I got yer mmgw proof of bs right here
-
OK first, there's no need to copy and paste articles, people are perfectly capable of clicking a link. It just clogs up the thread and people skip over it. Post key points if you like, but by posting the whole thing you're just going to get people ignoring it.
On to the report itself, this is basically an opinion poll of a group of american scientists. And guess what, I just joined it! Not actually, I'm not going to pay their dues, but I could easily join, even though I listed some random street I made up with the zip code 90210, and listed some bogus university. Not saying any or all of the members did that, but it's open to wide abuse - if I wanted, I could arrange for thousands of people to flood that group, arrange for a new survey and skew the results in my favour.
As for the 'fabled' 97%, it isn't an opinion poll, like your 'myth buster' above. It comes from examining the conclusions of all papers published over a twenty year period - that's about 12,000 papers* whose specific focus is global warming/climate change etc. - and determining whether they conclude that mankind has an impact.
Feel free to look it up yourself on the link I provided, but I'l give you the key numbers. About one third (33.6%) of papers took a stance on whether humans impacted global warming, the rest were just examining the effects. Of the whole group, 32.6% concluded that humans have had an impact, while 0.7% rejected the idea, and 0.3% proclaimed there is not enough information.
So that is, of all papers* who took a stance on whether global warming has been caused by mankind, 97% agreed that it was, 2% said it was not, and 1% thinks we can't be sure.
Myth buster? Myth buster busted.
-
And some politicians..
Unfortunately it does matter what they think. It shouldn't, though, they should be listening to the science.
-
It happens all the time. I'm just telling the scientists that if they want the skeptics to buy in then they should be a little more, well, scientific.
If you are really worried about this you can't afford to cry wolf.
WSS
It's not the scientists that are proclaiming the end of the world, it's media outlets. They're annoying, but marginally less so than the opposite extreme because at least they're asking for things to be done
It's not the scientists that are proclaiming the end of the world, it's media outlets. They're annoying, but marginally less so than the opposite extreme because at least they're asking for things to be done
But things are being done, Chris. Everyday we are searching for new and better ways to produce energy and that endeavor is coming along.
And the alarmists have to get their information from somewhere, no? There are certainly scientists you think the situation is dire. And that's what the media likes to report on, a crisis! So which of the scientists are more likely to get airtime and attention the people who fund these things? I would guess it would be the guys on the fringe. The crisis guys.
But if the current level of co2 is destructive then it stands to reason we have to reduce that. incrementally slowing the growth in emissions isn't an option, right?
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
It's not the scientists that are proclaiming the end of the world, it's media outlets. They're annoying, but marginally less so than the opposite extreme because at least they're asking for things to be done
But things are being done, Chris. Everyday we are searching for new and better ways to produce energy and that endeavor is coming along.
And the alarmists have to get their information from somewhere, no? There are certainly scientists you think the situation is dire. And that's what the media likes to report on, a crisis! So which of the scientists are more likely to get airtime and attention the people who fund these things? I would guess it would be the guys on the fringe. The crisis guys.
But if the current level of co2 is destructive then it stands to reason we have to reduce that. incrementally slowing the growth in emissions isn't an option, right?
WSS
But things are being done, Chris. Everyday we are searching for new and better ways to produce energy and that endeavor is coming along.
And the alarmists have to get their information from somewhere, no? There are certainly scientists you think the situation is dire. And that's what the media likes to report on, a crisis! So which of the scientists are more likely to get airtime and attention the people who fund these things? I would guess it would be the guys on the fringe. The crisis guys.
But if the current level of co2 is destructive then it stands to reason we have to reduce that. incrementally slowing the growth in emissions isn't an option, right?
WSS
Slowing the growth of emissions with aims to reduce it is possible - immediately reducing it is not.
