It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
.................... WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID. You make a claim, try to disprove that claim by finding evidence until you can only deduce that your claim is right. You're literally going, 'you're wrong, now I'm going to say what you said but in a different way to disprove what you said.' I'm well aware of what the scientific process is, I've done it.No, what we said are not the same thing. I said you try to evaluate it. That doesn't necessarily mean trying to prove it wrong as you said.
I don't think you're getting what I'm now explaining for the 3rd time. Scientists didn't do "a hand vote and most of them agree." Most of them agreed, but only a subset of them, mainly those that expressed an opinion. Meaning you cannot make the claim that 97% or even the majority of them agree with man-made climate change. It is deceptive because it leads you to believe that the majority of scientists agree with man-made climate change, but you cannot make that assumption. I will explain it again, only 1 third of scientists expressed an opinion. OF THAT ONE THIRD, 97% agree with man-made climate change. That's based on Cook's own words.
Much of this wasn't a survey of scientists directly. The discarded figures were papers which made no mention of the topic or didn't express any positions on it. There's not reason to include those, because it's not a statement of "I have no opinion on this". It's a lack of usable information altogether.
This is a common source of confusion. The middle group were those scientific papers that expressed no opinion, for example A 20-Year Record of Alpine Grasshopper Abundance, with Interpretations for Climate Change. They were included in the initial list because the initial list includes every paper with "global climate change" or "global warming".
Just because the paper expresses no opinion, doesn't mean the authors were undecided. In this case, it's because the authors are ecologists and aren't studying whether global warming is human-caused or not.
That's why they are not included on either side of the 97% figure.
Thanks for the pictures. I saw this piece from another part of wikipedia
The best evidence is the land bridge...
...at this point I think it's pretty obvious though that you're trolling. It should not have taken you more than 30 seconds to find that original animated map (it took me about 10 seconds).
And your claim that dumping 14 BILLION pounds of garbage into the ocean isn't affecting sea rise... yeeaaaah, you're trolling.
Not JUST that of course, there are loads of other factors that affect sea rise, from tectonic plate movement to aquatic life to sedimentation rates, tidal movement (from the moon slowly drifting from orbit), etc, etc, etc. Again, only an absolute FOOL (or a troll) would even be attempting to make the claim that sea rise is the sole product of global warming.
I noticed your source notes that the bridge was present 9000 cal BP, which is apparently right at the beginning of the holocene period. The source I listed claims sea levels rose up during the period, reopening the strait. I don't really know much about this in particular, so can you explain this?
During the Pleistocene epoch, global cooling led periodically to the expansion of glaciers and lowering of sea levels. This created land connections in various regions around the globe.[15] Today, the average water depth of the Bering Strait is 40–50 meters, therefore the land bridge opened when the sea level dropped more than 50 meters below the current level.[16][17] A reconstruction of the sea-level history of the region indicated that a seaway existed from 135,000-70,000 YBP, a land bridge from 70,000-60,000 YBP, intermittent connection from 60,000-30,000 YBP, a land bridge from 30,000-11,000 YBP, followed by a Holocene sea-level rise that reopened the strait.[18][19] Post-glacial rebound has continued to raise some sections of coast.
Of course I read it. Do you think I just highlighted a random part and threw it at you? If you're going to keep treating me like an idiot I don't have to respond to you.Did you uh... did you actually READ anything on that page... because it proves everything I said was spot on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#History
True, I wasn't alive during this time. But it only takes a little digging to see that you're mistaken here.
The "history" part though needs updated, because they're including everything from the 90s under "current research".
I really can't find anything suggesting Holocene had similar sea levels to today. In fact all I could find were a few mentions of the opposite being true, noting sea level rises during the early holocene period.
Again, history has proven you wrong already. It was WAY warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum, regardless of whether you're trying to claim it had gotten warm for different reasons that doesn't negate that it was WAY WARMER than it is now... and yet... hardly any difference in overall land mass.
Your own link is hysterically laughable in that it points to only ONE single potential cause... supposed global warming.
But given how much MONEY they're getting from government climate change grants... that's not too surprising.
In REALITY there are a whole SLEW of different factors that can affect the perceptive level of sea rise. The MOST important is, well... GARBAGE!
It's estimated that upwards of FOURTEEN BILLION POUNDS of garbage are dumped into the ocean EVERY YEAR... that's where the sea rise is largely coming from.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#History
Although the experimental protocol had not been published, physicists in several countries attempted, and failed, to replicate the excess heat phenomenon. The first paper submitted to Nature reproducing excess heat, although it passed peer-review, was rejected because most similar experiments were negative and there were no theories that could explain a positive result;[notes 1][38] this paper was later accepted for publication by the journal Fusion Technology. Nathan Lewis, professor of chemistry at the California Institute of Technology, led one of the most ambitious validation efforts, trying many variations on the experiment without success,[39] while CERN physicist Douglas R. O. Morrison said that "essentially all" attempts in Western Europe had failed.[6] Even those reporting success had difficulty reproducing Fleischmann and Pons' results.[40] On 10 April 1989, a group at Texas A&M University published results of excess heat and later that day a group at the Georgia Institute of Technology announced neutron production—the strongest replication announced up to that point due to the detection of neutrons and the reputation of the lab.[41] On 12 April Pons was acclaimed at an ACS meeting.[41] But Georgia Tech retracted their announcement on 13 April, explaining that their neutron detectors gave false positives when exposed to heat.[42] Another attempt at independent replication, headed by Robert Huggins at Stanford University, which also reported early success with a light water control,[43] became the only scientific support for cold fusion in 26 April US Congress hearings.[text 3] But when he finally presented his results he reported an excess heat of only one degree celsius, a result that could be explained by chemical differences between heavy and light water in the presence of lithium.[notes 2] He had not tried to measure any radiation[44] and his research was derided by scientists who saw it later.[45] For the next six weeks, competing claims, counterclaims, and suggested explanations kept what was referred to as "cold fusion" or "fusion confusion" in the news.[29][46]
In April 1989, Fleischmann and Pons published a "preliminary note" in the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry.[26] This paper notably showed a gamma peak without its corresponding Compton edge, which indicated they had made a mistake in claiming evidence of fusion byproducts.[47] Fleischmann and Pons replied to this critique,[48] but the only thing left clear was that no gamma ray had been registered and that Fleischmann refused to recognize any mistakes in the data.[49] A much longer paper published a year later went into details of calorimetry but did not include any nuclear measurements.[27]
Nevertheless, Fleischmann and Pons and a number of other researchers who found positive results remained convinced of their findings.[6] The University of Utah asked Congress to provide $25 million to pursue the research, and Pons was scheduled to meet with representatives of President Bush in early May.[6]
On 30 April 1989 cold fusion was declared dead by the New York Times. The Times called it a circus the same day, and the Boston Herald attacked cold fusion the following day.[50]
