re: Nobel Winner to Obama on Global Warming: 'Mr. President, You're Wrong'

quote:

---

Hasn't it been established that the ice core samples show carbon levels following temp increases, and not the opposite? Rise in temp causing the ocean to emit carbon...

---

This didn't really address the ice core samples, but during grad school while taking a time series class, I took the temperature data and CO2 data from Mauna Lao to see how I could apply my novice time-series analytical skills.

If I'm recalling it correctly (so don't take it as irrefutable), when I looked at the cross-correlations between the two variables, there was no clear lag either way. In fact, there was nearly a perfectly symmetric, normal-like, distribution on both sides of 0 lag.

What I took from it was that it's, to no surprise, unclear as to what true patterns are present, and what lurking variables aren't present (e.g., the sun is an obvious one).

I know it was a simple view, but it only provides evidence that their seemingly simple conclusions are probably a bit too simple.

I'm no expert, but my experience with ice cores showed me the same. If anything, it's a lagging indicator.

quote:

---

How many peer-reviewed publications have been posted in this thread? I

---

Perhaps you should review some of the growing trend of articles concerning fraud in peer-reviewed articles.

LINK

"In August 2015, the publisher Springer retracted 64 articles from 10 different subscription journals “after editorial checks spotted fake email addresses, and subsequent internal investigations uncovered fabricated peer review reports,” according to a statement on their website.1 The retractions came only months after BioMed Central, an open-access publisher also owned by Springer, retracted 43 articles for the same reason.

“This is officially becoming a trend,” Alison McCook wrote on the blog Retraction Watch, referring to the increasing number of retractions due to fabricated peer reviews.2 Since it was first reported 3 years ago, when South Korean researcher Hyung-in Moon admitted to having invented e-mail addresses so that he could provide “peer reviews” of his own manuscripts, more than 250 articles have been retracted because of fake reviews — about 15% of the total number of retractions."

Show me some global warming advocates who do not stand to make money off it.

quote:

---

Show me some oil company deniers who wouldn't lose money if people started looking at the evidence and realizing it's a very real thing.

---

Some oil companies are co-opted, too. Shell, for example is almost (not quite) "all in" on AGW. Now, their crass motive is to kill coal, which is a competitor.

They're not children. They know there is no substitute for fossil fuels - not in 100 to 200 years, anyway. But, they think they'll be exempted once the coal industry is destroyed.

quote:

---

Perhaps you should review some of the growing trend of articles concerning fraud in peer-reviewed articles.

---

So because a small number of the tens of thousands of peer-reviewed publications put out every year are retracted (by other academic scientists doing their jobs), we're discrediting academic science as a whole and moving solely to uninformed sources that conveniently happen to fit our narrative? Got it.

This is the equivalent to someone getting a recall notice on their car and saying, see, I knew this whole automotive industry thing was bullshite.

quote:

---

Right now, we are on the verge of rising towards the peak where it starts to cool again.

---

You had me up until this point.

The graph shows the rise and falls from the past thousands of years. And every time the temperature peaked, it was almost the same every time before it started cooling again.

Oh yeah? Here's how I know you're full of shite. Because who on in hell would get retired "NASA" people who are obviously in the VAST minority among the spectrum of climate change researchers to come give a lecture to you? You would have had to wade through thousands upon thousands of scientists who would laugh at that preschool website you pointed me to. I also know you're full of shite because you, like all deniers, cannot do this simple test.

*if you truly think this is a hoax, put 1000$ against someone you know who thinks it isn't that 2016 and 2017 will be among the top 5 hottest years on record*

If this is when you say 'yea well they're fudging the data every year' then GO TO A frickING MUSEUM. Go look for yourself. This is the one issue that people on this board are being willfully ignorant about and are DEAD WRONG. It's being taught across the globe. And it's not "about to get cool again" you dolt. We're furiously pumping this shite into the air and you want to sit there and pretend it won't affect anything because you're too proud to admit maybe, just maybe the 99% are right about climate change.