For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
That's a secondary issue of minor importance.Hobbes' Choice wrote:The Article purposely fails to use Obama's real name - or did you not notice?
Why do YOU think that they use "Hussien"? And not Barach?Philosophy Explorer wrote:That's a secondary issue of minor importance.Hobbes' Choice wrote:The Article purposely fails to use Obama's real name - or did you not notice?
PhilX
Couldn't care less. I'm concerned with what the Nobel prize-winning physicist said about global warming and another part of the article in relationship to that.Hobbes' Choice wrote:Why do YOU think that they use "Hussien"? And not Barach?Philosophy Explorer wrote:That's a secondary issue of minor importance.Hobbes' Choice wrote:The Article purposely fails to use Obama's real name - or did you not notice?
PhilX
A search returns Web of Science. And you have to be registered to access that site which I'm not doing. I've posted here through a link comments by a Nobel prize-winning physicist and the article has more supporting material regarding how reliable so-called global warming is plus I'm seeing more articles, such as the one saying that Arctic ice has grown, not shrunk, during recent years.SpheresOfBalance wrote:"Most scientists agree that humans are contributing to observed climate change.[82][216] A meta study of academic papers concerning global warming, published between 1991 and 2011 and accessible from Web of Knowledge, found that among those whose abstracts expressed a position on the cause of global warming, 97.2% supported the consensus view that it is man made."
And in my mind it surely stands to reason!
Most scientists? Or an old crony with a hearing aid? Hey, I don't blame him, I don't want to go either, do you?
Philosophy Explorer wrote:A search returns Web of Science. And you have to be registered to access that site which I'm not doing. I've posted here through a link comments by a Nobel prize-winning physicist and the article has more supporting material regarding how reliable so-called global warming is plus I'm seeing more articles, such as the one saying that Arctic ice has grown, not shrunk, during recent years.SpheresOfBalance wrote:"Most scientists agree that humans are contributing to observed climate change.[82][216] A meta study of academic papers concerning global warming, published between 1991 and 2011 and accessible from Web of Knowledge, found that among those whose abstracts expressed a position on the cause of global warming, 97.2% supported the consensus view that it is man made."
And in my mind it surely stands to reason!
Most scientists? Or an old crony with a hearing aid? Hey, I don't blame him, I don't want to go either, do you?
Or is it just that you and a few others can't have it any other way, so you grab for anything that makes you more comfortable. Then their's bias relating to those that have 'stock' in fossil fuel companies, stock in whatever terms! What if there was no hooey, no hoaxes, yet everyone believed that there was? Why ignore all the global events? Ask Californians and quite a few others about water. We know what the desserts once were.
If in fact you come upon a neighbors burning home, would you:
A) throw fuel on it?
B) stand and watch it burn?
C) or help throw water or it?
In that instant would it really matter how it got started?
Let me add too that we can't get accurate weather forecasts of our daily weather (more specifically in terms of temperature, wind, rain, snow, etc.) and that several models are used for weather forecasting (so which one is "accurate"?). And you expect to see accurate forecasts over much longer periods of time? That's laughable.
PhilX
First you really don't know me as I'm not the type to just "grab for anything." With Californians, they seem to have a propensity for using a lot of water (btw Israel turned a desert into livable land with their desalination project). As far as knowing what the deserts once were, that would depend on the desert. I can't speak for the others so I'll let them speak for themselves.SpheresOfBalance wrote:Philosophy Explorer wrote:A search returns Web of Science. And you have to be registered to access that site which I'm not doing. I've posted here through a link comments by a Nobel prize-winning physicist and the article has more supporting material regarding how reliable so-called global warming is plus I'm seeing more articles, such as the one saying that Arctic ice has grown, not shrunk, during recent years.SpheresOfBalance wrote:"Most scientists agree that humans are contributing to observed climate change.[82][216] A meta study of academic papers concerning global warming, published between 1991 and 2011 and accessible from Web of Knowledge, found that among those whose abstracts expressed a position on the cause of global warming, 97.2% supported the consensus view that it is man made."
And in my mind it surely stands to reason!
Most scientists? Or an old crony with a hearing aid? Hey, I don't blame him, I don't want to go either, do you?
Or is it just that you and a few others can't have it any other way, so you grab for anything that makes you more comfortable. Then their's bias relating to those that have 'stock' in fossil fuel companies, stock in whatever terms! What if there was no hooey, no hoaxes, yet everyone believed that there was? Why ignore all the global events? Ask Californians and quite a few others about water. We know what the desserts once were.
If in fact you come upon a neighbors burning home, would you:
A) throw fuel on it?
B) stand and watch it burn?
C) or help throw water or it?
In that instant would it really matter how it got started?
Let me add too that we can't get accurate weather forecasts of our daily weather (more specifically in terms of temperature, wind, rain, snow, etc.) and that several models are used for weather forecasting (so which one is "accurate"?). And you expect to see accurate forecasts over much longer periods of time? That's laughable.
PhilX
I've already pointed this out to you, that daily weather forecast is NOT the same as global climate trends!!! It's like the difference between predicting approximately how many people in a population will die of cancer every year, to predicting whether a particular person will die of it. You might be able to take an educated guess, based on lifestyle etc. but you will be wrong a lot of the time. Did you not understand the first time?Philosophy Explorer wrote:A search returns Web of Science. And you have to be registered to access that site which I'm not doing. I've posted here through a link comments by a Nobel prize-winning physicist and the article has more supporting material regarding how reliable so-called global warming is plus I'm seeing more articles, such as the one saying that Arctic ice has grown, not shrunk, during recent years.SpheresOfBalance wrote:"Most scientists agree that humans are contributing to observed climate change.[82][216] A meta study of academic papers concerning global warming, published between 1991 and 2011 and accessible from Web of Knowledge, found that among those whose abstracts expressed a position on the cause of global warming, 97.2% supported the consensus view that it is man made."
And in my mind it surely stands to reason!
Most scientists? Or an old crony with a hearing aid? Hey, I don't blame him, I don't want to go either, do you?
Let me add too that we can't get accurate weather forecasts of our daily weather (more specifically in terms of temperature, wind, rain, snow, etc.) and that several models are used for weather forecasting (so which one is "accurate"?). And you expect to see accurate forecasts over much longer periods of time? That's laughable.
PhilX
My point is that forecasting global climate trends is far more involved than doing local weather forecasts which the weather bureau does a lousy job at.vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I've already pointed this out to you, that daily weather forecast is NOT the same as global climate trends!!! It's like the difference between predicting approximately how many people in a population will die of cancer every year, to predicting whether a particular person will die of it (leaving out factors like smoking etc..) Did you not understand the first time?Philosophy Explorer wrote:A search returns Web of Science. And you have to be registered to access that site which I'm not doing. I've posted here through a link comments by a Nobel prize-winning physicist and the article has more supporting material regarding how reliable so-called global warming is plus I'm seeing more articles, such as the one saying that Arctic ice has grown, not shrunk, during recent years.SpheresOfBalance wrote:"Most scientists agree that humans are contributing to observed climate change.[82][216] A meta study of academic papers concerning global warming, published between 1991 and 2011 and accessible from Web of Knowledge, found that among those whose abstracts expressed a position on the cause of global warming, 97.2% supported the consensus view that it is man made."
And in my mind it surely stands to reason!
Most scientists? Or an old crony with a hearing aid? Hey, I don't blame him, I don't want to go either, do you?
Let me add too that we can't get accurate weather forecasts of our daily weather (more specifically in terms of temperature, wind, rain, snow, etc.) and that several models are used for weather forecasting (so which one is "accurate"?). And you expect to see accurate forecasts over much longer periods of time? That's laughable.
PhilX
WTF? I just explained it to you. AGAIN!!Philosophy Explorer wrote: My point is that forecasting global climate trends is far more involved than doing local weather forecasts which the weather bureau does a lousy job at.
PhilX