Global Warming Theory cannot be considered to be a science any longer

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli
Then you agree that the study cannot be used to say that 97% of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS agree with the consensus.

97% of climate scientists publishing papers on global warming agree with the consensus.

My point being that citing that study as justification for opinions is disingenuous.

Not that much. It's extremely likely, in fact almost certain, that the 97% carries over pretty closely to opinions as a whole.

opr.ca.gov...

And look here, there are surveys asking questions more similar to yours, and sure enough the level of response is the same.

www.skepticalscience.com...

Every which way you slice the data---the fundamental message is the same.

The intent of the misleading criticism is to engender false doubt in the public's mind that there is a substantial and deep well of scientists who believe the data shows that humans do not bear primary responsibility for recent global warming and will not cause significant future warming. It is false.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Honestly, I confuse you and FriedBabelBroccoli with each other a lot. Sometimes I think you might be the same person (don't care either way). At some point in these threads, I lose interest in continuing arguing and don't keep up with the thread and miss posts.

I never saw that you were posting to me but saw the discussion you and Greven were having about that study. I found the thread obviously, I don't know what you're stuck on about that study, Greven answered you quite satisfactorily and he's much more educated on this topic than I am so I don't know why that's not enough for you or why we can't continue discussing it on that thread.

But as usual this subject never stays on topic anyway so:

So the Northern to Equatorial Pacific was warmer than now. Cool. It's good info but I don't really understand why it causes the authors to jump to the conclusion that it indicates the MWP and the LIA were global events. Land temperatures did not warm/cool globally, only in a small portion of land mass

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli
Then you agree that the study cannot be used to say that 97% of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS agree with the consensus.

97% of climate scientists publishing papers on global warming agree with the consensus.

My point being that citing that study as justification for opinions is disingenuous.

Not that much. It's extremely likely, in fact almost certain, that the 97% carries over pretty closely to opinions as a whole.

opr.ca.gov...

And look here, there are surveys asking questions more similar to yours, and sure enough the level of response is the same.

www.skepticalscience.com...

Every which way you slice the data---the fundamental message is the same.

The intent of the misleading criticism is to engender false doubt in the public's mind that there is a substantial and deep well of scientists who believe the data shows that humans do not bear primary responsibility for recent global warming and will not cause significant future warming. It is false.

It is not to engender false doubt . . .

It is pointing out how radicalised people are, so much so that they can not even comprehend the difference between studies and personal opinions.

Using that specific study as is so often done is not honest.

Plain and simple.

You can pretend it is but maybe you should go review simple logical arguments such as modus tonens/ tollens and modus ponens. If you are going to call out logical falasies then you should at least know what they are.

-FBB

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Honestly, I confuse you and FriedBabelBroccoli with each other a lot. Sometimes I think you might be the same person (don't care either way). At some point in these threads, I lose interest in continuing arguing and don't keep up with the thread and miss posts.

I never saw that you were posting to me but saw the discussion you and Greven were having about that study. I found the thread obviously, I don't know what you're stuck on about that study, Greven answered you quite satisfactorily and he's much more educated on this topic than I am so I don't know why that's not enough for you or why we can't continue discussing it on that thread.

But as usual this subject never stays on topic anyway so:

So the Northern to Equatorial Pacific was warmer than now. Cool. It's good info but I don't really understand why it causes the authors to jump to the conclusion that it indicates the MWP and the LIA were global events. Land temperatures did not warm/cool globally, only in a small portion of land mass

Its a conspiracy!

More than one person disagrees with you on the internet!

-FBB

a reply to: Kali74

you can't have much ocean warming without land warming as well. The paper proves that the pacific ocean and atlantic oceans were warmer during the MWP and warmer even then they are now - that kinds puts a very big hole in the claim of unprecedented warming of the anthropogenic source global warming crowd

As a matter of fact, it drives a hole into it big enough to drive a truck through

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

You keep saying that the 'global warming crowd' claims there has never been any other warming, or no other dramatic warming and that this study disproves unprecedented current warming.

Neither are true and you are repeatedly told that. I don't know why you keep insisting otherwise.

There was land warming during these periods of warmer oceans, the MWP shows that. Just not globally. You tend to generalize where you shouldn't but get stuck on one thing that you think makes your point.

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

Dude if you could see my eyes roll. Can I play the victim card, just this one time (not truly because I don't GAF) ? I'm not well liked here by most.

a reply to: Kali74

The MWP included the pacific ocean and antartic ocean - that makes it global

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Even if it was, what is it that you think such an event tells us about climate change today? As I said before you seem to be under the impression that we 'fanatics' think only humans can cause climate change. That isn't the case.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks

The MWP included the pacific ocean and antartic ocean - that makes it global

No, it wasn't global, I showed you the research yesterday.
My post: www.abovetopsecret.com...

There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century.

The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions.

Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.

Here is a link to the article: www.nature.com...
nora.nerc.ac.uk...

a reply to: Agartha

Agartha

Let me once again explain this to you.

Up until Micheal Mann created the famous Hockey Stick Graph, it was generally accepted that the Medieval Warming Period, also referred to the Golden Age for man existed. It was assumed to exist because of evidence of treelines much further north than currently exist and other plant and geological evidence.

But the Hockey Stick Graph proclaimed that the MWP and its sister the Roman Age, was a regional event limited to the Northern Hemisphere and only to those countries and lands that border on the Atlantic Ocean.

Micheal Mann claimed that the current globing warming was "UNPRECENTED" because both in its magnitude and its global nature.

Micheal Mann created the Hockey Stick Graph from Tree Ring Proxy Data. He examined thousands of tree samples to construct historic temperatatures. The evidence you presented me included tree ring temperature data entitle Mann. That is exactly the work I am referring to.

You can understand that in scientific circles, the proclamation that the MWP was neither warmer than today nor global in nature created quite a kerfluffle. And many scientists set out to either prove or disprove Mann's proclamation (as any good scientist would)

We now know that MANN made his graph in the shape of a hockey stick by ending the graph, not with tree ring data, but available instrument data. This is thanks to climategate! And specifically to an email from Phil Jones, Research Director of the East Anglia Climate Institute recommending that another research use "Mike's Nature trick" to "hide the decline". The decline refers to the fact that the when the tree ring proxy data approached times when instrumental readings were available, the tree ring proxy data failed to match the instrumental readings and instead showed a declining temperature instead of a rising one.

This alone is sufficient to throw out Mann's work. If the tree ring proxy data from current samples doesn't approximate modern instrumental readings, how can anyone reasonable believe that it can tell us what global temperatures were like 100 years ago and more, can label the MWP as regional rather than global in nature?

There was also difficulties with scarcity of samples etc etc fully doubted by McIntrye and Mckittrick, which I leave you to google.

But this is a central plank of the AGW theory. The theory is that current warming is UNPRECEDENTED both in magnitude and in scope and can only be explained by increasing emissions of CO2.

Understandably scientists are most interested in the issue.

The study I posted (here is the link again)

www.sciencemag.org...

peer - reviewed and published in 2013.

Observed increases in ocean heat content (OHC) and temperature are robust indicators of global warming during the past several decades. We used high-resolution proxy records from sediment cores to extend these observations in the Pacific 10,000 years beyond the instrumental record. We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades. Although documented changes in global surface temperatures during the Holocene and Common era are relatively small, the concomitant changes in OHC are large.

The scientists in question (Rosental, Linday and Opal) examined ocean sediment cores in the Pacific and Antarctic Oceans. It proved undoubtedly that during the MWP period, the oceans were warmer by 6.5 degrees than they are now (with a range of +/- .4 degrees).

this undoubted proves that current global warming is NOT unprecedented and, since we weren't using fossil fuels then, occurred due to a natural cycle.

Further, that fact that the warming occurred in the Pacific and Anarctic Ocens - it proved that the MWP was global and not regional in nature.

If you are going to present a gragh of temperatures using Ice Core data and tell me how accurate it all is and how it proves that global warming is unprecedented in magnitude and scope, and expect me to believe you, then you are going to have to accept that ocean sediment cores provide data that is just as accurate as ice core data.

This study was only published in 2013 and represents NEW information.

Tired of Control Freaks

It is not to engender false doubt . . .

It is pointing out how radicalised people are, so much so that they can not even comprehend the difference between studies and personal opinions.

And since the difference between coding studies vs coding opinions is insignificant among climate scientists?

originally posted by: mbkennel

It is not to engender false doubt . . .

It is pointing out how radicalised people are, so much so that they can not even comprehend the difference between studies and personal opinions.

And since the difference between coding studies vs coding opinions is insignificant among climate scientists?

You must include both to justify that position.

If you are going to just add additional studies to prove a correlation . . . .

You do know how relations work right?

Now you are just looking to justify the poor usage of a study which didn't say what people were claiming it did.

-FBB

//edit
In terms of logic, you have to prove transitivity to utilize that argument. You did not do this.

Claims are made about a review that is already supported as a condition.

Nuclear fuel's unnatural creation....and then the unnatural act of burning the fuel.

Uranium and plutonium belong to a natural light frequency in a fusion of crystal.

Crystal fusion a cold state that has existed for the longest amount of time in space.

Fuel of the nuclear supports this review, for it can be created from a crystal structure, and yet the stone remained fused.

The atmosphere demonstrates change....UFO bodies are witnessed and if you study various bodies 1 such form...a black pyramid signal demonstrates red burning gases inside of it. Black we identify as being empty.

Therefore if the atmosphere is demonstrating a burning condition, the atmosphere demonstrates it has thinned, then the demonstration states that the mass of gas is being burnt and so the outcome would be carbon increase and also thinning.

A cold effect would be caused as an atmospheric condition, that supports nuclear fuel, but does not support the coldness of ancient fused crystal.

The results would be....glacial meltdown.

Ice melting beneath the seas.

You would notice increased water levels...and sea heating, which would be causing the undersea freeze to unfreeze to keep the ocean water cool.

The Earth would change its climates as it re-arranges the upper cold streaming that would have changed.

The Earth would be trying to maintain its natural seasons, yet the seasons would demonstrate that a change occurred....as first warning signs.

The geological ancient review would consider the obvious....did the natural terrain change in ancients times....and yes it has proven that it did which would be the end result....last outcome of not heeding warnings.

Also would be the condition of sea becoming saltier.....which the ancient water geological survey would also support.

The very ancient salty water has also evaporated as another warning.

Electrical storms would become greater in their strike powers.....which they have.

There would be more hurricane/tornado activity due to atmospheric weaknesses of failing cold/heat streams....which is witnessed.

There would be more deaths from electrical strikes....which there has been.

Human cellular water would also demonstrate that its natural minerals would change...causing the blood condition to alter...which has also been witnessed.

All warnings of global changes due to the creation of nuclear fuel.

As UFO bodies have been witnessed coming out of the sea...and also witnessed sucking up water, is it any wonder that this condition has been caused by science?

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I don't have time to read that study right now, but I will and I will come back to reply.
Stay well!