-
First of all, people are stupid. The public's opinion should really have no bearing on a scientific issue. Why should we treat the opinion of Bubba, who never graduated high school, the same as an established scientist. Or hell, what about someone with an engineering degree or hard science degree vs a women's study major or some other humanities. I'm not talking about issues that can fall to people's opinions. Economic issues, foreign policy, etc could fit there. I'm talking about issues completely based around science and have scientific solutions. The publics opinion should not matter in determining the issues legitimacy (though it would in his solutions are implemented).
I definitely think this is a major flaw in democracy. Giving everyone an equal vote when they necessarily don't have an equal understanding. To be clear, I'm not saying I'd have 100% understanding on everything either. I'd want someone that does to be weighted higher than myself. This all goes back to my desire for a test to weight everyone's votes.
Also, meteorologists study weather, not the climate. Your local weatherman is no where near as reputable as a published climatologist when comes to climate change.
Not to mention your study had 6 times as many responses from those who specialize in "science" vs those that specialize in climate. Also, the largest group in that study are the "science" guys that are unpublished. Both of these figures greatly contribute to the final number of 52%
-
It's not the scientists that are proclaiming the end of the world, it's media outlets. They're annoying, but marginally less so than the opposite extreme because at least they're asking for things to be done
But things are being done, Chris. Everyday we are searching for new and better ways to produce energy and that endeavor is coming along.
And the alarmists have to get their information from somewhere, no? There are certainly scientists you think the situation is dire. And that's what the media likes to report on, a crisis! So which of the scientists are more likely to get airtime and attention the people who fund these things? I would guess it would be the guys on the fringe. The crisis guys.
But if the current level of co2 is destructive then it stands to reason we have to reduce that. incrementally slowing the growth in emissions isn't an option, right?
WSS
But things are being done, Chris. Everyday we are searching for new and better ways to produce energy and that endeavor is coming along.
And the alarmists have to get their information from somewhere, no? There are certainly scientists you think the situation is dire. And that's what the media likes to report on, a crisis! So which of the scientists are more likely to get airtime and attention the people who fund these things? I would guess it would be the guys on the fringe. The crisis guys.
But if the current level of co2 is destructive then it stands to reason we have to reduce that. incrementally slowing the growth in emissions isn't an option, right?
WSS
Again, who are the "alarmists"? Like I asked earlier in the thread, can you find a legitimate scientific study you think is alarmist?
-
But things are being done, Chris. Everyday we are searching for new and better ways to produce energy and that endeavor is coming along.
And the alarmists have to get their information from somewhere, no? There are certainly scientists you think the situation is dire. And that's what the media likes to report on, a crisis! So which of the scientists are more likely to get airtime and attention the people who fund these things? I would guess it would be the guys on the fringe. The crisis guys.
But if the current level of co2 is destructive then it stands to reason we have to reduce that. incrementally slowing the growth in emissions isn't an option, right?
WSS
Again, who are the "alarmists"? Like I asked earlier in the thread, can you find a legitimate scientific study you think is alarmist?
All the folks who wrote the studies that Heck posted when he was here claiming that with in a time frame as short as possibly 6 years devastating effects would occur with no way to stop them.Again, who are the "alarmists"? Like I asked earlier in the thread, can you find a legitimate scientific study you think is alarmist?
If you have no fear of worldwide disaster then fine.
If you believe that we are currently doing enough research into more viable means of energy fine.
If you believe that we need do nothing more than reduce the growth of co2 emissions fine.
Still if you believe, as Chris seems to, that reducing the amount is probably a pipe dream then let me ask you this. What are the ramifications on a scale of one to ten? 0 meaning no change whatsoever and 10 metaphysical disaster.
WSS
-
All the folks who wrote the studies that Heck posted when he was here claiming that with in a time frame as short as possibly 6 years devastating effects would occur with no way to stop them.Again, who are the "alarmists"? Like I asked earlier in the thread, can you find a legitimate scientific study you think is alarmist?
If you have no fear of worldwide disaster then fine.
If you believe that we are currently doing enough research into more viable means of energy fine.
If you believe that we need do nothing more than reduce the growth of co2 emissions fine.
Still if you believe, as Chris seems to, that reducing the amount is probably a pipe dream then let me ask you this. What are the ramifications on a scale of one to ten? 0 meaning no change whatsoever and 10 metaphysical disaster.
WSS
All the folks who wrote the studies that Heck posted when he was here claiming that with in a time frame as short as possibly 6 years devastating effects would occur with no way to stop them.
If you have no fear of worldwide disaster then fine.
If you believe that we are currently doing enough research into more viable means of energy fine.
If you believe that we need do nothing more then reduce the growth of co2 emissions fine.
Still if you believe, as Chris seems too, that reducing the amount is probably a pipe dream then let me ask you this. What are the ramifications on a scale of one to ten? 0 meaning no change whatsoever and 10 metaphysical disaster.
WSS
Pipe dream? No. Stuff is being done. If you reduce the increase by a steady amount each year you eventually reduce the amount itself. In technical terms you're looking at the second order derivative, ensuring that it's negative, and if that's the case, then assuming it's sufficiently large negative, then we're on track.
I don't know if it is, I'm not a climatologist...
-
Well great Chris. Are we in big trouble or not?
WSS
-
PS we aren't talking about reducing the amount. We are talking about reducing the amount of growth.
Kinda like the American political version of cutting programs. We don't actually cut the programs we cut the projected growth and those who want the programs say they are being slashed. Yet the expenditure continues to rise. If we are only cutting the growth of dangerous emissions by a few percent... Well you understand.
WSS
-
PS we aren't talking about reducing the amount. We are talking about reducing the amount of growth.
Kinda like the American political version of cutting programs. We don't actually cut the programs we cut the projected growth and those who want the programs say they are being slashed. Yet the expenditure continues to rise. If we are only cutting the growth of dangerous emissions by a few percent... Well you understand.
WSS
PS we aren't talking about reducing the amount. We are talking about reducing the amount of growth.
Kinda like the American political version of cutting programs. We don't actually cut the programs we cut the projected growth why if you want and those who want the programs say they are being slashed. If we are only cutting the growth of dangerous emissions by a few percent... Well you understand.
WSS
I know exactly what we're talking about.
-
All the folks who wrote the studies that Heck posted when he was here claiming that with in a time frame as short as possibly 6 years devastating effects would occur with no way to stop them.
If you have no fear of worldwide disaster then fine.
If you believe that we are currently doing enough research into more viable means of energy fine.
If you believe that we need do nothing more then reduce the growth of co2 emissions fine.
Still if you believe, as Chris seems too, that reducing the amount is probably a pipe dream then let me ask you this. What are the ramifications on a scale of one to ten? 0 meaning no change whatsoever and 10 metaphysical disaster.
WSS
Pipe dream? No. Stuff is being done. If you reduce the increase by a steady amount each year you eventually reduce the amount itself. In technical terms you're looking at the second order derivative, ensuring that it's negative, and if that's the case, then assuming it's sufficiently large negative, then we're on track.
I don't know if it is, I'm not a climatologist...
Pipe dream? No. Stuff is being done. If you reduce the increase by a steady amount each year you eventually reduce the amount itself. In technical terms you're looking at the second order derivative, ensuring that it's negative, and if that's the case, then assuming it's sufficiently large negative, then we're on track.
I don't know if it is, I'm not a climatologist...
Second order derivative? Awesome. I'm down to talk math. Math is my shit, lol.
-
Pipe dream? No. Stuff is being done. If you reduce the increase by a steady amount each year you eventually reduce the amount itself. In technical terms you're looking at the second order derivative, ensuring that it's negative, and if that's the case, then assuming it's sufficiently large negative, then we're on track.
I don't know if it is, I'm not a climatologist...
Second order derivative? Awesome. I'm down to talk math. Math is my shit, lol.
Second order derivative? Awesome. I'm down to talk math. Math is my shit, lol.
You're an engineer. In order of 'dirtiness' of field, you're up there with biologists.
-
OK first, there's no need to copy and paste articles, people are perfectly capable of clicking a link. It just clogs up the thread and people skip over it. Post key points if you like, but by posting the whole thing you're just going to get people ignoring it. Chris
**********************************************
You are almost correct - but the problem is, links to the contrary are ignored so the mmgw bitcher can'
simply reinterate blather.
The "97 percent" is nonsense. Thousands and thousands of scientists have petitioned that their names
be deleted from the IPCC report....that was CHANGED after they signed it. That is dishonest manipulation of the
facts. You simply take out the parts that show common sense explanations and tentative questions to be answered,
and voila ! you have a declaration that we are all going to die on a fried planet if we don't allow ourselves
to be taxed out our wazoos, vote for liberals, and let them control every freakin thing we ever decide or do,
how we live, everything.
That's bullcrap. Chris - I've already posted about 37,000 scientists who petitioned that their names
be DELETED from that report that was censored enough to be alarmist after all those groups signed on to it.
It's a scandal, just like the fraud studies - Tree Ring, and the bs graph, Hockey Stick. And the email scandal
that clearly showed dishonesty and bias over mmgw controversy.
The next time I post that link, I'll just also post the entire article, because apparently, in lib land, it's all too
easy to avoid clicking the link on purpose, when you know it's not going fit your lib agenda.
You can take that bs 97 percent and shove it. It's a lie.
It's political theater. Otherwise, the scientists would at least once, would talk about the destruction
of our world's virgin rainforests, and even over-development of our forests and green spaces in general
around the world.
What stupidass "scientist" would claim that CO2 is a poison that kills plants?
Not one, I think. Not an honest one.
Is a rising rate of CO2 concerning? sure. But going after cows farting, and suv's, and gloating that
it's a democrat liberal cause etc...
is bogus. CO2 is rising, and we have been cooling. Liberal scientists are dumbfounded? I doubt it.
I'm sure they understand that plant life on this planet uses CO2 in the photosynthesis process.
But too many have been happy to go bs science to manipulate data and studies to show that
liberal politicians should have more power to tax more ,fine more, and control more of everything
because they are....liberal, too.
Just once, Chris, leave liberal land and admit that the correlation of sun spot activity and global temps
is a very serious, pertinent, interesting study. I've posted those graphs in the past. Perhaps you quickly refused to click the link
explaining them again.
-
One more thing - this planet is growing a greater human population all the time.
and mankind is destroying green space and paving and cement and building over top of it.
There. That's a major thing that partisan sniping over CO2 and lawn mowing and not enough
money and taxes....etc etc etc etc doesn't admit.
Less plant life and forests on this planet is less CO2 being used up. It's tilting the balance more
and more over time.
These scientists will NOT admit or talk about it.
Why?
No freakin money it for liberal causes. No grants to be had for it. No political advantage for votes and $$$$$$$$$$ for it.
-
You're talking about the OISM petition? Haven't we been through why that's irrelevant already? You talk about 'scientists' disagreeing, but the scientists signing the petition are biologists, physicists, chemists etc - not climatologists, who are the actual experts.
Just because I have a postgraduate degree in theoretical finance - including advanced statistcs, stochastic calculus and quantitative modelling methodologies - doesn't mean that I'm qualified to give an *expert* opinion on climate. I can relay what the science says, because I'm relatively intelligent and articulate, but that doesn't mean I'm an expert, and it's those people who have dedicated their lives to research in this field we should be listening to.
-
Seriously though, tell me where I am mistaken.
A hypothetical. I have a pool in my yard it has 1000 gallons off ammonia in it. I am told 1000 gallons of ammonia is endangering the wildlife around my pool and my neighbors. Everyday I go out and dump anotther pint of ammonia in that pool.
That would make the danger worse each and every day.
Soon, I have been told, the wildlife and neighbors will die from the fumes. Even if it stays at 1000 gallons.
My solution is to only dump 12 ounces more each day instead of a full pint.
As I see it that is still making an already perilous situation worse.
Can you explain to me why I am wrong?
WSS
-
Seriously though, tell me where I am mistaken.
A hypothetical. I have a pool in my yard it has 1000 gallons off ammonia in it. I am told 1000 gallons of ammonia is endangering the wildlife around my pool and my neighbors. Everyday I go out and dump anotther pint of ammonia in that pool.
That would make the danger worse each and every day.
Soon, I have been told, the wildlife and neighbors will die from the fumes. Even if it stays at 1000 gallons.
My solution is to only dump 12 ounces more each day instead of a full pint.
As I see it that is still making an already perilous situation worse.
Can you explain to me why I am wrong?
WSS
Seriously though, tell me where I am mistaken.
A hypothetical. I have a pool in my yard it has 1000 gallons off ammonia in it. I am told 1000 gallons of ammonia is endangering the wildlife around my pool and my neighbors. Everyday I go out and dump anotther pint of ammonia in that pool.
That would make the danger worse each and every day.
Soon, I have been told, the wildlife and neighbors will die from the fumes. Even if it stays at 1000 gallons.
My solution is to only dump 12 ounces more each day instead of a full pint.
As I see it that is still making an already perilous situation worse.
Can you explain to me why I am wrong?
WSS
OK, let's make a slight tweak to your situation to make it more representative of the situation.
You have a pool of 1000 gallons of ammonia. This is perfectly fine, and keeps the garden shiny and new. If there's too much ammonia, the garden will be in danger, and if there's not enough ammonia, the garden will be in danger for different reasons.
Now, every day, you get rainfall in to your pool of something around a pint of ammonia, sometimes more, sometimes less. But, something like a pint of ammonia is used in keeping the garden shiny (hence why if there's not enough it's in danger). So it roughly evens itself out.
Now, if you start adding pints of ammonia yourself every day, you'll quickly find that the amount coming in to the system is exceeding the amount going out on a regular basis. This causes problems for your garden.
You realise this is a problem, but because of your fertilization techniques (see, I know *something* about farming!), you have a load of ammonia that means you need to dump a pint a day, so you can't just stop. What you can do, is plant a few extra plants, trees and everything else that uses the ammonia, so that a pint and a few ounces are being used every day instead of a pint, while at the same time you reduce the amount of ammonia you're dumping every day. Eventually, you'll find a balance where the amount of ammonia is stable. If you reduce your ammonia waste enough, you'll find that you can actually start to reduce the overall level of ammonia, because you've increased the level of consumption.
At some point in the future, you'll be back to a normal level, and you'll potentially be able to increase the ammonia waste, because you would otherwise be creating a deficiency.
I hope that makes sense to you - feel free to poke holes in it, but it's the general gist of it. Like losing weight - say I'm putting on a pound a day. Through proper eating and exercising, I start putting on only 12oz every day for a month. Next month it's 10oz. Then 8oz. Eventually, I'm not putting on any weight at all, and then I start losing weight. Eventually, I reach my ideal weight and I can adopt a more sustainable diet and exercise regime. But if I don't do it quickly enough, I might have a heart attack, I might get diabetes, or any number of things.
-
Actually I was just curious.
Basically you are saying that the ammonia level will naturally dissipate overtime and if I add less to it than the amount of natural dissipation it will eventually be gone?
(plus I didn't use ammonia for any kind of fertilization, I just picked it because it smells bad...
)WSS
-
Actually I was just curious.
Basically you are saying that the ammonia level will naturally dissipate overtime and if I add less to it than the amount of natural dissipation it will eventually be gone?
(plus I didn't use ammonia for any kind of fertilization, I just picked it because it smells bad...
)WSS
Actually I was just curious.
Basically you are saying that the ammonia level will naturally dissipate overtime and if I add less to it than the amount of natural dissipation it will eventually be gone?
(plus I didn't use ammonia for any kind of fertilization, I just picked it because it smells bad...
)WSS
Kind of. It's not like the earth relies on us to produce carbon dioxide for it - after all, we contribute a tiny amount relative to nature - but we are just tipping it over the edge of what it can handle.
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