Global Warming is a total sham...

Discussion in 'Science and Nature' started by budsmokn420, Nov 25, 2011.


  1. If you read it you would know they are citing peer reviewed papers. It doesn't matter what the site is called. If they are making a website about debunking global warming, why wouldn't they choose that name?:confused:
     

  2. So you don't actually know if any of those papers actually debunk anything, or how they were reviewed?

    I don't know why you're throwing uncertain sources at me. It has to be a joke. You've clearly read none of them.
     

  3. Wtf are you talking about? How do you come to any of those conclusions from my response?

    It seems to me you are only capable of jumping to uneducated conclusions about me and are not taking a look at anything I give you and just spewing ad homs about them.

    If you don't want to read what I give you than leave. Period.
     
  4. I told you to show me something peer reviewed and you give me a biased site linking a bunch of supposedly peer reviewed papers.

    If you had read any of them and drawn any sort of educated conclusion from even just one, I suspect you would have linked me to that paper, but you didn't.

    So here we are again.

    Show me something peer reviewed.
     

  5. I'm not going to copy and paste the links to the papers when you can easily do that yourself lol have you even tried going to any of the paper provided on the link I gave you? I gave you that source because it had many papers covering different issues.
     
  6. Did you even read what you just C&P'd?

    You gave me a site linking a bunch of papers.

    I have no idea which one you're referring to.

    What you just quoted is not a peer reviewed anything. It's a short list of abstract summaries.

    Clearly, I clicked the link. The problem is you don't understand how it's not helpful in the least bit.

    Show me A peer reviewed paper.
     
  7. Which ones have you read? I've asked this several times and you keep beating around it.
     
  8. I have looked at the youtube video and professor Bob Carter ignored the evidence presented to confirm global warming. You can agree with him if you wish, but not I good sir.
     
  9. This is a video with Robert M. Carter who is affiliated with the Heartland Institute and the Institute of Public Affairs. Both of these organizations have received funding from oil companies like ExxonMobil and from tobacco companies like Phillip Morris. In the past both of these think tanks have argued against the link between smoking and lung cancer as well as the dangers of secondhand smoke, so it really isn't any surprise that they will defend the interests of oil companies regardless of what the science actually says. Not to mention that this is simply a video, which just about anyone can post regardless of the veracity of its claims.

    Let's examine the links contained here:

    I couldn't read this article (A 150,000-year climatic record from Antarctic ice) because I don't have a subscription to Nature and don't want to spend $32 to read the article. I'm rather skeptical that you've actually read this article either. The abstract of the article makes no claims about climate change though.

    Both of these articles (A Variable Sun Paces Millennial Climate, Possible solar origin of the 1,470-year glacial climate cycle demonstrated in a coupled model : Abstract : Nature) are attributing the warming of Earth to variations in solar radiation, but this theory is not well supported within the scientific community. For example: http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf, http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/pdf/carslaw-2002.pdf

    This link http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~wsoon/myownPapers-d/Aug27-PIPGreview2003.pdf doesn't even work.

    Neither does this one http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bell/pgeo/2007/00000028/00000002/art00001


    This article SpringerLink - Environmental Geology, Volume 50, Number 6 has been rebutted SpringerLink - Environmental Geology, Volume 52, Number 5

    This article The continuing search for an anthropogenic climate change signal: Limitations of correlation‐based approaches is from 14 years ago.

    And this last link ([0707.1161] Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics) is not peer reviewed.

    But again I have serious doubts that you've read any of these papers to begin with.
     
  10. You really should research these things thoroughly and learn all you can about the issue before committing yourself so heavily to one side. Don't read a few articles from shaky sources and then think that you know what your talking about. I was the same way at one point but then I realized I just sounded like an idiot and started actually educating myself.
     
  11. Do you trust everything you read? Prove to me those papers aren't lies.....Oh wait you can't and nor can anyone prove that any paper proving it as a hoax is a lie....This goes to all claims in this thread...You can't prove shit anyone of you in here
     
  12. You could try actually educating yourself on the science of climate change and reading these articles to determine their validity, but I suppose it's easier to simply make snide comments without contributing anything to the discussion.
     
  13. youve actually got it backwards

    saving the earth isnt a political agenda

    lying about global warming not happening however, benifits the corperate government, who ironically are trying to get rid of the EPA :eek:
     

  14. I have a lot of friends who talk about a carbon tax trying to be put in place, but yet again a lot of my friends are crazy.
     
  15. Where i am, it's so cold everyday, like it always is this time of year.

    so my evidence says otherwise i guess...
     

  16. No it doesn't. You simply don't understand global warming.
     
  17. it never existed the original statistics were fake
     
  18. listen, the climate shift, for total global warming to happen will late more or less, hundreds of years to complete, especially now in these days, with people like my older brother, working for NASA, building climate changing weather inclements and orbitals and shit. the climate shift is happening, but we will not be alive to see the real effects of this so called 'global warming".
     
  19. My God, you're right!

    Solyndra didn't benefit from the global warming hype at all!

    Nor carbon credit trading and agricultural industries!
     

Share This Page