I see a more imminent threat from lack of money due to lack of work due to automation and robots, society will not easily accept that it's ok not to work.
I think it's quite entertaining to consider that the easiest jobs to automate are positions in bureaucratic and economics related areas. 
It is much more costly to develop a robot for physical labour, yet, somehow the people on top seem to prioritize automation of these jobs, instead of cutting themselves off.
It is much more costly to develop a robot for physical labour, yet, somehow the people on top seem to prioritize automation of these jobs, instead of cutting themselves off.
Dependency of climate change and carbon cycle on CO2 emission pathways - IOPscience
On the direct impact of the CO2 concentration rise to the global warming - IOPscience
On the proportionality between global temperature change and cumulative CO2 emissions during periods of net negative CO2 emissions - IOPscience
The link between a global 2 degC warming threshold and emissions in years 2020, 2050 and beyond - IOPscience
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2005PA001154
https://www.nature.com/articles/329408a0
https://www.nature.com/articles/329403a0
I now posted 11 publications, that satisfies my definition of plenty thus providing what I claimed.
But my guess is that that doesn't satisfy your definition of plenty, so here's a meta study that goes over some more publications on climate change.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
Quote from paper:
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, non of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
A change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns when that change lasts for an extended period of time.
No YOU should give me "plenty" links to peer reviewed studies as YOU brought it up.
Hi Luke, these papers link the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere to a change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns when that change lasts for an extended period of time.
I was asked about climate change, Wikipedia has a good page about that.
Everyone is political, that doesn't mean you can't do good science. You just have to follow the scientific method. Scientific method - Wikipedia
Ime phd's leave universities because they are not capable of doing good science.
^This is all I could be bothered to find Science and Public Policy Institute - Wikipedia
Last edited:
Science and Public Policy Institute - SourceWatch
So you put up a paper from a heavily funded website by Exxon... (at least in the past, now they won't disclose who's funding them. I wonder why.)
Good for you. Enjoy your journey through the rabbit hole.
You don't want to look it up yourself? Too bad. It's your loss.
At a certain point, hopefully people realize you have no real content and are here solely to troll.
You've long burned good will of providing no rigorous citations of your own and rejecting without even reading any content anyone else provides.
Please find the nearest kite and go fly it.
The existence of a thermal influx into the Earth can be verified by measuring the temperature of the oceans at many points, and working the global thermal energy in sea waters. This process can be repeated, and hence the change in sea water thermal energy calculated. If the change is positive, it would mean, a net influx of heat energy, if negative, it would mean sea waters are losing thermal energy.
Observation alone shows there is a huge influx of thermal energy that is somehow not returning to space and causing sea waters to warm.
The planet is our home, it is our responsibility to ensure it remains comfortable and habitable for future generations.
Observation alone shows there is a huge influx of thermal energy that is somehow not returning to space and causing sea waters to warm.
The planet is our home, it is our responsibility to ensure it remains comfortable and habitable for future generations.
The good 'ol: "Leave the farm in better condition for the next generation." Springs to mind. It has been viewed a good way to do things for millennia, but now some people are ok with more of a "let it burn, grandkids are overrated" kind of behavioural pattern.
Holding for your ears and screaming the opposite message on the top of your lungs can not change fact.
Holding for your ears and screaming the opposite message on the top of your lungs can not change fact.
Dunno, wasn't there
I think there are many signs these days that the tide is turning for the better, environmental and health issues are more to the fore than they have been for a whileNaming and shaming the rentaquote scientists
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley CLIMATE SCIENCE PAPER by Dr Willie Soon, Professor David Legates, Matt Briggs and me, just published in the Science Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences,
the Orient’s equivalent of Nature scibull.com : click on Vol. 60 no. 1, January 2015) demonstrates that the billion-dollar climate models that have so profitably predicted Thermageddon are prone to costly exaggeration.
Instead of the 3, 5 or even 10 Cº of global warming they predict in response to our doubling the CO2 in the air, we find there will be 1 Cº and perhaps less than that.
The so-called “Factcheck” article gets its facts wrong from the start. It says our paper had claimed that the major errors made by the huge computer models, each of which gobbles as much electricity as a small town, occur because the models are complex.
