Turn out the global warming lights, the party is over
-
Thank you, Heck, for the whack a mole analogy.
It seems you are starting to be a tiny bit self aware after all.
Now, if you will USE this awareness, and stop using Bush blaming to
excuse your precious ObaMao and Pelosi et all, of all mistakes, miscues,
and really dangerous directions our country is going in, and the damage they are doing doing to our country and our freedoms...
you could actually add some intelligent conversation in leauge with the rest of us to this board.
-
Cal, you still don't get the difference between citing a scientific poll and citing an internet poll. You prove it with every post. It's stunning and unsurprising all at once.
Cal, what's the major difference between a scientific poll and an internet poll?
-
The lack of prohibiting outside influences, bias.
Who cares? I said any poll I ever used is AN INDICATOR.
IN-DI-CA-TOR.
INDICATOR.
Not scientific no-doubt-about-it fact.
INDICATOR.
Do you know what an "indicator" is?
Nope. You kept quiet for years while your Sheppie and co. boys used
all sorts of opinion polls vs Bush.
You were happy with that? You never complained one time, I believe.
That's eight years of the Bush admin and opinion polls out your'alls' wazoo.
But NOW? Internet polls bad. Any poll that sides with your opinions, good and scientific.
Fool. When you say "EVERYBODY KNOWS YOU'RE WRONG, CAL"
Then I post a poll where 93% of respondents agree with ME, don't you understand, Heck,
that that is A FREAKIN SOMEBEECH INDICATOR that you are full of cameldung?
IT MEANS THAT EVEN THOUGH IT IS AN INTERNET POLL/NOT A SCIENTIFIC POLL, that IT STILL
CAN INDICATE AN OPINION IS VALID, AND LEGIT MEANING CAN STILL BE GLEANED FROM IT.
Good God, man, stop your childish quibbling over the definition of terms you bring out of the closet.
Show me one time in the last several years where I said that an internet poll was scientific.
You can't, you little wimpy molly-lolly creampuff !
-
Here, Heck, read this and
man up for just once since I ever read one of your childishly pouty and ignorant posts:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/art...ear-record.html
The .... manmade ......global .......warming .......party .......is......SO FREAKIN.....over.
-
Cal... again. Not a scientific paper.
-
I don't care. "Scientific papers" didn't matter during eight years of frantic whining over being "frightened" during the Bush admin.
Science lies to, when the $$$$$$$$$ are on the line for man made global warming. Climategate.
-
What does "being frightened during the Bush admin" have to do with science and scientific accuracy?
You're citing dailymail and drudge report as your sources for human influence on climate change. You can continue to do so, but no one will take you seriously because this isn't something that has a simple answer, it needs to be drawn from the conclusions of thousands of experiments.
If you want us to take you seriously, start giving us peer-reviewed, published papers that claim humans aren't causing climate change. It's not that hard. Here is one, for example, that deniers claim has debunked global warming.
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf
I've only eyed through it, but the claim that was made was that if this was true (which it very well may be), the current rate of global change meant that ocean temperatures wouldn't raise by a full degree Celsius until 2100.
A simple ctrl+F through the paper, and you'll find that it isn't there. A renowned physicist claims to have done the math, so I'm pretty trusting that he is correct in this assumption, but really it's beside the point. This is one man's interpretation of another study's interpretation of how the world works. Science is a game of inches, and you aren't going to find a single breakthrough paper that proves it either way. Any headline that tells you otherwise is full of shit, but I see it when hearing about papers on other topics such as AIDS, and someone disproving Einstein's theory of relativity. I seriously read a headline that a cure for AIDS is on the way, or that Einstein's theory is disproved this month. Well guess what, it's sensationalist bullshit because when you read the actual paper, you find out that they've been able to stop one strain of HIV, but it's still mutating too quickly for us to keep up. And with Einstein's stuff. There were a ton of holes in his areas, and the world of physics has been getting clearer (or muddier, maybe, we really don't know how deep the rabbit hole goes) ever since he's been around.
The point is, with science, majority rules. And while it's true that some people have been held back by this... See the following article...
http://www.cracked.com/article_18822_5-fam...their-time.html
It's not something that's going to change. I won't start believing it until I see the majority of papers on the topic being released debunking the theory of man made climate change.
I could very well be wrong, but the majority of science out there supports that man is having an impact on the climate, and the people who end up being on lists like that are diamonds in the rough. Personally, I think a more pressing issue is ocean acidification.
-
Cal, you clearly don't understand this. Still. And yet you are certain that you do. Just like everything else we talk about.
Why should we imagine this to be different?
-
And Steve, I would agree with you. It does get a bit boring. Because it's the same nonsense over and over again. Most every denier trots out the same 4-5 different "arguments", as if they're all working from the same playbook. Because they are.
I mean, did you know the Earth's climate has changed naturally over time? That Newsweek ran a cover in the 70s about global cooling? That CO2 can't be a pollutant because plants like it? That some scientist used the word "trick" in an email? Hockey stick graph, Al Gore's house, blah, blah, blah.
You can only bat all this crap down so many times. Someone else just pops up and presents it all over again, as if it suddenly started making sense. It's like whack-a-mole.
And Steve, I would agree with you. It does get a bit boring. Because it's the same nonsense over and over again. Most every denier trots out the same 4-5 different "arguments", as if they're all working from the same playbook. Because they are.
I mean, did you know the Earth's climate has changed naturally over time? That Newsweek ran a cover in the 70s about global cooling? That CO2 can't be a pollutant because plants like it? That some scientist used the word "trick" in an email? Hockey stick graph, Al Gore's house, blah, blah, blah.
You can only bat all this crap down so many times. Someone else just pops up and presents it all over again, as if it suddenly started making sense. It's like whack-a-mole.
Well it's certainly whacking something.
But in any ongoing argument we tend to keep repeating the same points.
I'm still a skeptic as to the prophesied disaster, the proposals to avert that armageddon and the chances of getting that solution off the ground even if I did think it'd save humanity.
It ggets to be a little like arguing with a guy who says we're going to hell if we don't repent now.
But I'd think even you might admit that the committed GW crowd might have picked a better frontman than Al Gore.
WSS
-
Oh, baloney, Vapor. we hashed this out a long time ago.
Scientific this vs scientific that, and it never changed anyone's minds.
In fact, one of the MAIN reasons for the libs' adherence to worshipping the "man-made global warming false god"
....was Algore's documentary/movie, With phoney clips of icebergs in it. Was that "scientific paper" ?????
LOL, ROF,L. You had to have been there. It was hilarious. We could go through all that again, but,
I'll pass. " The only real scientists are the ones who agree with us" .... LOL.
-
Cal, it's not baloney. It's science. And I don't know what Al Gore's inconvenient truth did, except for raise awareness about the problem. I haven't seen it. I think his Nobel prize is a joke. I'm talking about science. Not a movie.
" The only real scientists are the ones who agree with us"
And that sounds like your point of view.
-
Al Gore raised awareness much in the same manner that Orson Welles raised awareness on the dangers of extraterrestrial attack.
WSS
-
Always back to Al Gore. Jesus.
"It ggets to be a little like arguing with a guy who says we're going to hell if we don't repent now."
No, it's not like that at all. Mounds of scientific evidence and faith-based religious fundamentalism are nothing like each other.
I would certainly agree that it's next to pointless to argue with partisans who don't accept the science, and then claim to know what the real scientific answers are. That mostly pointless, other than to point out how ridiculous a position that is.
It's also not that interesting to argue with you about it, since your position on pretty much everything is only giving a shit about showing off how little you give a shit. If this were the 60s, I can't imagine you'd have been for civil rights. If it were the 20s, you probably wouldn't have lifted a finger to help women vote. The only thing that seems to upset you is people who identify problems with the status quo.
In this case, you're mad about people who want to do something about pollution. You just throw up your hands. This is your "position."
Awesome.
-
I could not give two shits about what Al Gore says on the matter. The dude claimed he invented the internet. I do, however, trust scientific papers on the topic. I could post a whole bunch of them that I struggle to understand the implications of. The problem is with people that they sensationalize science and twist it to get their point of view on a subject across. It's maddening.
Here is an article on expert credibility in climate change
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/...187107.abstract
Click the full text pdf to read the whole thing.
Read it.
Then read this,
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/...of-climate.html
This article includes a critique of what the study lacked, including comments by one of the papers authors. I am not pimping this paper as the be-all end-all to the conversation on climate change, I'm just saying that it is the most objective view that exists on the topic. There does exist some disparity, as described by the article, but Cal, I'm inclined to believe the side that's putting out more evidence. If you want me to believe that climate change isn't happening, then get your ass out in the field and go find a project that gives evidence of the contrary, because there are a shit ton of people that are working their asses off and saying it is.
-
Boston Globe: Scientists don't agree on global warming By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist, 11/05/98See: <A href="http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe/globehtml/309/Scientists_don_t_agree_on_global_wa.shtml">Boston Globe Article
Underway in Buenos Aires is a giant international conference on global warming, a follow-up to last December's United Nations-sponsored confab in Kyoto, Japan. Delegates to the summit aim to put teeth into the treaty that came out of Kyoto, which calls for the world's leading countries to reduce sharply their use of energy over the next decade and a half. If implemented, the treaty would force the most productive societies on earth - the ones that have led the way in making human life comfortable, safe, and prosperous - to slow their economic growth and degrade their standard of living.
The organizers of the Buenos Aires conference take it for granted, of course, that global warming is real. The ''consensus'' among scientists, it is said, is that the planet's temperature is rising, the cause of the rise is the use of fossil fuels, and disastrous climate changes are looming unless drastic changes are made. The media likewise tend to take it as a given that the experts are in accord on global warming. So do many politicians. ''The evidence of global warming keeps piling up,'' says Vice President Al Gore, who has made the issue a personal crusade, ''month after month, week after week.''
So if the scientists are all in agreement, who said this?
''We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto. ... The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
''There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing (or will in the foreseeable future cause) catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere and disruption of the earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth.''
The carping of an oil-industry flack? The ignorant mutterings of fringe antienvironmentalists?
No. It is a petition signed by nearly 17,000 US scientists, half of whom are trained in the fields of physics, geophysics, climate science, meteorology, oceanography, chemistry, biology, or biochemistry. The statement was circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine along with an eight-page abstract of the latest research on climate change. The abstract - written for scientists but comprehensible by laymen - concludes that there is no basis for believing (1) that atmospheric CO2 is causing a dangerous climb in global temperatures, (2) that greater concentrations of CO2 would be harmful, or (3) that human activity leads to global warming in the first place.
The cover letter accompanying the petition and abstract was penned by Frederick Seitz, a past president of the National Academy of Sciences. (All these documents are available online at www.oism.org/pproject.) The scientific ''consensus'' on global warming, it turns out, does not exist.
The Oregon Institute petition is no anomaly.
More than 100 climate scientists have endorsed the Leipzig Declaration, which describes the Kyoto treaty as ''dangerously simplistic, quite ineffective, and economically destructive.'' The endorsers include prominent scholars, among them David Aubrey of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute; Larry Brace of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center; meteorologist Austin Hogan, who co-edits the journal Atmospheric Research; Richard Lindzen, the Sloane Professor of Meteorology at MIT; and Patrick Michaels, a University of Virginia professor and past president of the American Association of State Climatologists.
''The dire predictions of a future warming have not been validated by the historic climate record,'' the Leipzig Declaration says bluntly. ''In fact, most climate specialists now agree that actual observations from both weather satellites and balloon-borne radiosondes show no current warming whatsoever - in direct contradiction to computer model results.'' The declaration, plus a wealth of information on every aspect of the global warming controversy, is posted at the Web site of the Science & Environmental Policy Project, www.sepp.org.
What is going on in Buenos Aires is a costly exercise in futility. The United States has not signed the Kyoto treaty; even if President Clinton does sign it, there is no chance the Senate will ratify it. And without US participation, any plan to curtail CO2 emissions is doomed - as it ought to be.
Nevertheless, it is important to explode the myth that most scientists are worried about global warming. Politicians shouldn't be permitted to hijack science in their pursuit of power. Environmentalists and journalists with an antibusiness itch to scratch should be cross-examined whenever they claim there is only one side to an issue of public policy.
We've been down this ''consensus'' road before. Remember when the Chicken Littles were warning that the earth was getting colder? ''The evidence in support of predictions [of global cooling] has now begun to accumulate so massively,'' Newsweek claimed in 1975, ''that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.'' Except that there was no global cooling. The alarmists were wrong then. They're wrong now.
Jeff Jacoby is a Globe columnist.
-
You guys have a theory you love.
Have a gosh-bejeebers happy day !
But you're wrong.
I am right. mmgw claims of being "fact", is bogus.
The debate was NEVER "over".
That pretty much settles that. @@
-
And he produces yet another editorial from a right-wong columnist, and not even a good one. With the Newsweek "global cooling" trope in it too.
Aye aye aye.
Always the same shit, over and over. See what I mean, Steve?
-
Okay, Cal, I finally see your side of the argument. Some columnist in Globe knows more about climate change than the people that study it.
You're using the word "theory" as if it's a bad word. The only other people that do that are creationists.
-
Oh, and Vapor, Al Gore never claimed that he invented the internet. It's like saying Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house.
Neither ever happened. The opposite side just likes to pretend it did, or doesn't know.
-
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login