Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 5801 - 5820 of total 28515 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
blahblah

Gym climber
Boulder
May 15, 2013 - 04:48pm PT
"Scientists" deemed the need for old growth habitats yet FAILED to realize how old growth came to be- being managed basically by wildfire. Even now there are "scientists"

Good use of quotes around "scientists"--I think we've got 'em on the run now!
dirtbag

climber
May 15, 2013 - 04:50pm PT
Assuming that is true, you use one totally unrelated instance where the science was supposedly wrong to haphazardly knock the science in another field.

What do you suggest we use to figure out the world? Star alignments and entrails?
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
May 15, 2013 - 04:56pm PT
Assuming that is true, you use one totally unrelated instance where the science was supposedly wrong to haphazardly knock the science in another field.

What do you suggest we use to figure out the world? Star alignments and entrails?

voodoo and personal first hand experiences always trump science, reason and truth
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 15, 2013 - 05:06pm PT
No ,, but that IS way i question things now. Ive seen first hand that their is ALWAYS agendas behind each and every Scientific study these days . Just depends on whos dollars are funding them.


edit: Right now my MAIN CONCERN is these CHEAPAZZ screws!!!! They strip if you look at them wrong!!!!!!!!!!! Even the star drivens fer crapssake! ARRRGGGH! All i want is one measly gemsbok skull plate one one measly form..,.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
May 15, 2013 - 05:15pm PT
probably a dumb question, Ron

but how about allen heads

I converted everything on my motorcycles to them and now have no problems with removal
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
May 15, 2013 - 05:30pm PT
Ron - wouldn't you agree that the science of forestry evolved to a better understanding? That this understanding occurred through following the scientific process?

Using your example of spotted owl conservation I can see where your position ( ideology) finds fault in science determining policy, in that case a very specific narrow focus on a indicator species. Now twenty or thirty years later it is thought by at least some biologists that the spotted owl was evolutionally checking out anyway and was perhaps not the best single indicator of a "healthy" old growth eco system. We all know its use has had a huge effect on the human component on the whole west side of the continent.

The reality is much broader and holistic. Beetles, salmon, bears, murrelets, oolichans and even people are all part of the picture. The real problem was us masacring the forest in so unsustainable a manner before realizing ( or caring about) the consequences eco system wide. This is now much better understood thanks to our continued pursuit of scientific discovery, much like our understanding of wild fires.

I'm sure that some may think that CO2 should not be given so much attention as the single driver of global warming. Fair enough, but if so that will be proven through the scientific process. So far it is proven otherwise by the only system we have that is worth something more than spinning a bottle.
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
May 15, 2013 - 05:56pm PT
Dr Andrew Weaver: Key Indicators of Climate Change

wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
May 15, 2013 - 06:09pm PT
Hey doubter boys,wait till this hits you in the wallet
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/business/insurers-stray-from-the-conservative-line-on-climate-change.html?_r=1&
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
May 15, 2013 - 06:16pm PT
Malemute,stop making sense
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
May 15, 2013 - 06:21pm PT
^ you can always add me to greasemonkey

I agree, the way to convince the deniers IS to show them how climate change is going to hit them in the wallet. Science means nothing to them.
blahblah

Gym climber
Boulder
May 15, 2013 - 08:06pm PT
yeah, sounds like the insurance industry is real worried about it.
From the linked article a posts up:

Yet when I asked Mr. Nutter what the American insurance industry was doing to combat global warming, his answer was surprising: nothing much. “The industry has really not been engaged in advocacy related to carbon taxes or proposals addressing carbon,” he said.

Sounds like they're real worried! (And the "surprise" of the answer is a nice illustration of the bias of a NY Times reporter.)
Actually the doom-and-gloomers predictions, if true, will be just dandy for insurance cos. More risk -> more demand for insurance, higher premiums.

As a quick recap worth doing every few thousand posts on this thread, I don't think anyone here is denying climate change or that some component is caused by humans (and some isn't)--we'd rather just deal with it than pay a bunch of fake (or even real) "scientists" to "study" the problem when there ain't much the US is going to do about it one way or the other. Things also degenerate into a bunch of silly details (e.g., some of you jokers denying that "scientists" have obvious financial and professional motives to exaggerate climate change issues and have been repeatedly caught doing that), but that's the big picture. (If you want to fact check me on my statement that alarmists have been caught exaggerating, see the link to the Economist article I posted earlier in this thread.)
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
May 15, 2013 - 08:16pm PT
some of you jokers denying that "scientists" have obvious financial and professional motives to exaggerate climate change issues and have been repeatedly caught doing that)

and what about all those, be they "real" scientists or not, who take the opposite position?

lots of them around too

should their motives also be suspect, as in they are being paid to "deny" and try real hard to both rebuke and refute the generally accepted scientific findings on global warming?

or do they get a free pass on this?

can you take some shots at them, blah blah?
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
May 15, 2013 - 08:21pm PT
Yep ,were all biased over here.
blahblah

Gym climber
Boulder
May 15, 2013 - 08:40pm PT
and what about all those, be they "real" scientists or not, who take the opposite position?

lots of them around too

should their motives also be suspect, as in they are being paid to "deny" and try real hard to both rebuke and refute the generally accepted scientific findings on global warming?

or do they get a free pass on this?

can you take some shots at them, blah blah?

That's an easy one Norton--no, I don't want to pay them either. If Koch brothers (or whoever) want to do so, fine, it's their money. Let Soros and the other liberal big money guys fund who they want.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
May 15, 2013 - 08:46pm PT
We have a very select National Academy of Sciences in this country. We still lead the world in almost all sciences, although there is great work being done around the world.

The National Academy of Sciences is EXTREMELY selective in who is a member. They have to be extremely prolific and tops in their field.

Regarding Climate Change, the National Academy of Sciences, which has one of the leading journals, the PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences), has issued several statements over the years, and these statements are made by the members collectively.

On the other side of the topic, there are some sincere and good scientists, but the rough outline of this problem has been settled for almost two decades. The questions now are how much, how fast, and how bad?

http://www.nasonline.org/about-nas/leadership/president/statement-climate-change.pdf

Joint Statement:


http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
May 15, 2013 - 08:50pm PT
Latest study to quantify the scientific consensus reaches pretty much the same conclusion as others (emphasis added):

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
Cook et al. (2013) Environmental Research Letters

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 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.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - May 15, 2013 - 08:51pm PT
From the end of the video that Malemute posted just above:

The real question is, "Is there any evidence of stuff going on on a global scale that is contrary to what you would expect as a result of an atmosphere that is warming in response to human emissions and an increase carbon dioxide. And the answer is no."


The gentleman listed many items that show the planet is warming at a steady rate, which is in agreement with the science being conducted on the issue.

So how about it. Can any of you deniers answer the question posed, and point to anything that points to the contrary of a warming planet? That is, other than sticking your head up your a*# and claiming it's cold in there.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
May 15, 2013 - 09:00pm PT
This whole event has been playing out in funny ways.

One way to attack the idea of climate change was to attack the data directly. That didn't work. All of the corrections and error margins and geographical corrections necessary for a clean dataset were accomplished.

So the climate is warming. That pill had to be swallowed.

Now the luddites are arguing over what is CAUSING the warming.

I probably know more about paleo climate than anyone here. I work with it going all the way back to the Cambrian, and if there is anything to say about climate, it is that it is always changing.

The difference now is that we can compare it to events in the deep past and compare them to what is occurring now. We can measure it happening in real time. Don't expect any of us to live long enough to see how far this goes, but my guess is that Canada will be prime real estate.

I don't look at any data younger than the Cretaceous, but there have been a couple of pretty wild hothouse events from the past.

Signing off. I'm not here to try to teach Ron or that Sumner guy.
McHale's Navy

Trad climber
Panorama City, California & living in Seattle
May 15, 2013 - 09:06pm PT
I'm not here to try to teach Ron or that Sumner guy.

Their participation here simply brings out the truth of the situation and lots of good information about AGW. They certainly never have anything real to offer that supports the denier side.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - May 15, 2013 - 09:06pm PT
Ive seen first hand that their is ALWAYS agendas behind each and every Scientific study these days .
-- Ron A.

Ron, you must busier than a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest! I can't even imagine how you do it!! I mean, the fact that you have first-hand knowledge of "every Scientific study these days" must make you eligible for some kind of an award. Does the President know of your prowess?
Messages 5801 - 5820 of total 28515 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews