of just how bad warming is.  Pointing to a few bad storms means nothing.  Fuller research has not been done or more probably has been hidden from the public.  Itmight show warming is a lot better for biodiversity than is being admitted.

faberryman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1031
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #507 on: August 21, 2019, 06:55:37 pm »

Fuller research has not been done or more probably has been hidden from the public.  It might show warming is a lot better for biodiversity than is being admitted.
Do you seriously believe that scientific research against climate change is being hidden from the public? Who is behind this conspiracy?
« Last Edit: August 21, 2019, 07:47:52 pm by faberryman »
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12648
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #508 on: August 21, 2019, 07:03:08 pm »

So they made a mistake in the 60's because they missed some of the variables in their calculations.  What confidence is there that they aren't missing other variables now?  Why can;t the scientific community agree on what's a good diet, which foods are good?  They have been changing their recommendations every couple of years, despite the huge testing that has gone on with millions of people as subjects.  Meanwhile, with climate change, they have to wait 50 years to verify their calculations and algorithms.  That doesn't make one feel that confident they're capable of knowing all the variables or exactly what weight to give each one. 
admitted.

The fact that there was a cooling in the 60s says nothing about how scientists analyzed that cooling.

An analysis of the climate littérature in the 60s and 70s shows that even then a large majority of scientists was already predicting a warming.

The fact that some practicisns aren’t sure about the right diet is an unrelated topic as you must know even if I understand that a painful first hand experience apparently has killed any trust you perhaps once had in science. Fortunately you are applying you doubts in equal proportion to the deniers and must understand that the odds they are wrong are even higher, right?
 
Then there's the issue of just how bad warming is.  Pointing to a few bad storms means nothing.  Fuller research has not been done or more probably has been hidden from the public.  Itmight show warming is a lot better for biodiversity than is being admitted.

People in Nortern Alaska will love it, no doubt.

Cheers,
Bernard

Peter McLennan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3005
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #509 on: August 21, 2019, 08:59:58 pm »

Do you seriously believe that scientific research against climate change is being hidden from the public? Who is behind this conspiracy?

The only people hiding climate change warnings from the public are....

wait for it....


The fossil fuel industry!  Surprise, surprise.  They knew of the dangers way back when.  Yet, they chose to hide it.  I wonder why?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/13/climate-change-oil-industry-environment-warning-1968

Oh, wait.  I forgot.  "all markets are free"   :)

Logged

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2376
    • advantica blog
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #510 on: August 21, 2019, 09:28:30 pm »

Then there's the issue of just how bad warming is.  Pointing to a few bad storms means nothing.  Fuller research has not been done or more probably has been hidden from the public.  It might show warming is a lot better for biodiversity than is being admitted.

Alan, warming is only one part of the climate change. In the past few years, we have experienced also some extremely cold periods, sudden temperature changes and stronger winds.

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12648
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #511 on: August 21, 2019, 10:18:14 pm »

The fossil fuel industry!  Surprise, surprise.  They knew of the dangers way back when.  Yet, they chose to hide it.  I wonder why?

Indeed... this hilarious publication of "theirs" is, literally, to die for: http://climatechangereconsidered.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Summary-for-Policymakers-Final.pdf

I don't know why we haven't admitted yet to the godly nature of Exxon Mobile and Co. All the developments of human kind, even clean air, are the result of their positive action! It's all written in the report. :D

Cheers,
Bernard

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4526
    • Flicker photos
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #512 on: August 21, 2019, 10:49:07 pm »

Do you seriously believe that scientific research against climate change is being hidden from the public? Who is behind this conspiracy?
When was the last time you saw a nature program that told us that warming is helping a species?  After all, there's got to be at least one out of the millions around.  There's no money in good news.  No one cares when a dog bites a man.  Now if a man bites a dog, now that's a story!  :)

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4526
    • Flicker photos
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #513 on: August 21, 2019, 10:58:33 pm »

The fact that there was a cooling in the 60s says nothing about how scientists analyzed that cooling.

An analysis of the climate littérature in the 60s and 70s shows that even then a large majority of scientists was already predicting a warming.

The fact that some practicisns aren’t sure about the right diet is an unrelated topic as you must know even if I understand that a painful first hand experience apparently has killed any trust you perhaps once had in science. Fortunately you are applying you doubts in equal proportion to the deniers and must understand that the odds they are wrong are even higher, right?
 

People in Nortern Alaska will love it, no doubt.

Cheers,
Bernard
If there was discussion in the 1960's about it getting warmer, no one was talking about it in the media or public.  I know because I lived through it.  All you heard was cold cold cold.  Just like now, all you hear is warm warm warm.  You only get part of the story.  Like I said bad news sell.  It's in the media's interest to tell disaster stories, just like in the movies we go to see. 


Regarding your comment on food and diet, you totally missed my point about it.  You ought to re-read it.

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10054
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #514 on: August 22, 2019, 01:36:25 am »


The fact that some practicisns aren’t sure about the right diet is an unrelated topic as you must know even if I understand that a painful first hand experience apparently has killed any trust you perhaps once had in science. Fortunately you are applying you doubts in equal proportion to the deniers and must understand that the odds they are wrong are even higher, right?
 

Bernard,
I'm surprised you're having difficulty in understanding the relevance of Alan's analogy of the claimed benefits and/or harmful effects of certain diets.

A huge food industry has been built to provide 'low fat' food products, on the basis of a 'consensus among medical experts' that consumption of saturated fats increases the risk of heart disease, arteriosclerosis, high blood pressure, cancer, obesity, and so on.

Following are some quotes from an academic summary of the situation.
https://academic.oup.com/jhmas/article/63/2/139/772615

"Abstract
This article examines how faith in science led physicians and patients to embrace the low-fat diet for heart disease prevention and weight loss.

Scientific studies dating from the late 1940s showed a correlation between high-fat diets and high-cholesterol levels, suggesting that a low-fat diet might prevent heart disease in high-risk patients. By the 1960s, the low-fat diet began to be touted not just for high-risk heart patients, but as good for the whole nation. After 1980, the low-fat approach became an overarching ideology, promoted by physicians, the federal government, the food industry, and the popular health media.

Many Americans subscribed to the ideology of low fat, even though there was no clear evidence that it prevented heart disease or promoted weight loss. Ironically, in the same decades that the low-fat approach assumed ideological status, Americans in the aggregate were getting fatter, leading to what many called an obesity epidemic. Nevertheless, the low-fat ideology had such a hold on Americans that skeptics were dismissed. Only recently has evidence of a paradigm shift begun to surface, first with the challenge of the low-carbohydrate diet and then, with a more moderate approach, reflecting recent scientific knowledge about fats."


However, the above article is a bit dated, published in 2008. A more recent view is expressed in the following video, which is very long, consisting of 3 sections. The speaker is a very qualified medical practitioner with post-graduate degrees in Neuroscience and Nutrition.

"Published on Jan 5, 2017
For the last 40-50 years, we have fought against “bad” cholesterol and “evil” fats. Dr Natasha Campbell-McBride explains how useful and healthy cholesterol is for us: it reduces the risk of heart attack, prevents arteriosclerosis and can even increase fertility.
Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride, Cambridge, England at the
21st International "New Scientific Outlook" World Congress 2016,
Ulm, Germany, 04.11.2016."


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7OQT1SHf9w&feature=youtu.be

In case the relevance of this analogy, comparing the complexity and uncertainty of diet with the complexity and uncertainty of the world's climate system, is still confusing for some of you, I'll try to elucidate.

All the applications and products of scientific research, that impress us and contribute to our prosperity and well-being, are required to be thoroughly tested to ensure that they work. A new drug that is claimed to cure a disease, has to go through a long process of testing procedures, usually beginning with creatures that have a short life-span, such as mice and rats, then sometimes followed by tests on creature more similar to us, such as rabbits, dogs and monkeys, and finally on groups of humans, provided the previous tests showed benefits and no harm.

The results of such tests can be observed in a relatively short time, ranging from a few days to a few weeks to a few months. However, the long term effects of certain drugs taken regularly are not initially known, and only come to light years later. Such drugs are then withdrawn from the market. The experiment is over.

James Lovelock  described our planet as a complex, living, self-regulating organism or system. He gave it the name 'Gaia', which is ancient Greek for the goddess Mother Earth, or Mother of all Life.

I think that is an apt analogy also. The human body naturally adjusts to slight changes in diet and environmental circumstances just as our planet does, with no harmful effects.

I'm genuinely puzzled why anyone would believe that a 50% increase, over a 150 year period, in a trace gas which is absolutely essential for all life, and which has been proven to increase plant growth and help green the planet, could be considered a pollutant.

If CO2 were a poisonous chemical like Arsenic, which can be tolerated only in very small quantities, then I could appreciate that raising levels by 50% or more could be dangerous. But obviously CO2 is nothing like Arsenic. It's more like a water-soluble vitamin, such as Vitamin C. There is a recommended minimum dosage required to prevent scurvy and other diseases, just as there's a recommended minimum quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere to prevent biodiversity collapse. However, taking more than the recommended minimum dosage is most likely beneficial in general.

I would suggest that you 'climate alarmists' do a bit of reading on the history of science and the 'methodology' of science, which requires repeated experimentation under controlled conditions, changing one variable at a time to observe its effect.

There is a distinction to be made between a 'faith in science', and a 'faith in the methodology of science'. Can you see the distinction, Bernard?
Logged

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1480
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #515 on: August 22, 2019, 03:50:20 am »


I would suggest that you 'climate alarmists' do a bit of reading on the history of science and the 'methodology' of science, which requires repeated experimentation under controlled conditions, changing one variable at a time to observe its effect.


Thanks for the advice - I must have missed that during my lifelong career as a scientist, as, indeed, it appears that the climate science community did. Still, some guy on the internet says it's all fine, so everything's hunky dory.
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12648
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #516 on: August 22, 2019, 04:41:51 am »

Bernard,
I'm surprised you're having difficulty in understanding the relevance of Alan's analogy of the claimed benefits and/or harmful effects of certain diets.

A huge food industry has been built to provide 'low fat' food products, on the basis of a 'consensus among medical experts' that consumption of saturated fats increases the risk of heart disease, arteriosclerosis, high blood pressure, cancer, obesity, and so on.

Following are some quotes from an academic summary of the situation.
https://academic.oup.com/jhmas/article/63/2/139/772615

"Abstract
This article examines how faith in science led physicians and patients to embrace the low-fat diet for heart disease prevention and weight loss.

Scientific studies dating from the late 1940s showed a correlation between high-fat diets and high-cholesterol levels, suggesting that a low-fat diet might prevent heart disease in high-risk patients. By the 1960s, the low-fat diet began to be touted not just for high-risk heart patients, but as good for the whole nation. After 1980, the low-fat approach became an overarching ideology, promoted by physicians, the federal government, the food industry, and the popular health media.

Many Americans subscribed to the ideology of low fat, even though there was no clear evidence that it prevented heart disease or promoted weight loss. Ironically, in the same decades that the low-fat approach assumed ideological status, Americans in the aggregate were getting fatter, leading to what many called an obesity epidemic. Nevertheless, the low-fat ideology had such a hold on Americans that skeptics were dismissed. Only recently has evidence of a paradigm shift begun to surface, first with the challenge of the low-carbohydrate diet and then, with a more moderate approach, reflecting recent scientific knowledge about fats."


However, the above article is a bit dated, published in 2008. A more recent view is expressed in the following video, which is very long, consisting of 3 sections. The speaker is a very qualified medical practitioner with post-graduate degrees in Neuroscience and Nutrition.

"Published on Jan 5, 2017
For the last 40-50 years, we have fought against “bad” cholesterol and “evil” fats. Dr Natasha Campbell-McBride explains how useful and healthy cholesterol is for us: it reduces the risk of heart attack, prevents arteriosclerosis and can even increase fertility.
Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride, Cambridge, England at the
21st International "New Scientific Outlook" World Congress 2016,
Ulm, Germany, 04.11.2016."


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7OQT1SHf9w&feature=youtu.be

In case the relevance of this analogy, comparing the complexity and uncertainty of diet with the complexity and uncertainty of the world's climate system, is still confusing for some of you, I'll try to elucidate.

All the applications and products of scientific research, that impress us and contribute to our prosperity and well-being, are required to be thoroughly tested to ensure that they work. A new drug that is claimed to cure a disease, has to go through a long process of testing procedures, usually beginning with creatures that have a short life-span, such as mice and rats, then sometimes followed by tests on creature more similar to us, such as rabbits, dogs and monkeys, and finally on groups of humans, provided the previous tests showed benefits and no harm.

The results of such tests can be observed in a relatively short time, ranging from a few days to a few weeks to a few months. However, the long term effects of certain drugs taken regularly are not initially known, and only come to light years later. Such drugs are then withdrawn from the market. The experiment is over.

James Lovelock  described our planet as a complex, living, self-regulating organism or system. He gave it the name 'Gaia', which is ancient Greek for the goddess Mother Earth, or Mother of all Life.

I think that is an apt analogy also. The human body naturally adjusts to slight changes in diet and environmental circumstances just as our planet does, with no harmful effects.

I'm genuinely puzzled why anyone would believe that a 50% increase, over a 150 year period, in a trace gas which is absolutely essential for all life, and which has been proven to increase plant growth and help green the planet, could be considered a pollutant.

If CO2 were a poisonous chemical like Arsenic, which can be tolerated only in very small quantities, then I could appreciate that raising levels by 50% or more could be dangerous. But obviously CO2 is nothing like Arsenic. It's more like a water-soluble vitamin, such as Vitamin C. There is a recommended minimum dosage required to prevent scurvy and other diseases, just as there's a recommended minimum quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere to prevent biodiversity collapse. However, taking more than the recommended minimum dosage is most likely beneficial in general.

I would suggest that you 'climate alarmists' do a bit of reading on the history of science and the 'methodology' of science, which requires repeated experimentation under controlled conditions, changing one variable at a time to observe its effect.

There is a distinction to be made between a 'faith in science', and a 'faith in the methodology of science'. Can you see the distinction, Bernard?

Yes.

I do understand the analogy, but my view is that the doctors were perfectly right to recommend low fat food at the time because that's what their best in class data and understanding was telling them to do. It was a perfectly rationale choice.

How many time has science been right in their predictions on millions of topic of interest for our lifes. Are we going to throw away science because scientists are not always right?

The possibility that science may not be right on climate change is real, but it's a probability game. And not taking any action on the ground that we are not 100% sure is IMHO too risky knowing that we think it would be too late to revert back once we are certain.

Now, I would probably think differently if the economy of my country were heavily reliant on coal. Or if I lived in Northern Quebecq. Or if...

Cheers,
Bernard

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4526
    • Flicker photos
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #517 on: August 22, 2019, 07:00:08 am »

Yes.

I do understand the analogy, but my view is that the doctors were perfectly right to recommend low fat food at the time because that's what their best in class data and understanding was telling them to do. It was a perfectly rationale choice.

How many time has science been right in their predictions on millions of topic of interest for our lifes. Are we going to throw away science because scientists are not always right?

The possibility that science may not be right on climate change is real, but it's a probability game. And not taking any action on the ground that we are not 100% sure is IMHO too risky knowing that we think it would be too late to revert back once we are certain.

Now, I would probably think differently if the economy of my country were heavily reliant on coal. Or if I lived in Northern Quebecq. Or if...

Cheers,
Bernard

The issue is we're spending trillions of dollars on global warming supposedly to help future generations.  Meanwhile,  a lot of that money could be spent feeding the poor, providing housing for the homeless, researching devastating Lyme disease,  cancer research,  "free" medical care,  rebuilding Puerto Rico's power grid, etc.


Resouces are limited.  You want to get public policy as right as possible. Most of the discussions have been about the reality of man-made warming and how dangerous it is.   There's been almost no discussion on the benefit of warming.  There's been little discussion on the allocation of resources and what we trade away when we spend so much money on warming.   

Robert Roaldi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1355
    • Robert's Photos
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #518 on: August 22, 2019, 07:28:36 am »

The issue is we're spending trillions of dollars on global warming supposedly to help future generations.

Trillions?
Logged
--
Robert

Paulo Bizarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5460
    • http://www.paulobizarro.com
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #519 on: August 22, 2019, 07:28:48 am »

Personal attack? Just a quote from Schiller.

As for counter statements, this thread is full of them, which you have completely ignored, just repeating your ignorant mantra.

You are the ignorant one. It is highly debatable whether CO2 is the ONLY factor contributing to climate change/warming:

https://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4167

The link above shows the CO2 levels in the last 500 million years. In the Permian it used to be much higher...

The link below also discusses temperature in the geologic record:

http://www.biocab.org/carbon_dioxide_geological_timescale.html
Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 48   Go Up