No. We said the models were wrong because they were using a rogue equation borrowed from electronic circuitry and bolted on to the climate, where it does not fit. That equation, and that alone, leads the
modelers erroneously to triple the small and harmless 1 Cº global warming we should expect from a doubling of CO2 in the air.
We now name and shame the six rentaquote climate scientists
*
Conclusion: The supporters of official climate science are unscientific
In the corporate and financial worlds, economies with the truth such as those evident in the comments of the climate-extremist “scientists” whose responses we have seen would be severely punished. The
misrepresentations, the outright falsehoods, the misquotations, the incomplete quotations, the unproven assertions, the venomous eagerness to criticize a paper before it had even been read, the fallacious appeals
to authority: these and multiple other instances of research misconduct are evident in the scientists’ comments on our paper. They would not be tolerated outside the privileged groves of academe.
The cost of the climate deception to taxpayers runs to the tens of billions a year . It has been called the biggest fraud in history. So far, the perpetrators have proven untouchable.
It is not for us to say whether the “scientists” whose untruths, errors and departures from scientific method we have exposed here were fools or knaves or both. However, allowing the UN to establish an unelected, unaccountable, all-powerful global climate tyranny at Paris in December 2015 on the basis of science as shoddy, threadbare and unprincipled as theirs would be a costly and – as our reviewed paper at - scibull.com establishes – entirely unnecessary mistake.
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley CLIMATE SCIENCE PAPER by Dr Willie Soon, Professor David Legates, Matt Briggs and me, just published in the Science Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences,
the Orient’s equivalent of Nature scibull.com : click on Vol. 60 no. 1, January 2015) demonstrates that the billion-dollar climate models that have so profitably predicted Thermageddon are prone to costly exaggeration.
Instead of the 3, 5 or even 10 Cº of global warming they predict in response to our doubling the CO2 in the air, we find there will be 1 Cº and perhaps less than that.
The so-called “Factcheck” article gets its facts wrong from the start. It says our paper had claimed that the major errors made by the huge computer models, each of which gobbles as much electricity as a small town, occur because the models are complex.
No. We said the models were wrong because they were using a rogue equation borrowed from electronic circuitry and bolted on to the climate, where it does not fit. That equation, and that alone, leads the
modelers erroneously to triple the small and harmless 1 Cº global warming we should expect from a doubling of CO2 in the air.
We now name and shame the six rentaquote climate scientists
*
Conclusion: The supporters of official climate science are unscientific
In the corporate and financial worlds, economies with the truth such as those evident in the comments of the climate-extremist “scientists” whose responses we have seen would be severely punished. The
misrepresentations, the outright falsehoods, the misquotations, the incomplete quotations, the unproven assertions, the venomous eagerness to criticize a paper before it had even been read, the fallacious appeals
to authority: these and multiple other instances of research misconduct are evident in the scientists’ comments on our paper. They would not be tolerated outside the privileged groves of academe.
The cost of the climate deception to taxpayers runs to the tens of billions a year . It has been called the biggest fraud in history. So far, the perpetrators have proven untouchable.
It is not for us to say whether the “scientists” whose untruths, errors and departures from scientific method we have exposed here were fools or knaves or both. However, allowing the UN to establish an unelected, unaccountable, all-powerful global climate tyranny at Paris in December 2015 on the basis of science as shoddy, threadbare and unprincipled as theirs would be a costly and – as our reviewed paper at - scibull.com establishes – entirely unnecessary mistake.
Last edited:
Dunno, wasn't there
I hear what you're saying. And it does seem like many of the common man are considering doing some small contribution in terms of things such as eating less meat (often it's talk about 1 day meatless/week), sorting personal waste for recycling, and so on and so forth. Every little bit counts, and it is important that every single person tries to make some small change or it will not work.
But then you have politicians that do nothing but squabble, the global climate initiative treaties seem to be almost limiting the action. Nobody wants to go ahead and do anything, they're all sitting on the fence and arguing.
It is really important to try and do something when it's possible, but talking about it does nothing, unless you're talking about some new step you've implemented in your daily life, over a cup of tea or pint with someone in your neighbourhood.
There, hope I managed to stay behind the forum rules.
So you don't want to find out the truth. And you don't have any solid arguments. Your true agenda is revealed.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.