|
likegrace (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
ziljin your a pratt
grastog1313 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
Rather than referee YouTube arguments, it seems to me viewers may prefer sources of evidence relevant to CO2-driven anthropogenic warming. Extensive data are found in the literature (GRL, PNAS, J. Climate, etc.), which universally recognizes that warming, but web sources can be Googled for a start - "Global Warming" for a wikipedia overview, "Climate Book" for a mathematically rigorous analysis, and "Climate Change - Discovery of Global warming" for both physical and historical perspectives.
capemall (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
I have read arguments that peer review is meaningless. if we do indeed have reviewers with their rather weak and biased arguments here on you tube then I will sadly have to agree. is climate science giving out advanced degrees for you tube arguing now? is this the path to a doctorates? I knew there were rather weak grade requirements but still I would expect something a bit more
GrecRI (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
It's not the world of science that sees it. It is the politcal world that has attempted to muzzle the real scientists. The IPCC is a sham, as is its claim to the peer review process. The Hockey Stick graph has been proven to be bogus. It's all a scam.
ziljn (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
But let's play this strawman man out, for the hell of it. The vast majority of people I see arguing in favor of AGW cannot make any substantive argument of their own as they haven't bothered to do any of their own research. They rely on what they are told and ultimately cling to empty arguments of authority, while dismissing outright any data that contradicts or challenges their belief. Sounds faith based to me. Does that pretty much sum you up? So who is the creationist now?
ziljn (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
LOLIs the creationism strawman argument in some AGW advocacy pamphlet or something?But thanks for the lack of anything substantive or even remotly related to the science presented in the video (or anywhere else for that matter). You speak of logic yet you obviously cannot make a logical argument. Well done.
jffryfnt (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
There's a common ground somewhere. You just got to find it and work on it.
likegrace (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
anyone who believes that CO2 is not contributing significantly to climate change dosnt know very much science, (weve known about this for 100 years) in fact they consign themselves to the same catergory as creationists,- its that kind of mentality we're dealing with and ive come to the conclusion that you cant argue logically with such people becuase they are ignorant or motivated by greed
jffryfnt (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
hahaha!I can personally acknowledge that grastog is indeed a peer-reviewer, and 'reviewee'. As a matter of fact I have a paper that was sent today to undergo peer-review myself. It's that hard to believe isn't it?!!!He's not lying, you're a denier.
greenerguardian (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
Well, sediments, every nation has begun to adopt and implement plans to cut CO2, based on a huge amount of scientific data showing that the Earth is warming to an extent likely to be damaging in the near future. They consider the debate to be over, in practical terms. These videos can give a distorted impression of how the world of science sees the evidence. |
