Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Odds that global warming is due to natural factors: slim to none [GIGO}
publications.mcgill.ca ^ | Saturday, April 12, 2014

Posted on 04/12/2014 7:01:26 PM PDT by BenLurkin

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-38 last
To: Missouri gal

It would seem that all human effort to curtail warming (when it happens) would pale in comparison to increased solar captivity or a Pinatubo or other large eruption.

I understand the control issue, but they are fighting basic intuition and logic IMO.


21 posted on 04/12/2014 7:50:13 PM PDT by morphing libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
To assess the natural variability before much human interference, the new study uses “multi-proxy climate reconstructions” developed by scientists in recent years to estimate historical temperatures, as well as fluctuation-analysis techniques from nonlinear geophysics. The climate reconstructions take into account a variety of gauges found in nature, such as tree rings, ice cores, and lake sediments. And the fluctuation-analysis techniques make it possible to understand the temperature variations over wide ranges of time scales.

Pseudo-science Psychobabble BS.
Translation : We got a new computer simulation, and no, you can't get the coding for it.

That's private.

Uh huh.
Same old BS.
New set of perps.

22 posted on 04/12/2014 7:59:55 PM PDT by publius911 ( At least Nixon had the good g race to resign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy; All
Regarding the title of the referenced article, while I am open to the possibility that repeatable, scientific method-based experiments will one day be designed which will reasonably show if global warming exists in the first place, I don't believe that such experiments have been demonstrated at this point in time. Corrections welcome.
Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

23 posted on 04/12/2014 8:02:49 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hugin

It was the heat of the friction caused by the clashing of swords in battle, of course.


24 posted on 04/12/2014 8:27:43 PM PDT by bobo1 (progressives=commies/fascists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
The key fallacy is the concept of 'natural variability.' That term does not mean the same thing as 'due to a natural cause.' The use of that term is an intentional attempt to deceive, because they know most people will think that a showing that "natural variability" is unlikely means that a natural (non-human) cause is therefore likely. But that is simply not true.

The term 'natural variability' refers to random fluctuations in the climate. But it leaves out non-random causes of climate change, such as the Sun, changes in volcanic activity, changes in cosmic ray density, changes in the orbit of the Earth around the Sun, and other possible causes--some of which we may in fact not even realize could be contributing factors, including human activity having nothing to do with emissions of carbon dioxide.

The Null Hypothesis with respect to AGW is not that climate change is due mostly to 'natural variability,' it is that that climate change is mostly due to natural factors of any sort, whether those are random variations/fluctuations or are something else. And the Null Hypothesis has not been disproven. Had it been, the peer-reviewed paper or papers which presented such disproof would be the most cited paper(s) in all of climate science (and perhaps in all of science for the last many decades.)

25 posted on 04/12/2014 8:37:06 PM PDT by sourcery (Valid rights must be perfectly reciprocal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

GLOBALONEY BULLSHIT is what it is!


26 posted on 04/12/2014 8:43:28 PM PDT by Taxman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beethovenfan

“Odds that the globe is warming significantly: slim to none.”

I have yet to get a straight answer as to why it is asserted that Earth’s atmosphere has warmed significantly, and is continuing to get warmer. Are there ostensibly reliable instrument-based measurements? The graphs plotted to illustrate the “estimates” based on 73 different models are all over the page. See
www.thegwpf.org/epic-fail-73-climate models vs. observations.


27 posted on 04/12/2014 8:52:02 PM PDT by Elsiejay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

“According to new studies” there never was a warm period such as led to the extinction of dinosaurs. Dinosaurs are still around, just look at Democrats in politics.


28 posted on 04/12/2014 8:52:14 PM PDT by Rembrandt (Part of the 51% who pay Federal taxes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

That right there warms my global.


29 posted on 04/12/2014 9:12:39 PM PDT by VerySadAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

In plain English, they don’t know crap about what they just said. Bury the people in psychobabble and gobbledegook, repeat it enough, and they are brainwashed beyond redemption.

Historical precedent: Joseph Goebbels and Joe Stalin’s “Big Lies” campaign. Sadly, they worked too well.

A better term for Co2 emissions should be “Red House gases”, eminating from the “Red House” in DC and the insane asylum in East Anglia and the UN.


30 posted on 04/12/2014 9:45:56 PM PDT by MadMax, the Grinning Reaper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

I forgot to mention that McGill Un. has been the center of marxist thought in Canada since the late 1960’s. Seems that nothing has changed.


31 posted on 04/12/2014 9:48:30 PM PDT by MadMax, the Grinning Reaper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Someone post the “Aw Geez, not this shit again” guy.


32 posted on 04/12/2014 9:58:08 PM PDT by JaguarXKE (1973: Reporters investigate All the President's Men. 2013: Reporters ARE all the President's men)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

... because for the first several BILLION years before mankind made its appearance nature kept the climate steady. ... Er, wait, no. The climate has been, is, and will continue to be in a continual state of flux. In that light the chances of climate change being caused by mankind are virtually zero. The real question is mankind altering the characteristics of this natural phenomenon?


33 posted on 04/12/2014 10:16:54 PM PDT by ThunderSleeps (Stop obarma now! Stop the hussein - insane agenda!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

The scientific method is a way of either confirming or disproving a hypothesis. If this latest “evidence” doesn’t confirm the findings of previous models, one must conclude that previous models are invalid, or that this newest one is.


34 posted on 04/12/2014 10:34:02 PM PDT by Sgt_Schultze (A half-truth is a complete lie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ThunderSleeps

Bookmark


35 posted on 04/12/2014 10:36:34 PM PDT by publius911 ( At least Nixon had the good g race to resign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: musicman

“Statistics?? Well if you have one foot in boiling water and the other in iced water, statistically you should be quite comfortable.”

I thought that was a great quote.


36 posted on 04/13/2014 12:18:33 AM PDT by bobo1 (progressives=commies/fascists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

If Glo-Bull warming can’t be because of “natural factors” then I posit that our own existence cannot be due to same natural factors....


37 posted on 04/13/2014 4:37:13 AM PDT by trebb (Where in the the hell has my country gone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
The anthropogenic global warming apologists draw from a seemingly bottomless well of stupidity.
Even were one to accept the illogical premise that human activity changes the climate (despite the accepted recognition that huge prehistoric climate changes caused the various ice ages and the intervening warm periods) is human activity not a natural factor?
Are we to believe that humans wield some unnatural, alien, supernatural, magical forces when they cause the climate changes that, unfortunately for the apologists, is not happening?
38 posted on 04/13/2014 5:17:13 AM PDT by Amagi (Lenin: "Socialized Medicine is the Keystone to the Arch of the Socialist State.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-38 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson