Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 10541 - 10560 of total 28535 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 20, 2013 - 10:02am PT
NO! Por todo para tu. Ten cuidado.

Por favor DMT..... un dia sera.

Pero no sera hoy para usted.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Aug 20, 2013 - 08:02pm PT
and NOW the latest CLIMATE CHANGE theories that it increases violence..

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/01/us/climate-change-violence/index.html


Next week CC will be causing IMPOTENCE as well, wait and see ROFLMAO!!!!


and since CC causes violence now,, will THAT be the new defense for pukes like little "flashbang"?? Im sorry yur honor,, it was climate change that made me make the bomb...
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 20, 2013 - 11:15pm PT
I thought it was 100%???

So did they. At least the manner in which they proliferate their nonsense they appeared to stand on it in that context of 100%.


Fact is, the 95% "Certainty" they speak of is truly ONLY some 30 or so % of the entire lot within the global community of Climate Scientists. Read up thread at the study that concluded the "97% Consensus".

The twisting and manipulation of the reality data. Consistent with their protocol of complete Bullshet information.


ALL part of the scam. All of it.


Fact is in all of this, they, the Climate Science lot, don't know shet. That is why they need to continue the research that has been going on for over 5 decades now. The Research Machine needs more funding. $$$$$$$$ is what this is all about. Nothing more.

The Climate changes. Amazing how they just now realized that.

Instead of perpetuating the problem, let's see viable solutions. Not continued hysteria propaganda of how the temps "might" get hotter or sea levels "may" rise.

But we can't have that. Then those living off the funding no longer can collect.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 20, 2013 - 11:20pm PT
No chief. Not all climate papers state pro or con. Most of these are just reporting results to fill in the details of climate dynamics.

The 97% is for those papers that do take a position.

Is it necessary for papers today to take up positions on whether the earth is round or not? If they don't, do you assume they think the earth is flat or undecided?
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 20, 2013 - 11:26pm PT
The 97% is for those papers that do take a position.

And that was 30something % of the lot (Climate Science Papers that were reviewed) researched.

Do I need to repost the study which clearly indicates that.

Again, manipulating the TRUTH in order to perpetuate your bullshet ideological propaganda.


Most of these are just reporting results to fill in the details of climate dynamics.

Yup. Those that had no "Pro" (60something %) stated absolutely NOTHING about any ANTHRO forcing. NONE!
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 20, 2013 - 11:32pm PT
In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of 928 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004).

A follow-up study by the Skeptical Science team of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013). The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 20, 2013 - 11:32pm PT
Abstract

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

Like everything else about this scam, complete distortion of the reality.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 20, 2013 - 11:33pm PT
Well duh. 67% took no position and were reporting results. There's lots of study on how climate dynamics work. No need to state a position.

Scientists don't argue about whether the earth is round or not either.

Do ya really think they are fence sitters?
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 20, 2013 - 11:35pm PT
You are an idiot.

66% had no position on the ANTHRO FORCING position. Thus they concluded there is Climate Change and they do NOT KNOW what is causing it.

A completely different story that you and this OP are presenting.

monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 20, 2013 - 11:37pm PT
Bullsh#t.

If a scientist in Antarctica is reporting data gathered in an experiment, he's not expected to give an opinion on AGW, he's just reporting results.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 20, 2013 - 11:37pm PT
You lose.... again!

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

Spencer, Christy, both Pilke SR and JR etal are all part of that 66.4%. Deniers as you all call them.

The truth.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 20, 2013 - 11:40pm PT
^^what an idiot^^

You mean Spencer and Christy et all won't take up a position when they publish a peer reviewed paper?
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 20, 2013 - 11:43pm PT
If a scientist in Antarctica is reporting data gathered in an experiment, he's not expected to give an opinion on AGW.

Then DO NOT include him/they in your 97% CONSENSUS.

Make that clear.



But of course you will not as it totally destroys the concept of distorting the truth and the false concept of the "97% Consensus".


You mean Spencer et all won't take up a position when they publish a peer reviewed paper?

Just like the majority 66.4%, they just report the data. Which clearly states they do not truly know the cause of it all.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 20, 2013 - 11:44pm PT
Bullsh#t

They are there to gather data in the study of climate change.

No need for them to state a position in every paper.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 20, 2013 - 11:49pm PT
There is "Climate Change".

And there is the bullshet position of Anthro Climate Change. Which you and the others here clearly state you agree with.

Two different positions.

One science (66.4%) and the other(32.6%) which distorts the science in order to perpetuation a political ideology that mandates restructuring social and economic manners throughout the world in order to supposedly "mitigate" the AGW.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 20, 2013 - 11:57pm PT
I wonder how many of the scientists mentioned in the following link are counted as among the 97.1% consensus? I know of at least five other scientists from another source who were falsely counted as part of the consensus. One of them had 111 of his papers falsely attributed.

http://www.petitionproject.org/
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 20, 2013 - 11:59pm PT
A follow-up study by the Skeptical Science team of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013). The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming.

They rated their own papers in the followup study, Lord Sumner.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 21, 2013 - 12:04am PT
The EU has already determined that the Green Subsidization, Carbon Taxation and Credits process is a complete farse. That it does not work in any way shape or form to mitigate shet.

It just makes higher incomes, companies and portions of gov't richer.

Those in the lower income brackets (34%) that can not afford the system get totally fkd. Germany and Spain proved that.





They rated their own papers in the followup study, Lord Sumner.

Again DUMBASS, that was ONLY 32.4 % of the lot.

No where near the supposed 97% you all declare here.

The truth.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 21, 2013 - 12:11am PT
Click onto this link to hear testimonials from the five scientists i mentioned as being falsely counted among the 97.1% consensus. I wonder if this is just the tip of a huge and rotten ice berg calved off from one of the melted poles?

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html

What, no explanation?
nature

climber
Boulder, CO
Aug 21, 2013 - 12:28am PT
http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2021647222_sealevelsxml.html
Messages 10541 - 10560 of total 28535 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