Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
Jinx said:
mko9 said:
Yes, how many UK coastal villages have been lost to rising seas over the last couple thousand years?
Doggerland only sunk around 6500 BC. We had to build a tunnel to get cheap booze.....Kawasicki said:
Jinx said:
mko9 said:
Yes, how many UK coastal villages have been lost to rising seas over the last couple thousand years?
Doggerland only sunk around 6500 BC. We had to build a tunnel to get cheap booze.....On the subject of sea level rise .
https://youtu.be/uBPXjQRJA90
All that's needed is adjusting to the data.
I do love this site,
https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
It saves them taxing their brains, all the answers are provided without having to think.
https://youtu.be/uBPXjQRJA90
All that's needed is adjusting to the data.
I do love this site,
https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
It saves them taxing their brains, all the answers are provided without having to think.
PRTVR said:
I do love this site,
https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
It saves them taxing their brains, all the answers are provided without having to think.
It always makes me laugh when somebody who rejects the science complains about sites like skeptical science.https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
It saves them taxing their brains, all the answers are provided without having to think.
If you don't like skeptical science, you can simply get your information from the source of any of the data involved, any group researching climate change, or any general science magazines and websites.
Or basically any source that has credible scientific credentials because not a single one of them rejects the science of climate change.
The only people relying exclusively on a tiny collection of fringe advocacy blogs are those who reject the science, like yourself.
durbster said:
PRTVR said:
I do love this site,
https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
It saves them taxing their brains, all the answers are provided without having to think.
It always makes me laugh when somebody who rejects the science complains about sites like skeptical science.https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
It saves them taxing their brains, all the answers are provided without having to think.
If you don't like skeptical science, you can simply get your information from the source of any of the data involved, any group researching climate change, or any general science magazines and websites.
Or basically any source that has credible scientific credentials because not a single one of them rejects the science of climate change.
The only people relying exclusively on a tiny collection of fringe advocacy blogs are those who reject the science, like yourself.
Anyway what's your thoughts on the YouTube link where sea level rise manipulation is discussed.
durbster said:
It always makes me laugh when somebody who rejects the science complains about sites like skeptical science.
If you don't like skeptical science, you can simply get your information from the source of any of the data involved, any group researching climate change, or any general science magazines and websites.
Or basically any source that has credible scientific credentials because not a single one of them rejects the science of climate change.
The only people relying exclusively on a tiny collection of fringe advocacy blogs are those who reject the science, like yourself.
And yet you take a cartoonist's website over a meteorologist's website? Go figure. If you don't like skeptical science, you can simply get your information from the source of any of the data involved, any group researching climate change, or any general science magazines and websites.
Or basically any source that has credible scientific credentials because not a single one of them rejects the science of climate change.
The only people relying exclusively on a tiny collection of fringe advocacy blogs are those who reject the science, like yourself.
Jinx said:
durbster said:
It always makes me laugh when somebody who rejects the science complains about sites like skeptical science.
If you don't like skeptical science, you can simply get your information from the source of any of the data involved, any group researching climate change, or any general science magazines and websites.
Or basically any source that has credible scientific credentials because not a single one of them rejects the science of climate change.
The only people relying exclusively on a tiny collection of fringe advocacy blogs are those who reject the science, like yourself.
And yet you take a cartoonist's website over a meteorologist's website? Go figure. If you don't like skeptical science, you can simply get your information from the source of any of the data involved, any group researching climate change, or any general science magazines and websites.
Or basically any source that has credible scientific credentials because not a single one of them rejects the science of climate change.
The only people relying exclusively on a tiny collection of fringe advocacy blogs are those who reject the science, like yourself.
durbster said:
Jinx said:
durbster said:
It always makes me laugh when somebody who rejects the science complains about sites like skeptical science.
If you don't like skeptical science, you can simply get your information from the source of any of the data involved, any group researching climate change, or any general science magazines and websites.
Or basically any source that has credible scientific credentials because not a single one of them rejects the science of climate change.
The only people relying exclusively on a tiny collection of fringe advocacy blogs are those who reject the science, like yourself.
And yet you take a cartoonist's website over a meteorologist's website? Go figure. If you don't like skeptical science, you can simply get your information from the source of any of the data involved, any group researching climate change, or any general science magazines and websites.
Or basically any source that has credible scientific credentials because not a single one of them rejects the science of climate change.
The only people relying exclusively on a tiny collection of fringe advocacy blogs are those who reject the science, like yourself.
durbster said:
I don't cite advocacy blogs because I don't need to, as explained in the post you replied to.
Skeptical Science is an advocacy blog created by John Cook (a cartoonist with a predilection for dressing in SS gear) (published papers available but maybe not for long )WUWT (The worlds most viewed site on global warming) was created by Anthony Watts a TV meteorologist - ( published papers available).
Jinx said:
durbster said:
I don't cite advocacy blogs because I don't need to, as explained in the post you replied to.
Skeptical Science is an advocacy blog created by John Cook (a cartoonist with a predilection for dressing in SS gear) (published papers available but maybe not for long )WUWT (The worlds most viewed site on global warming) was created by Anthony Watts a TV meteorologist - ( published papers available).
durbster said:
Jinx said:
durbster said:
I don't cite advocacy blogs because I don't need to, as explained in the post you replied to.
Skeptical Science is an advocacy blog created by John Cook (a cartoonist with a predilection for dressing in SS gear) (published papers available but maybe not for long )WUWT (The worlds most viewed site on global warming) was created by Anthony Watts a TV meteorologist - ( published papers available).
robinessex said:
Unlike you, who activley ignores them.
Jinx said:
Skeptical Science is an advocacy blog created by John Cook (a cartoonist with a predilection for dressing in SS gear) (published papers available but maybe not for long )
WUWT (The worlds most viewed site on global warming) was created by Anthony Watts a TV meteorologist - ( published papers available).
I see the same sWUWT (The worlds most viewed site on global warming) was created by Anthony Watts a TV meteorologist - ( published papers available).
t is being posted over here too 
Anthony Watts is no more a meteorologist than I am a Cabinet Maker, he has no Meteorological qualifications whatsoever. He never even graduated. He's a self-proclaimed Meteorologist who presented a TV show.
Whereas John Cook:
"Skeptical Science was created and maintained by John Cook, a research assistant professor at the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University. John co-authored the college textbooks Climate Change: Examining the Facts with Weber State University professor Daniel Bedford. He was also a coauthor of the textbook Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis and the book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand.
In 2013, he lead-authored an award-winning paper analyzing the scientific consensus on climate change that has been highlighted by President Obama and UK Prime Minister David Cameron. In 2015, he developed a Massive Open Online Course on climate science denial with the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland (see a full list of his scholarly publications here https://skepticalscience.com/posts.php?u=1).
There is no funding to maintain Skeptical Science other than Paypal donations - it's run at personal expense. John Cook has no affiliations with any political organisations or groups. Skeptical Science is strictly a labour of love. The design was created by John's talented web designer wife."
But that you could say the same about WUWT.
LoonyTunes said:
Jinx said:
Skeptical Science is an advocacy blog created by John Cook (a cartoonist with a predilection for dressing in SS gear) (published papers available but maybe not for long )
WUWT (The worlds most viewed site on global warming) was created by Anthony Watts a TV meteorologist - ( published papers available).
I see the same sWUWT (The worlds most viewed site on global warming) was created by Anthony Watts a TV meteorologist - ( published papers available).
t is being posted over here too Anthony Watts is no more a meteorologist than I am a Cabinet Maker, he has no Meteorological qualifications whatsoever. He never even graduated. He's a self-proclaimed Meteorologist who presented a TV show.
Whereas John Cook:
"Skeptical Science was created and maintained by John Cook, a research assistant professor at the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University. John co-authored the college textbooks Climate Change: Examining the Facts with Weber State University professor Daniel Bedford. He was also a coauthor of the textbook Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis and the book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand.
In 2013, he lead-authored an award-winning paper analyzing the scientific consensus on climate change that has been highlighted by President Obama and UK Prime Minister David Cameron. In 2015, he developed a Massive Open Online Course on climate science denial with the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland (see a full list of his scholarly publications here https://skepticalscience.com/posts.php?u=1).
There is no funding to maintain Skeptical Science other than Paypal donations - it's run at personal expense. John Cook has no affiliations with any political organisations or groups. Skeptical Science is strictly a labour of love. The design was created by John's talented web designer wife."
But that you could say the same about WUWT.
The first holy rule of Co2 is thou shalt not take the lord god C02 and his priests name in vain.
Here is an alternative translation.
James Cook, The Lord high internet priest of Co2, he of many and various theological climate truth degrees, has authored many papers showing the one true C02 light, providing and ensuring the true theology to convert evil heretics to true faith. Peace be upon C02.
Though shall not take the high priest name in vain....... Hellujah.
LoonyTunes said:
I see the same st is being posted over here too
Anthony Watts is no more a meteorologist than I am a Cabinet Maker, he has no Meteorological qualifications whatsoever. He never even graduated. He's a self-proclaimed Meteorologist who presented a TV show.
Whereas John Cook:
"Skeptical Science was created and maintained by John Cook, a research assistant professor at the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University. John co-authored the college textbooks Climate Change: Examining the Facts with Weber State University professor Daniel Bedford. He was also a coauthor of the textbook Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis and the book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand.
In 2013, he lead-authored an award-winning paper analyzing the scientific consensus on climate change that has been highlighted by President Obama and UK Prime Minister David Cameron. In 2015, he developed a Massive Open Online Course on climate science denial with the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland (see a full list of his scholarly publications here https://skepticalscience.com/posts.php?u=1).
There is no funding to maintain Skeptical Science other than Paypal donations - it's run at personal expense. John Cook has no affiliations with any political organisations or groups. Skeptical Science is strictly a labour of love. The design was created by John's talented web designer wife."
But that you could say the same about WUWT.
John Cook as he appeared on SKS (Skeptical Science) forum:t is being posted over here too Anthony Watts is no more a meteorologist than I am a Cabinet Maker, he has no Meteorological qualifications whatsoever. He never even graduated. He's a self-proclaimed Meteorologist who presented a TV show.
Whereas John Cook:
"Skeptical Science was created and maintained by John Cook, a research assistant professor at the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University. John co-authored the college textbooks Climate Change: Examining the Facts with Weber State University professor Daniel Bedford. He was also a coauthor of the textbook Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis and the book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand.
In 2013, he lead-authored an award-winning paper analyzing the scientific consensus on climate change that has been highlighted by President Obama and UK Prime Minister David Cameron. In 2015, he developed a Massive Open Online Course on climate science denial with the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland (see a full list of his scholarly publications here https://skepticalscience.com/posts.php?u=1).
There is no funding to maintain Skeptical Science other than Paypal donations - it's run at personal expense. John Cook has no affiliations with any political organisations or groups. Skeptical Science is strictly a labour of love. The design was created by John's talented web designer wife."
But that you could say the same about WUWT.
Story here
Anthony Watts was a professional meteorologist (WLFI-TV in Lafayette, Indiana) - got paid for it ergo he is a meteorologist. Co-Authored useful papers that had led to improved weather monitoring.
Cook has co-authored fluff pieces written to push the CAGW meme that do not measure up to proper standards (previous link I have provided) .
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff