Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez might have been mistaken on we only have 12 years

[Jezcoe]

@Snow96

So to be peer reviewed it has to be published?

Yes.

That is the very definition of peer review.

Going through it now.

One of the markers that it might not stand on it’s own is that instead of referencing actual peer reviewed papers, they reference blogs.

That is usually a bad sign.

[Borgia_dude]

@Borgia_dude

@thinkingman

i’d love to show something like this to AOC and see what her response would be

https://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/

“ Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of The Warming’ In Climate Data”

Hmm, I can’t comment on the science as there is not enough info. But don’t you skeptics always say follow the money. I looked up one of the authors (Idso) cited in you link:

Beyond his normal job…An unauthorized release of documents indicate Idso received $11,600 per month in 2012 from the Heartland Institute.

That’s more than most climatologists make. By conservative reasoning, that makes Idso suspect, right?

Average climatologist salary in 2012 was $89k. Idso earned over $139k from the Heartland Institute. That is higher than the top of the range for climatologists in 2012 which ranged from $49k-$134k.

[Borgia_dude]

@Jezcoe

they reference blogs.

Omg. “Not a good sign” is an understatement.

[Borgia_dude]

@Snow96

@Borgia_dude

Perhaps instead of asking a bunch of non-experts here on the Internet you should take your queries to the local state university?

So a bunch of non-experts just naturally assume that it’s apples to apples comparison. How dare I question the comparison right?

Question away. But don’t waste time here shouting into the wind. Go share your concerns at the university. Either you will get an education on the subject or you will bring forth a new concern. Either way, we win!

[WuWei]

@Jezcoe

Yes.

That is the very definition of peer review.

Wrong. It can be sent only to peers and often is prior to publishing.

[WuWei]

@Borgia_dude

@Jezcoe

they reference blogs.

Omg. “Not a good sign” is an understatement.

Twits are so much better.

[Jezcoe]

@Borgia_dude

@Jezcoe

they reference blogs.

Omg. “Not a good sign” is an understatement.

The paper is attempting to discredit the data collected by NOAA,NASA, and the Hadley/CRU as invalid.

There is not much hope.

[Plasmaball]

Seems like a case.where you would want Darwin to take over…sadly it just affects the rest of us or this would be a good solution to the problem…

[Plasmaball]

I’m gonna start a blog…to discredit things…li k to it as proof and profit!

It’s on the internet so its true

[Jezcoe]

So read the paper.

The tl;dr version is that they are claiming that the methodology used by basically everyone to correct for anomalies in the data is wrong and there is in fact not a heating trend.

Which I am sure that the people wanting to extract resources from the newly opened up arctic will be bummed to hear.

[thinkingman]

@Jezcoe

@thinkingman

i’d love to show something like this to AOC and see what her response would be

https://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/

“ Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of The Warming’ In Climate Data”

Was that from a peer reviewed journal?

do you dispute the findings?

[Jezcoe]

@thinkingman

@Jezcoe

@thinkingman

i’d love to show something like this to AOC and see what her response would be

https://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/

“ Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of The Warming’ In Climate Data”

Was that from a peer reviewed journal?

do you dispute the findings?

Yes.

I read the paper.

Did you?

[Roxiebelle]

@Snow96

30 years they’ve been saying this crap.

Indeed! The GW/CC nut-jobs had 3 “10 year warning” iterations and AOC 12 year warning is the 4th iteration It never ends with the environmental crazies!

[thinkingman]

@Jezcoe

@thinkingman

@Jezcoe

@thinkingman

i’d love to show something like this to AOC and see what her response would be

https://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/

“ Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of The Warming’ In Climate Data”

Was that from a peer reviewed journal?

do you dispute the findings?

Yes.

I read the paper.

Did you?

yes

how do you dispute them?

[Jezcoe]

@thinkingman

@Jezcoe

@thinkingman

@Jezcoe

@thinkingman

i’d love to show something like this to AOC and see what her response would be

https://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/

“ Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of The Warming’ In Climate Data”

Was that from a peer reviewed journal?

do you dispute the findings?

Yes.

I read the paper.

Did you?

yes

how do you dispute them?

Do you believe that they have successfully shown that the warming trend that everyone basically agrees upon is false and why?

Which is the the best piece of evidence that they bring forth to dispute that?

I point to the rapid melting of the Arctic Circle.

What do you you believe is the evidence that holds up their hypothesis?

[Snow96]

@Jezcoe

I point to the rapid melting of the Arctic Circle.

How rapid was the ice melt in the Arctic Circle during each of the last warming cycles, and how does it compare to this one?

[Jezcoe]

@Snow96

@Jezcoe

I point to the rapid melting of the Arctic Circle.

How rapid was the ice melt in the Arctic Circle during each of the last warming cycles, and how does it compare to this one?

The paper that is being being discussed denies that there is a warming cycle even happening

The crux of it is that the modeling that is used by everyone is wrong.

So in that context… given the paper that is being discussed… the question makes no sense.

[Chris]

@Jezcoe

Was that from a peer reviewed journal?

The daily caller is much more reliable than a peer reviewed journal on the subject of climate change.

[mobulis]

@Snow96

@Excast

We don’t fully know man’s role in changing this growing problem.

This right here should be the end of it.

We don’t KNOW mans effect on the natural warming of the plannet. I don’t deny the planet is warming. Hell past record shows regular warming and cooling cycles, and from those records we see the warming cycles have continually got warmer WITHOUT man around.

That’s why it’s a hoax (man is the cause of the increase).
That’s why it was wrong in 1989, and that’s why it’s wrong in 2019, and why it will be wrong is 2049.

So because it happened in the past that somehow means its impossible that humans can affect climate?

[AlexMcAlpine]

@Snow96

Strange that the article implies all the raise in sea level is attributed to man. Wonder what the REAL break down is. You know natural warming rise compared to so called man caused rise.

The sea levels are rising.

Can we agree on that?

Should coastal cities do something about it now, or wait for the 30 years until they are so inundated that it is impossible to construct everything needed to protect the cities from going underwater, even if that is possible.

If climate change is happening “naturally” or man-made doesn’t matter - to repeat my previous post.

Something has to be done to prepare for the fact that it is happening.

As evidenced by the facts in the article of all those cities getting flooded regularly at high tide now when that didn’t use to happen.