Gary M Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 "this guy"? the viscount with a ba in zoology? any time someone uses the word "all" it is cause for skepticism. however in this case there really is a none. as in the number of scientific societies that reject the idea of manmade climate change. from wiki: Dissenting[edit]See also: List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming As of 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[13] no scientific body of national or international scientists rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.[12][14] So you stick to 97% because that is more believable!!! Dissenting: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 So you stick to 97% because that is more believable!!! Dissenting: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/ let's see: we have a huge majority of faculty from every conceivable discipline from virtually every prestigious and less prestigious faculty in the world versus a handful of skeptics, many of whom have a financial tie to an industry that produces green house gasses. it shouldn't take a scientist to calculate which group is mor3e believable... 97%? who knows. it's clearly the vast majority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 let's see: we have a huge majority of faculty from every conceivable discipline from virtually every prestigious and less prestigious faculty in the world versus a handful of skeptics, many of whom have a financial tie to an industry that produces green house gasses. it shouldn't take a scientist to calculate which group is mor3e believable... 97%? who knows. it's clearly the vast majority. Has the temperature been cyclical, Yes or no? Are we not in a current warming trend for the last TEN THOUSAND years? (Mostly prior to Industrial revolution) Is the 90% consensus a tiny portion of scientists (79) or not? Have the IPC models been wrong or not? Have the polar caps disappeared like ALgore said they would? Are our coastal cities under water yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 (edited) Has the temperature been cyclical, Yes or no? Are we not in a current warming trend for the last TEN THOUSAND years? (Mostly prior to Industrial revolution) Is the 90% consensus a tiny portion of scientists (79) or not? Have the IPC models been wrong or not? Have the polar caps disappeared like ALgore said they would? Are our coastal cities under water yet? to me this is the key point. i trust science. you trust politically and financially motivated thugs. NO it's not 79 scientists. read the paper that this number comes from. It's one paper. it stipulated that 50% of submitted papers on climate change be published fopr a scientist to be included.. this greatly limited the number of experts. there are many other studies and more informal polls. they all show consensus among the vast majority of scientists in the field. Edited July 6, 2015 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 (edited) to me this is the key point. i trust science. you trust politically and financially motivated thugs. NO it's not 79 scientists. read the paper that this number comes from. It's one paper. it stipulated that 50% of submitted papers on climate change be published fopr a scientist to be included.. this greatly limited the number of experts. there are many other studies and more informal polls. they all show consensus among the vast majority of scientists in the field. So you believe the science, even though the data shows time and again that the models are wrong and none of their predictions come to pass? Here is some data from your scientists. Edited July 6, 2015 by Gary M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 (edited) let's see: we have a huge majority of faculty from every conceivable discipline from virtually every prestigious and less prestigious faculty in the world versus a handful of skeptics, many of whom have a financial tie to an industry that produces green house gasses. it shouldn't take a scientist to calculate which group is mor3e believable... 97%? who knows. it's clearly the vast majority.It's incredible isnt it? It's like talking to people years ago who said smoking cigarettes wasn't bad for you. Just like it didn't take a genius to figure out pouring smoke in your lungs was bad for you ...like they really needed lung cancer stats to confirm it?!!??....how can anyone really think that pouring 40 billion freaking tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year cannot have rather serious negative consequences??!!!! Edited July 6, 2015 by JTSP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 So you believe the science, even though the data shows time and again that the models are wrong and none of their predictions come to pass? Here is some data from your scientists. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/oct/01/ipcc-global-warming-projections-accurate It's incredible isnt it? It's like talking to people years ago who said smoking cigarettes wasn't bad for you. Just like it didn't take a genius to figure out pouring smoke in your lungs was bad for you ...like they really needed lung cancer stats to confirm it?!!??....how can anyone really think that pouring 40 billion freaking tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year cannot have rather serious negative consequences??!!!! it's called magical thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 It's incredible isnt it? It's like talking to people years ago who said smoking cigarettes wasn't bad for you. Just like it didn't take a genius to figure out pouring smoke in your lungs was bad for you ...like they really needed lung cancer stats to confirm it?!!??....how can anyone really think that pouring 40 billion freaking tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year cannot have rather serious negative consequences??!!!! More green plants? http://www.climatecentral.org/news/study-finds-plant-growth-surges-as-co2-levels-rise-16094 FTA Trees are likely to invade grasslands in the drier regions, and their deep roots are better equipped to tap groundwater and at the same time stabilize the soils. “Even if nothing else in the climate changes as global CO2 levels rise, we will still see significant environmental changes because of the CO2 fertilization effect,” says Dr. Donohue http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/oct/01/ipcc-global-warming-projections-accurate So we are coming out of an ice age, still not proof of harm by man, and still not even close to the temps of the Medieval optimum! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 More green plants? http://www.climatecentral.org/news/study-finds-plant-growth-surges-as-co2-levels-rise-16094 FTA Trees are likely to invade grasslands in the drier regions, and their deep roots are better equipped to tap groundwater and at the same time stabilize the soils. “Even if nothing else in the climate changes as global CO2 levels rise, we will still see significant environmental changes because of the CO2 fertilization effect,” says Dr. Donohue So we are coming out of an ice age, still not proof of harm by man, and still not even close to the temps of the Medieval optimum! it's a war of attrition. i link to an article showing the modeling is quite good and you just keep advancing groundless arguments in far flung areas, no doubt disseminated by the thugs i described. it's a stupid persons tactic. but it is truly tiresome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 it's a war of attrition. i link to an article showing the modeling is quite good and you just keep advancing groundless arguments in far flung areas, no doubt disseminated by the thugs i described. it's a stupid persons tactic. but it is truly tiresome. Groundless and far flung? Not sure how you got there. They predicted the temperatures are rising, which we know because we are coming out of an ice age. Not real hard to do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/oct/01/ipcc-global-warming-projections-accurate Gotta love section 3, "Cherry Picking," where they cherry-pick data to prove everyone else's cherry-picking is invalid. Thus, the major flaw in the global warming "science" - it's highly dependent on the baseline you choose. There's no particular reason to think the "20th century average" in the graph Gary posted is any more or less valid than the "1990" baseline the Guardian article chooses over the "1998" baseline they're trying to disprove. Never mind the Guardian's article specifically says "climate models have a hard time predicting changes over 10–15 years," then proceed to base a large part of their argument on the choice of a 15-year window as "proof." Good, sound scientific reasoning there... But funnier yet...you consider that a valid argument to authority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 You'll have to forgive me GREGGY,The last batch of so called know it all liberals were my high school teachers and we were taught that an ice age was upon us and that this entire state would be covered with ice.I have since learned to do some research and think rationally so I have come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as man made global warming. Man made or not, climate change is a real issue facing the world. The cause is irrelevant and charged political rhetoric like you're using here (and is scattered throughout the thread) does nothing but distract low information people (like yourself) from the actual issue. By the way, what's a "last batch of so called know it all liberals"? So called? So they weren't really liberals? Don't worry Gary,they can always fudge the numbers if they have to.Those who worship at the altar of liberalism never challenge what they are told. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 Man made or not, climate change is a real issue facing the world. No it isn't. The environmental issues facing the world aren't being dealt with because of the money being wasted on climate change. This just in: The earth's climate has always changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 No it isn't. The environmental issues facing the world aren't being dealt with because of the money being wasted on climate change. This just in: The earth's climate has always changed. Hotter, colder. man adapted, all without carbon credits to transfer wealth from productive to non productive peoples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 No it isn't. The environmental issues facing the world aren't being dealt with because of the money being wasted on climate change. This just in: The earth's climate has always changed. Denial is a fun game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 Denial is a fun game. So is ignorance. "Climate Change" is the "Nuclear Winter" of our time. At some point all of you are going to realize you're being had and stop building your metaphorical atomic bomb shelters. It was bull **** when they unveiled the hockey stick graph and the pile just keeps getting deeper. Don't worry. I'm sure "Carbon Credits" will be the polio vaccine we've been desperately searching for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 how can anyone really think that pouring 40 billion freaking tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year cannot have rather serious negative consequences??!!!! If the CO@ hasn't been reduced, why has the temperature flattened out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 So is ignorance. "Climate Change" is the "Nuclear Winter" of our time. At some point all of you are going to realize you're being had and stop building your metaphorical atomic bomb shelters. It was bull **** when they unveiled the hockey stick graph and the pile just keeps getting deeper. Don't worry. I'm sure "Carbon Credits" will be the polio vaccine we've been desperately searching for. The only ignorance here is the belief that Climate Change (which is real and is happening today) won't impact us at all... when the majority of the world's population and economic centers currently reside on coast lines that are disappearing. Again, denial is a fun game. Not helpful, but fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 The only ignorance here is the belief that Climate Change (which is real and is happening today) won't impact us at all... when the majority of the world's population and economic centers currently reside on coast lines that are disappearing. Again, denial is a fun game. Not helpful, but fun. Tell me how carbon credits will stop that!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 The only ignorance here is the belief that Climate Change (which is real and is happening today) won't impact us at all... when the majority of the world's population and economic centers currently reside on coast lines that are disappearing. Again, denial is a fun game. Really ? Stretching the Truth is a good "game" too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts