Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 10561 - 10580 of total 28530 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 21, 2013 - 12:39am PT
NATURE:

Sea levels could rise more than 3 feet by 2100, new report says

There is that word. "COULD".

That also comes from the 32.4% that are "PRO" Anthro.

That word "COULD" was used some six years ago regarding an ICE FREE ARCTIC prediction by this time next month that so of many you PRO ANTHRO believers grabbed onto and believed. That will NOT materialize. Just as most if not ALL of the "COULD's" that have been proposed over the last 30 or so years have NOT.

That word "COULD" is indeed the basis of the AGW hysteria. Fact is, ONLY 32.4% of the Climate Science field utilize or actually believe it.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 21, 2013 - 01:30am PT
WOW!

You AGW fanatics do know who Schneider is/was.

Oh the irony of the hypocrisy!


" ...it insists on maintaining the shock effect of the dramatic...rather than the reality of the discipline: we just don't know enough to choose definitely at this stage whether we are in for warming or cooling— or when."
S. Schneider 1977 Regarding the predicted imminent Ice Age.

And then this public statement some 21 years later:

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well.

And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.

Discover, pp. 45–48, Oct. 1989
dave729

Trad climber
Western America
Aug 21, 2013 - 02:16am PT
Lots of road building up in the Arctic these days on top of permafrost.
If the road surface is made with light colored material rather than black
asphalt an entire meter of ground stays frozen that would otherwise melt
and have to be dealt with.

Adaptation will not be allowed if the AGW tards have their way.




dirtbag

climber
Aug 21, 2013 - 09:08am PT

That word "COULD" is indeed the basis of the AGW hysteria

Chief Hypocrite, you're the one who is the most hysterical on this thread.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 21, 2013 - 09:25am PT
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.

Here is a perfect example of the distortion that continues:


Leaked U.N. Report: Humans 95% Responsible for Climate Change



By RL Miller | Takepart.com NatureEnvironment

A leaked draft of a forthcoming report from the Intergovenmental Panel on Climate Change finds that scientists are 95 percent sure that humans are causing global warming.
http://news.yahoo.com/leaked-u-n-report-humans-95-responsible-climate-231345298.html

Which one is it.

Humans are 95% Responsible


OR


Scientist are 95% sure Humans are causing GW




...which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change.

To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.
S. Schneider, Discover, pp. 45–48, Oct. 1989



Yup. Them Pro AGW scientist gotta do their best to blow completely fabricated hysteria based shet up the gullible arses of the Fortmentals out there. Then the Fortmentals will buy it and join the clan of the completely ignorant cloned geoengineered food ingesting fools.

dirtbag

climber
Aug 21, 2013 - 09:30am PT
Chief Cherry Picker.

The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 21, 2013 - 09:36am PT
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.

Yup.

32.6%


Makes up the distorted & manipulated propaganda number of 97% Consensus.



dirtbag

climber
Aug 21, 2013 - 09:44am PT
4. Discussion

Of note is the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW. This result is expected in consensus situations where scientists '...generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees' (Oreskes 2007, p 72). This explanation is also consistent with a description of consensus as a 'spiral trajectory' in which 'initially intense contestation generates rapid settlement and induces a spiral of new questions' (Shwed and Bearman 2010); the fundamental science of AGW is no longer controversial among the publishing science community and the remaining debate in the field has moved to other topics. This is supported by the fact that more than half of the self-rated endorsement papers did not express a position on AGW in their abstracts.


From that same source, Chief Dumbass.

The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 21, 2013 - 09:55am PT
...the fundamental science of AGW is no longer controversial among the publishing science community and the remaining debate in the field has moved to other topics. This is supported by the fact that more than half of the self-rated endorsement papers did not express a position on AGW in their abstracts.

Does NOT indicate a consensus nor any type of agreement. Unless you and the others wish to think it does. Just another perfect example of complete manipulation of the verbiage to do just as Steve Schneider indicated must be done back in 1989 in order to fool and deceive idiots as yourself (BAGLADY) in believing the manipulated propaganda bullshet and jump onboard the train of AGW socialistic utopian ideology.

To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.
S. Schneider, Discover, pp. 45–48, Oct. 1989


You are part of 57% of the American population which denies or doesn't doesn't believe in AGW.

That makes YOU part of the majority

No shet sherlock deadforbrains.

Where the FK have you been FORT! I acknowledged that last month. Stop smoking your butt and pub hairs and read the fking thread.


The very recent global UN Poll (Completed MAY 2013) states even greater. AGW and or GCC is at the BOTTOM of the heap when it comes to the masses concerns globally.



IN other words FORT, your clan of Utopian Liberal idiots ARE LOSING, globally! The people of the world ARE NOT believing the manipulated and made up bullshet.

Even the very recent actions of EU Gov'ts indicate that.



It is pretty sad when the current Administration has to undermine the Law and the Constitutional Process of this Nation in order to proliferate this globally losing political ideology.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 21, 2013 - 10:16am PT
Read and head dead for brains FORT:


http://www.myworld2015.org/
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 21, 2013 - 10:20am PT
...the fundamental science of AGW is no longer controversial among the publishing science community and the remaining debate in the field has moved to other topics. This is supported by the fact that more than half of the self-rated endorsement papers did not express a position on AGW in their abstracts.

[The Chief]Does NOT indicate a consensus nor any type of agreement. Unless you and the others wish to think it does. Just another perfect example of complete manipulation of the verbiage to do just as Steve Schneider indicated must be done back in 1989 in order to fool and deceive idiots as yourself (BAGLADY) in believing the manipulated propaganda bullshet and jump onboard the train of AGW socialistic utopian ideology.

The Chief has reading comprehension issues.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 21, 2013 - 10:27am PT
NOT!

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.

monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 21, 2013 - 10:30am PT
More than half of the abstracts that we rated as 'No Position' or 'Undecided' were rated 'Endorse AGW' by the paper's authors.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 21, 2013 - 11:00am PT
Absolutely NO confusion about this confession from one of your Zealot AGW leaders.

.... our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.
S. Schneider Discover, pp. 45–48, Oct. 1989
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 21, 2013 - 11:03am PT
EDH

Please post up any CONFIRMED human deaths caused directly by AGW.


Also:
an observation on the debate on consensus... In the years I've been posting here I've never had a scientist object to the posts, or even the trends in the research which largely point to human activity as being a major source of climate change.

The controversies are largely regarding the consequences of those findings, and the issues regarding policy, for which scientists participate in a part of the conversation. It isn't to much of a stretch that someone can understand the scientific conclusion of anthropogenic climate change and have a different idea about what, if anything, should be done about it.

In addition, scientists are not usually given to absolute statements regarding research results, which is a cultural issue having to do with how science is done and communicated among scientists. This often adds confusion among people outside of science, and is certainly exploited by people who are not happy about various scientific conclusions (especially as they influence policy).

Right now the field as a whole is focused on predicting the short term, regional climate, which is a difficult task. In particular, identifying the pieces of the "natural variability" that are predictable includes many effects which are important but are smaller than the anthropogenic contributions. There are some factors of the "natural variability" that are associated with the non-linear response of the system that, while predictable, can never have precisely enough stated initial conditions to result in prediction.

The nuances of this are lost in public debate when the voices get loud and demanding and express a point-of-view which is unaccepting of reasoned argument. This can happen in discussions which require looking at phenomena that occur over time periods long compared to human lifetimes as the scientific conclusions may seem to be at variance with experience (e.g. the grey seal population recovery in the NE coastal fisheries).


The above must of course go along with Steve Schneider 1989 mandate. Right!
.... our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 21, 2013 - 11:08am PT
Ideological based science and the utopian socialistic political way of life DOES NOT rule the planet nor the people as you wish it would FORT.

Thank god!


EDH:

there is a body of scientific results which are studying those issues, The Chief... it's not as if the climate had a gun and shot someone, and that we could have a trial in a court of law...

Yup.

But there are current issues that are killing TENS of MILLIONS annually that your "science" shuns and prefers to chase after something that it is not certain of the results, say 100 years from now.

Your priorities are obviously skewed. Reason???

Oh the funding/money Research Monster. My bad.

Oh the fallacy and hypocrisy.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 21, 2013 - 11:44am PT
Damn if it isn't!

It is a product of science you hypocrite.


Cancers directly related to the use of modern day scientifically produced chemical infested Tobacco products and Pesticides.


And where the fk do you expect to house and then feed all the millions of humans you wish to save from the AGW "COULD" happen catastrophe?
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 21, 2013 - 11:46am PT
Most cancers are related to lifestyle choices. Poor diet, smoking, drinking, etc.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 21, 2013 - 11:51am PT
And if AGW does exist, it is as well.

So your excuse to not entertain the fight against Cancer, is 100% valid in your agenda.

Perfect example, YOU!

Pumping gas into your FF fueled vehicle, utilizing the grid for electricity, the Water and Sewage. Etc Etc Etc.

The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 21, 2013 - 11:54am PT
With TENS of MILLIONS dying annually, sure appears to be a losing fight by science.


Yet you say science can mitigate CC.


How the fk are you gonna accomplish that if you can't cease the current REAL #1 killer of our species?



PS: NOT one Human death can be 100% attributed to CC. NOT ONE!
Messages 10561 - 10580 of total 28530 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