The 3% of Scientific Papers that Deny Climate Change found to be Biased/Faulty

[Bodakane]

Also the common error is assuming that people like Trump say Climate isn't changing, that isn't true. What he means, and most other people who "disagree" mean is the part the human play on it.

That is wholly untrue and demonstrably so. There have been so many arguments from he right about it being cold in the winter as a way to disprove global warming as whole (not just the man made part), that a republican congressman brought a snowball on to the floor.



On no level is not making a case global warming.

[Deleted]

Retired scientists? That's not easy to find in academia.

Anyway, it's hard enough to get scientists to agree on small, simple things like authorship. You really think that there's some grand conspiracy coordinated by those very people who are most likely to dissent on the basis of factual information? Ridiculous.

Not a conspiracy as in people being told not to talk about something. It's just like there were a lot of studies funded by tobacco companies to find "proof" for their side of things. One side of this debate has insane advantage in funding, and naturally people need money to live and a lot of researchers decide to work on that side of the story.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, considering that I have yet to see a half decent argument from you, it's probably best if you actually stopped responding altogether.

- - - Updated - - -



You're not as smart as you think you are.

- - - Updated - - -



Show me the scientist that refuses to accept the concept of gravity. Otherwise, get the fuck out of here and tell people that gravity is a myth.

You can't possibly compare gravity to this.

Also where does the number 98% agrees on this come from? Here are some experts I found in 1 minute calling the media narrative bullshit. Yes, climate is changing. Is it affected by humans to a degree that we can stop it? No.



Nobel prize winner and physicist Ivar Giaever
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivar_Giaever

- - - Updated - - -

That is wholly untrue and demonstrably so. There have been so many arguments from he right about it being cold in the winter as a way to disprove global warming as whole (not just the man made part), that a republican congressman brought a snowball on to the floor.



On no level is not making a case global warming.

Well then those people are uneducated, just like the opposite side usually is, and retarded. But Trump is often used as an example, and I've seen him explain on a video that he doesn't think its not happening, just that we dont affect it nearly as much as people think.

[Tiwack]

Not a conspiracy as in people being told not to talk about something. It's just like there were a lot of studies funded by tobacco companies to find "proof" for their side of things. One side of this debate has insane advantage in funding, and naturally people need money to live and a lot of researchers decide to work on that side of the story.

- - - Updated - - -

You can't possibly compare gravity to this.

Also where does the number 98% agrees on this come from? Here are some experts I found in 1 minute calling the media narrative bullshit. Yes, climate is changing. Is it affected by humans to a degree that we can stop it? No.

Well then those people are uneducated, just like the opposite side usually is, and retarded. But Trump is often used as an example, and I've seen him explain on a video that he doesn't think its not happening, just that we dont affect it nearly as much as people think.

Astonishing that you can buy people off to say "It's fine! We're to late to even bother trying to make an impact now!" and people are cool with this despite everything that's happened the past two decades. Defeatism pff.

[Deleted]

Astonishing that you can buy people off to say "It's fine! We're to late to even bother trying to make an impact now!" and people are cool with this despite everything that's happened the past two decades. Defeatism pff.

You missed the point. It's not that it's too late, but that humans and their effect on the whole thing is so small that even if we never existed it would still happen. I do support less pollution for different reasons(like air pollution etc.) but not for it making all this global warming.

[Endus]

Not a conspiracy as in people being told not to talk about something. It's just like there were a lot of studies funded by tobacco companies to find "proof" for their side of things. One side of this debate has insane advantage in funding, and naturally people need money to live and a lot of researchers decide to work on that side of the story.

The only "side" that's funding astroturfing in climate science is the fossil fuel industry. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists are not industry-funded, to begin with.

You can't possibly compare gravity to this.

It's more comparable to flat-eartherism. Because nobody really denies gravity, but there are nutcases that think the Earth is flat.
The "but maybe humans aren't the cause" types are just the equivalent of people saying "look, it's not flat like a PANCAKE, but it IS a dome with an edge, duh".

Also where does the number 98% agrees on this come from?

Multiple methodological analyses of published papers conducted by many different researchers from different institutions, all with different methodologies, and which all mutually confirm the same results.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10...26/11/4/048002

Which anyone who's bothered to look into this would know.

You missed the point. It's not that it's too late, but that humans and their effect on the whole thing is so small that even if we never existed it would still happen. I do support less pollution for different reasons(like air pollution etc.) but not for it making all this global warming.

And you're demonstrably, obviously wrong about this. It's flat-out denying readily-verifiable fact.

[Deleted]

The only "side" that's funding astroturfing in climate science is the fossil fuel industry. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists are not industry-funded, to begin with.



It's more comparable to flat-eartherism. Because nobody really denies gravity, but there are nutcases that think the Earth is flat.
The "but maybe humans aren't the cause" types are just the equivalent of people saying "look, it's not flat like a PANCAKE, but it IS a dome with an edge, duh".


Multiple methodological analyses of published papers conducted by many different researchers from different institutions, all with different methodologies, and which all mutually confirm the same results.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10...26/11/4/048002

Which anyone who's bothered to look into this would know.



And you're demonstrably, obviously wrong about this. It's flat-out denying readily-verifiable fact.

How about answering the comments the actual experts provided in the video I just posted? Im strongly "biased" by the fact that close friends of mine have been working with/under people doing research on these very subjects, and while I can't necessarily say falsification of the results happens too often, they sure are made to look certain way.

[Vash The Stampede]

Like nobody already knew. Also this is clearly the first time the industry has paid scientists to spread fud. Shocked I tell you. Also capitalism.

[hyphnos]

How about answering the comments the actual experts provided in the video I just posted? Im strongly "biased" by the fact that close friends of mine have been working with/under people doing research on these very subjects, and while I can't necessarily say falsification of the results happens too often, they sure are made to look certain way.

It isn't about complicated climate models at all. It is about 2 very simple basic undeniable scientific facts.

1. Humans are dumping tons and tons and tons of co2 into the atmosphere. (no one denies this)
2. co2 traps heat from light (ie is a greenhouse gas)

1+2 = humans are adding to the ability of the earth to retain heat. the models are trying to see where that heat goes
denying that the heat is being trapped is to deny 2 simple facts that can easily be demonstrated and if you deny either 1 or 2 then you are denying empirical facts and should be ignored.

[Kuntantee]

I am pretty sure papers showing climate change can also be faulty. Biased/Faulty/Outright bullshit papers get published all the time.

[Sormine]

This is exactly why nobody can take your arguments seriously. I don't respond to your nonsense often because, as this pile of garbage you wrote suggests, I don't have to.

I can't tell if you're trolling. I can take his arguments seriously and if you're honestly calling what he wrote a "pile of garbage" I can only assume you can't actually understand what he wrote.

Considering the evidence is nowhere near concrete, then I agree, you can't use opinions as facts. Thank you for clearing that up for us.

Could you provide me with some clarity on your view here, are you saying that the evidence for global warming is nowhere near concrete? I looked back in this discussion a bit and I'm having a hard time understanding your stance on it, I was hoping you could help me understand your point better.

[Deleted]

It isn't about complicated climate models at all. It is about 2 very simple basic undeniable scientific facts.

1. Humans are dumping tons and tons and tons of co2 into the atmosphere. (no one denies this)
2. co2 traps heat from light (ie is a greenhouse gas)

1+2 = humans are adding to the ability of the earth to retain heat. the models are trying to see where that heat goes
denying that the heat is being trapped is to deny 2 simple facts that can easily be demonstrated and if you deny either 1 or 2 then you are denying empirical facts and should be ignored.

And there is undeniable proof that this is the only reason for the climate change, or at least only major reason, and the climate hasn't changed in cycles before?

[Tiwack]

And there is undeniable proof that this is the only reason for the climate change, or at least only major reason, and the climate hasn't changed in cycles before?

Aside from a few anomalies like meteor hits and a bad volcano eruption or two, yes. We can see the composition of the atmosphere in ice core samples and track it back in time. The cycles of warmth and cold fit with the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere at the time.

Through analysis of ice cores, scientists learn about glacial-interglacial cycles, changing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, and climate stability over the last 10,000 years. Many ice cores have been drilled in Antarctica. The oxygen in the water molecules also holds a key to past climate. Scientists are able to use the oxygen atoms in the glacial ice as a proxy for air temperature above the glacier.

[Endus]

How about answering the comments the actual experts provided in the video I just posted?

Is there a particular point you want me to address, specifically?

Plus, the three in the video aren't exactly the most credible choices. Bob Carter is a well-known huckster who's paid to astroturf. Peter Ridd is being censured by his employer for unethical statements about colleagues and their work. And Garth Paltridge is a denier as well. It's hardly an even panel that's intended to get at the facts.

Im strongly "biased" by the fact that close friends of mine have been working with/under people doing research on these very subjects, and while I can't necessarily say falsification of the results happens too often, they sure are made to look certain way.

I don't have to deal with 'friend of a friend' level nonsense. I work in this field, and I've never gotten paid to produce a given result, nor have I been pressured in any way to adjust my findings or conclusions. None of my colleagues have, either.

And there is undeniable proof that this is the only reason for the climate change, or at least only major reason, and the climate hasn't changed in cycles before?

Well, define "undeniable" for me, real quick. If you mean "incontrovertible", then that's unscientific; EVERYTHING in science is falsifiable, by definition, or it isn't science. But you need actual evidence and such to do so.

If you just mean "does the preponderance of the data lead to only one possible conclusion", then the answer isn't just "definitively yes", it's been a "yes" for 40+ years now. Here's the most recent IPCC assessment of the state of the physical science behind AGCC; https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

Which I'm linking again, even though folks never check the sources.

The only times climate has changed this rapidly in paleohistory was due to cataclysmic events, like supervolcano eruptions or asteroid impacts. Extinction-level events. The slower cycling that we notice in the glacial/interglacial cycle is still imperfectly understood, but it has a clear connection to orbital variance, and regardless, it occurs dozens of times more slowly than modern warming has been, even at its most rapid; if we weren't at the high point of an interglacial's warm stretch already, you'd expect the warming we've seen over the last century to take a few thousand years, if it were due to natural climate cycling. And we are at such an interglacial peak (slightly past, actually), so we shouldn't be seeing rapid warming at all. For natural causes, at least.

[Orbitus]

I think you have it backwards. Remember climate gate? It's scandal after scandal, trying to get rid of the evidence.

You mean the non-existent scandal? Yeah, no.

These people checked the denier studies and couldn't replicate their findings, which means they were false.

- - - Updated - - -

You know what is also biased/faulty. People who pushed climate change.

So, you openly admit you don't understand science? No wonder you are Republican.

- - - Updated - - -

You mean the one that basically demanded the US transfer wealth to everyone else? I wonder why everyone else signed it.

Not even close.

- - - Updated - - -

This is exactly why nobody can take your arguments seriously. I don't respond to your nonsense often because, as this pile of garbage you wrote suggests, I don't have to.

No, you don't take his arguments seriously because you are ignorant to science. He actually went to school for this. It is obvious you didn't make it past 5th grade science.

- - - Updated - - -

Nobel prize winner and physicist Ivar Giaever
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivar_Giaever

Your source here, is a mechanical engineer. Who is also employed by the Heartland Institute, who is funded by ExxonMobil. He isn't a climatologist and he is bought off by big oil, his opinion means ABSOLUTE DICK.

[PosPosPos]

Climate change deniers are one of the biggest subsets of opt-in stupidity, i.e. it's not that they are born like that, but chose to be.

[Deleted]

Is there a particular point you want me to address, specifically?

Plus, the three in the video aren't exactly the most credible choices. Bob Carter is a well-known huckster who's paid to astroturf. Peter Ridd is being censured by his employer for unethical statements about colleagues and their work. And Garth Paltridge is a denier as well. It's hardly an even panel that's intended to get at the facts.



I don't have to deal with 'friend of a friend' level nonsense. I work in this field, and I've never gotten paid to produce a given result, nor have I been pressured in any way to adjust my findings or conclusions. None of my colleagues have, either.



Well, define "undeniable" for me, real quick. If you mean "incontrovertible", then that's unscientific; EVERYTHING in science is falsifiable, by definition, or it isn't science. But you need actual evidence and such to do so.

If you just mean "does the preponderance of the data lead to only one possible conclusion", then the answer isn't just "definitively yes", it's been a "yes" for 40+ years now. Here's the most recent IPCC assessment of the state of the physical science behind AGCC; https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

Which I'm linking again, even though folks never check the sources.

The only times climate has changed this rapidly in paleohistory was due to cataclysmic events, like supervolcano eruptions or asteroid impacts. Extinction-level events. The slower cycling that we notice in the glacial/interglacial cycle is still imperfectly understood, but it has a clear connection to orbital variance, and regardless, it occurs dozens of times more slowly than modern warming has been, even at its most rapid; if we weren't at the high point of an interglacial's warm stretch already, you'd expect the warming we've seen over the last century to take a few thousand years, if it were due to natural climate cycling. And we are at such an interglacial peak (slightly past, actually), so we shouldn't be seeing rapid warming at all. For natural causes, at least.

What caused greenhouse gas levels to fall before the ice ages, and what rose them at the end? No human was in charge of that, im sure.


While I realize I myself can't argue on this issue at the same level, I picked up this from your text though: ". Bob Carter is a well-known huckster who's paid to astroturf. Peter Ridd is being censured by his employer for unethical statements about colleagues and their work. And Garth Paltridge is a denier as well. It's hardly an even panel that's intended to get at the facts."

So because someone is a denier, aka. has a different opinion, he is not a credible source? Don't know the details of the Peter Ridd case, but considering how everything nowadays is claimed to be so unethical, politically incorrect and god knows what, I wouldn't give that much weight either.

So now that you work in this field personally, what does it take to stop this climate change from the Co2? Is it a 90% decrease, and if so, in what timeline?

- - - Updated - - -

Climate change deniers are one of the biggest subsets of opt-in stupidity, i.e. it's not that they are born like that, but chose to be.

Says the communist, not that I deny climate changing.

[PosPosPos]

Says the communist, not that I deny climate changing.

Could you link me the post(s) which makes me a communist?

Also, are you insinuating that my alleged political affiliation has the ability to somehow manipulate the climate?

Finally, your pathetic attempts at sealioning are evidence to the fact of my statement.

[Omega10]

Easy enough to refute, but contradictory and Ironic in their methodology When most Data shows GHG are not the sole contributor to warming, thus making the Paris Accords pointless anyway.

- - - Updated - - -



Both sides have a Popularist middle ground. The Right claim it's not man made. The Left Claim it's entirely the Wests fault and we need to shift to "Green" energy sources that all conveniently are the energy sources these people also have a stake in.

The bolded part is a complete lie. The shift to Green energy... well Green energy is defined to be energy that emits less CO2 so yeah one of the solutions is to convert to these types of energy.

[Deleted]

Could you link me the post(s) which makes me a communist?

Also, are you insinuating that my alleged political affiliation has the ability to somehow manipulate the climate?

Finally, your pathetic attempts at sealioning are evidence to the fact of my statement.

Just by last page of your recent posts, I see you multiple times using the word "us" when siding with people who identify themselves as communist or something very close like Antifa. For an example: "@Livnthedream Is calling you a hypocrite because you said people shouldn't use violence to solve problems, but in the past you have advocated using violence against Nazis, which is a contradiction unless you think Nazis are not a problem." You can find your comment to this post, and its basically you being in the same boat with the "kill the nazis" maniacs.

Which in my mind looks like you use the word "us" to side with people who apparently advocate using violence against "nazis". Who usually cries that out? Antifa. What is Antifa? A communist movement.

I just found it funny that someone belonging to a such political extreme would call someone something you just did.

[Doctor Funkenstein]

Easy enough to refute, but contradictory and Ironic in their methodology When most Data shows GHG are not the sole contributor to warming, thus making the Paris Accords pointless anyway.

Someone stabbing a knife into your brain isn't the sole contributor to you dying (I mean, everyone is already dying every second of every day, and all that bacon you had for breakfast isn't doing you any favors), so ergo there's no need to avoid having someone stab a knife in your brain.

Your logic is FLAWLESS.