MMGW
-
Got squirrels in your city? On your farm? Why, you need to pay a gw tax !
(so we can buy votes with it, and the UN can achieve it's goal to make
poor nations rich)
Rabbits fart, I suppose. Deer probably fart. Pigs, horses...chipmunks....
And yet, posters still valiantly say we have to stop CO2 from existing...
yeah. That should pretty much kill a lot of plants and trees on the earth....
that USE CO2 for food....
More and more, scientists are saying that it needs to stop, this mmgw movement.
Now, the very cold is being blamed for the future hotness. Up is down, down is up, left is right
and right is left, backwards is forewards and...
all in the name of liberal political correctness. But hold all the science that shows that
mmgw is only a theory. It's all about the $$$$$$$$$$$$
I posted it, but it is gone because you know who deleted it....
Got squirrels in your city? On your farm? Why, you need to pay a gw tax !
Uhhhh...
(so we can buy votes with it, and the UN can achieve it's goal to make
poor nations rich)
Generic politics blaming...
Rabbits fart, I suppose. Deer probably fart. Pigs, horses...chipmunks....
Uhhhh...
And yet, posters still valiantly say we have to stop CO2 from existing...
Nope, nobody's saying that.
yeah. That should pretty much kill a lot of plants and trees on the earth....
that USE CO2 for food....
*sigh* More doesn't mean better. We'll never stop CO2 from existing, it's a naturally occurring substance. We just need to rein in how much of it we're emitting.
More and more, scientists are saying that it needs to stop, this mmgw movement.
Back to your petition?
Now, the very cold is being blamed for the future hotness.
Do you even read what's written? You're a developer, I assume you must have some understanding of statistics. Basically, the distribution of temperatures is getting wider - volatility is increasing - while the average temperature rises gradually. Maybe you didn't notice the comment about it being ridiculously hot in Australia at the moment? Or Argentina? It's understandable to connect 'global warming' with 'it must be getting hotter everywhere' but that's just not how it works.
Up is down, down is up, left is right
and right is left, backwards is forewards and...
Uhhhh...
all in the name of liberal political correctness. But hold all the science that shows that
mmgw is only a theory. It's all about the $$$$$$$$$$$$
Uhhhh...
I posted it, but it is gone because you know who deleted it....
Well it certainly wasn't me.
Right, I'm off, finished at work. I'll be back in the morning for round 137 of "the science is real" versus "it's all made up by politicians"
-
This is an interesting topic, and it's a bit of a hot button thing over here as well. I might start a slightly controversial topic on the matter. In america, cities have rules set by the state. The state has rules set by the country. Why shouldn't the country have rules set by the world? Just basic rules, probably, because there will always be issues that are specific to each area. But to that end, why bother having countries in the first place?
-
I left for class this morning and it was -7 degrees outside. Clearly MMGW is false!
-
So like -16 without the wind chill this morning. Record low temperatures all over the country makes it sort of difficult to believe the global warming apocalypse doom-criers.
You're sort of contradicting yourself there. Global warming/climate change doesn't necessarily mean that every place in the world will see its temperatures rise by a couple of degrees, while maintaining the same basic distribution; rather, it makes the likelihood/frequency of freak weather conditions increase, while the planet on average gets warmer. What you're experiencing now, would count as freak weather, I would say.
You're sort of contradicting yourself there. Global warming/climate change doesn't necessarily mean that every place in the world will see its temperatures rise by a couple of degrees, while maintaining the same basic distribution; rather, it makes the likelihood/frequency of freak weather conditions increase, while the planet on average gets warmer. What you're experiencing now, would count as freak weather, I would say.
I'm just complaining about the weather, bub. But you know once Cleveland was covered with glaciers so its not really that freak weather.
-
You're sort of contradicting yourself there. Global warming/climate change doesn't necessarily mean that every place in the world will see its temperatures rise by a couple of degrees, while maintaining the same basic distribution; rather, it makes the likelihood/frequency of freak weather conditions increase, while the planet on average gets warmer. What you're experiencing now, would count as freak weather, I would say.
I'm just complaining about the weather, bub. But you know once Cleveland was covered with glaciers so its not really that freak weather.
I'm just complaining about the weather, bub. But you know once Cleveland was covered with glaciers so its not really that freak weather.
...
Yes, we get it. It was cold before and then it warmed up. It has happened multiple times. This doesn't disprove the scientific theory that man is negatively affecting the climate right now.
You look over all of the data that we have, all of the trends that we have observed, the history of the climate beforehand.
-
I'm just complaining about the weather, bub. But you know once Cleveland was covered with glaciers so its not really that freak weather.
...
Yes, we get it. It was cold before and then it warmed up. It has happened multiple times. This doesn't disprove the scientific theory that man is negatively affecting the climate right now.
You look over all of the data that we have, all of the trends that we have observed, the history of the climate beforehand.
...
Yes, we get it. It was cold before and then it warmed up. It has happened multiple times. This doesn't disprove the scientific theory that man is negatively affecting the climate right now.
You look over all of the data that we have, all of the trends that we have observed, the history of the climate beforehand.
Woody get this through your head dude. I've never disputed that man plays a role in "climate change" but there's not shit that can realistically be done about it and thusly I do. Not. Give. A. Fuck.
-
Why can nothing realistically be done about it?
At one point it wasnt realistic to communicate with someone on the other side of the globe in seconds
-
mmgw is a theory that is falling apart.
"virtually all scientists" is a falsehood.
-
Right, let's look at this petition then:
"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."
Says what evidence? OR is it all just assumptions and guesswork?
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."
Yes, yes there is. I'm not going to go out and find every study on the subject - or just copy and paste a load of meaningless google results - but the evidence is there.
On top of the problems with the statements, there's the fact that it's only signed by 40k people - of which only 39 are climatologists. When you consider the sheer number of people that are qualified to the same level as the signatories that haven't signed, it becomes a bit less impressive. There are over 10 million scientists qualified in the fields stated on the petition, so it represents only about 0.4% of people that they are claiming are qualified to comment.
To get a more representative view, you should look at all the scientific papers being published on the subject matter and their conclusions on it. Fortunately, someone's already done this for us - lots of people, in fact. The most recent was in 2013, with the following results:
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11β944 climate abstracts from 1991β2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
Cal - that petition has already been addressed. Do I need to set up a similar but opposing petition and get it signed by a load of people to convince you otherwise?
Right, let's look at this petition then:
"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."
Says what evidence? OR is it all just assumptions and guesswork?
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."
Yes, yes there is. I'm not going to go out and find every study on the subject - or just copy and paste a load of meaningless google results - but the evidence is there.
On top of the problems with the statements, there's the fact that it's only signed by 40k people - of which only 39 are climatologists. When you consider the sheer number of people that are qualified to the same level as the signatories that haven't signed, it becomes a bit less impressive. There are over 10 million scientists qualified in the fields stated on the petition, so it represents only about 0.4% of people that they are claiming are qualified to comment.
To get a more representative view, you should look at all the scientific papers being published on the subject matter and their conclusions on it. Fortunately, someone's already done this for us - lots of people, in fact. The most recent was in 2013, with the following results:
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11β944 climate abstracts from 1991β2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
-
Here's a great write-up on it:
(make sure ya read the part, second page, about how the
wording changed from one draft to another.)
-
Cal - that petition has already been addressed. Do I need to set up a similar but opposing petition and get it signed by a load of people to convince you otherwise? Chris
*******************************************************
You are missing the point. I don't have to prove a theory is fact. You do. And it has been proven
to be only a theory.
The fact that there are opposing views staunchly held by experts, a lot of them, on both sides, means
that mmgw is not a truth, not an absolute truth at all, and not any kind of fact. So, why all the dire demands
for taxes on all sorts of things and activities, on something that cannot be proven?
Ulterior, spread the wealth to poor countries kind of motives, make money for our mmgw businesses we
invested in, or started....
Read the entire Forbes article. Then comment on that.
-
Do we need to have ANOTHER lesson on what a scientific theory is?
Also, yes, there are opposing viewpoints. But acting like there are the same amount of qualified experts endorsing each view point is ridiculous
-
When Chicken Little did her exhaustive thesis and decided the sky was, in fact, falling she did indeed use all scientific data available to her at the time.
Was that the lesson you wanted to point out Woodrow?
WSS
-
Why can nothing realistically be done about it?
At one point it wasnt realistic to communicate with someone on the other side of the globe in seconds
Why can nothing realistically be done about it?
At one point it wasnt realistic to communicate with someone on the other side of the globe in seconds
When they make the tiniest bit of progress then we'll talk
-
Read http://www.buzzfeed.com/drewphilp/why-i-bought-a-house-in-detroit-for-500 and notice how an individual (or group of individuals) is/are doing their part to revitalize a community (with some "going green" thrown in for fun) contrasts with how the government a.) fucked up the 1st time and b.)will be fucking up again with regards to "revitalization"
Then ask yourself why you think government, or taxation is the answer to MMGW or MMCC? If you can read that article, then sit down and sincerely believe governmental control is the best option, then you deserve to have your legs beaten.
Sure, luck means a lot in football. Not having a good quarterback is bad luck. -Don Shula -
Wait, so he went to and graduated from the University of Michigan but was making $8.50 an hour at a construction company? I wonder what he majored in.
I still think some govt regulation is needed. Otherwise companies will just work in their own self interest, which may not be best for everyone else. The "answer" will be joint work between the scientific community and policy makers.
-
Interesting food for thought:
-
It's presented as a partisan study - take of that what you will. But this guy has apparently been researching all "peer-reviewed climate articles" published throughout last year; that's about 2200 papers. Of those, he has found that only one rejects the idea of man-made climate change.
Disclaimers:
1) It's subjective. He is listing what he perceives as rejecting climate change. However, I think it's quite obvious to tell what a paper is saying from its abstract, conclusion etc and whether it falls in the Believer/Denier/Agnostic category.
2) It is talking about only those that reject climate change, not those that accept. So it may be that the remaining papers are split 50/50 on "it's real" or "we can't tell" - it may be 99/1 either way.
He does make a good point though:
To reiterate, I do not claim that X% of scientists accept anthropogenic global warming [AGW]. I say that of peer-reviewed articles under the topics βglobal warming and βglobal climate change,β only a tiny percentage reject AGW.
One thing we know with certainty is that if there were substantial evidence against AGW, it would surely have been published by now. One would not have to hunt for it. Thus I conclude that there is no convincing evidence against AGW.Anyway, I thought it was an interesting point on this topic. I really do wish he'd done a study on those that accept MMGW though. Perhaps he did, and perhaps it was the case that a very small amount accepted it. I suspect not, though.
-
Haven't you learned anything from this board? Scientists can't be trusted. They do nothing for us. They can't even cure the common cold. Who cares exist they think about scientific issues....
-
Haven't you learned anything from this board? Scientists can't be trusted. They do nothing for us. They can't even cure the common cold. Who cares exist they think about scientific issues....
Haven't you learned anything from this board? Scientists can't be trusted. They do nothing for us. They can't even cure the common cold. Who cares exist they think about scientific issues....
Because that's a constructive comment, and certainly not one that's going to lead to conversation like
"you're such a Retard woodrow, if scientists are like you why should I trust them"
"you're the Retard, science is right"
"nobody listen to woodypeckerhead, he's just a kid, he doesn't know anything"
"you guys are all such Retards"
and certainly it'll lead to a constructive debate about climate change (or whichever topic we happen to be discussing) where people actually learn things.
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 π
Register Login