Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 10821 - 10840 of total 27953 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Jebus H Bomz

climber
Peavine Basecamp
Aug 3, 2013 - 02:21pm PT
Yes, you are incorrect.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Aug 3, 2013 - 02:33pm PT
The article on "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature" (Cook et al. 2013) that monolith cites above has been subject to strenuous blog attacks of course, but it's stood up pretty well. Economist Richard Tol, widely quoted on blogs and Twitter as a critic, was encouraged to write his critique up as a paper and get that published. He tried to and was rejected, because his attempt at a paper still read like blog writing, and failed to give evidence that Cook et al.'s conclusions were wrong.

blueblocr above can't read the graph or probably the paper, but more curious folks can -- it's free. Here's the abstract with a link to the paper itself (pdf), where you can learn for yourself what they actually did and found.

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 19912011 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
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Aug 3, 2013 - 02:44pm PT
Blue blocker - I got a question for you - and try not to immediately get your knickers in a twist about it if you can. You are a man of Religion. You clearly side on the the AGW denial side of things.

Do you think one explains the other?

No matter what you think of my intent, you can't deny it is a fair question and I'm sure you will agree that there is a strong tendency among the religious - and the more religious, the greater the tendency - to doubt / deny the science. This is a idea worth exploring. You could provide insight.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Aug 3, 2013 - 03:46pm PT

Do you think one explains the other?

Definitely not for me!! And in no way am I in denial with the scientific world. Quite the contrary. I greatly respect mans knowledge of nature. It's his wisdom that I'm always questioning. Without a doubt whenever there's an action, there's a reaction! Man has taken out of the ground and burned how many billions of barrels now? There has got to be a consequence. A change. Go close ur garage door and start your car and see how long you last. Obliviously smog is not good for us!
I really just don't like fellow Americans trying to make other Americans feel guilty for what they were raised to understand as a typical agreed upon lifestyle. IE driving a car, or heating ur house. It's legal to go fill up my tank and drive to big bear for a vacation. So don't make me feel quilty about it! Alcohol and pot are legal and if you want to partake to become stupid. I don't make you feel quilty, do I? When these two things are the leading cause of death today!!
Are you more concerned with what man may do to the planet in the next billion yrs, or with what man is doing to himself TODAY?

My love and respect for God and His creation goes far beyond hugging a tree. I recognize that man is going to have his way on planet earth. But why condem him for it? Jus teach the children a better way..

I'm actually stoked seeing Americans decifering the pros and cons of the burning of fuels. And aggressively searching for alternative methods. Besides the real problem isn't going to be only in America's lap in 30-40 yrs. it will be in the up and coming countries who are coming into the typical lifestye in the modern world like Mexico,brazil, soviet union, china,india, etc. We need to take the lead in TEACHING those children what's good for mother earth.
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
Aug 3, 2013 - 05:15pm PT
Bruce, do you suppose more people attend church during times of suffering?
Climate change is going to cause a lot of suffering.

If religions stand to benefit from climate change, then isn't it likely that they will block its mitigation?
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Aug 3, 2013 - 05:46pm PT
^^^ that's right

That's why today we should be singing praises to God for what He created to sustain life some 15 billion yrs ago. And sent into motion with such preciseness, that life still flourishes now today.

And man in his quest for realization can destroy it in just a few generations.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 3, 2013 - 07:20pm PT
No Mr. Chiloe, Cook et al has been thoroughly debunked, repeatedly. It is a good measure of the desperation in the CAGW community to witness scientists spending considerable allotments of time in efforts to prop it up even in relatively "back water" blogs like ST. If all you guys would just identify and move on to "another cause" the world would be much the better for it. Below are links to a rather more significant number of scientists opposing CAGW than you could ever muster into your ranks.

http://www.petitionproject.org
The paper by Fred Seitz attached to the signatory letters mailed out to scientists is quite informative.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2010/12/08/special-report
!000 international scientists, including many physicists, in dissent of IPCC and CAGW hypothesis

http://c3headlines.com/quotes-from-global-warming-critics-skeptics-sceptics.html
And for comparison i once again post the pro CAGW side below

http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 3, 2013 - 07:35pm PT
Play me a different tune Jerry. You know, politics is a disgustingly messy, rough and tumble business, beneath your dignity. Anyway, let the good people here look at it all and decide for themselves.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Aug 3, 2013 - 08:25pm PT
...by "debunked" you mean attacked on the blogs...

Yah, Rick has swallowed those "strenuous blog attacks" I mentioned. That's his way of knowing.

In the real world, no one has come close to showing that Cook et al. are wrong -- probably because they are not. Think they are? It would not be that hard to mount your own counter-study, which none of those blog critics has yet tried.

The ultra-simple approach I mentioned, just scan contents & abstracts of any relevant journal (you choose!) will lead to a similar conclusion. Because it is true, most scientists who study the matter agree that greenhouse gas buildup is changing the atmosphere and hence thermal properties of the planet, with uncertain results that we probably won't like.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Aug 3, 2013 - 10:31pm PT
That was a little weird Ed..

How about posting ur percentages?
Dr. F.

Boulder climber
SoCal
Aug 3, 2013 - 10:43pm PT
rick was posting on the Republican thread for some time at first, after he proved to be wrong about everything, I led him to this thread so he could speak to a larger audience of people that will tell him that he is wrong

he never thanked me, so rude.

But like rong and chuff, they would rather just double down on wrong and fight the truth like it's the enemy

Enemy of the people so to speak..

and 1.. 2.. 3.. chuff will appear out of nowhere, and have some rude comments for me
the chuff has run me off this thread, any time I post, he will come at me like I awakened the devil
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Aug 3, 2013 - 10:46pm PT
Time will reveal all,

but the cult will just move it's goal posts as all apocalyptic cults do until it becomes just another quaint historical relic.

Now we have descended to shooting the messenger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails



Dr. F.

Boulder climber
SoCal
Aug 3, 2013 - 10:53pm PT
All the right wing cults have proven to be based on lies and fear
The GCC deniers will be shown to be what they are, fools and pawns for the propagandists
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Aug 3, 2013 - 11:15pm PT
Blue blocker - thanks for your detailed reply. I also apologize for my snide assuming comments, clearly unwarranted. By your reply I must have miss read your previous contributions, which I had thought indicated a AGW denial bias. No doubt some of my own prejudice / suspicions regarding religious bias also played a part so its really nice to see I may be wrong, at least with you.

Your comments about the importance of not making a person feel guilty and / or hypocritical about using fossil fuels in every day life I thought was bang on. Sure it is possible for people to decrease their use to a degree but most people can't dump it dramatically without incurring risks and cost that literally puts them at a competitive disadvantage with their neighbors. The little individual cannot be expected to drive the huge technical innovation we need which is exactly why the pressure must come as broad scale public policy initiatives built into energy and tax policies - so the costs are distributed equitably and logically.

But to get back to religion and the relationship with anti science bias. Would you agree that such a thing exists with a sizeable population of the faithful? No doubt it is most apparent with specific faiths and more absent with others but generally speaking there is a significant conflict between most faiths doctrine and science. I'm curious how such people can justify (using logic that is, not doctrine) such a discounting ( or distrust) of our best system of understanding the reality of nature. I would be particularly interested in how an actual career scientist would rationalize conflict between their faith and the conclusions of science, especially where their church authorities start telling them "your either with us or against us". It must be like having to juggle two seperate sets of realities.

No less a conflict for the average joe church goer but they at least don't have to worry about professional ethics.

Same goes for right wingers, who worry even less about any kind of ethics.
Jebus H Bomz

climber
Peavine Basecamp
Aug 3, 2013 - 11:41pm PT
Ed, you left out his 'command error' account. It's his tactical fall back position.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Aug 4, 2013 - 12:41am PT
Play me a different tune Jerry. You know, politics is a disgustingly messy, rough and tumble business, beneath your dignity.

Beneath your dignity too Rick? Fo a man who is prone to pretensions of greater dignity this is just another easy cop out. Politics like it or not os unavoidable and in fact it could be argued that the absence of politics would mean an absence of civilization. So you find messy rough and tumble business beneath your dignity? Yet you keep coming back don't you? When you hang out with us are you slumming it?

But lets get real for a second. There are times I admit when it seems like a big horse fly has landed on my leg and regardless of how harmless it is the urge to squash his freaky little right winger beady eyes is just too irresistible and the satisfaction that lingers after its death is delicious. Messy rough and tumble maybe but a harsh ( for him at least) fact of life.

So it goes here. Sometimes the things you say generate the same impulses and like the horsefly you can say that maybe its not really justifiable but it sure as hell is understandible. Especially when you guys - anybody really but you guys wallow in it - generate so much intellectual dishonesty or as I prefer to call it, cowardice. So long as you guys refuse to honestly engage in examination of perfectly legitimate factors such as justifying your beliefs and motives and aknowledging the irrationality of your beliefs and motives determining your "science". Yes I realize you will accuse us of the same crimes but as stated we welcome that challenge of examination and it is you guys who avoid it. If you want a dignified debate then you better be willing to debate with dignity.

If you can't then you really must forgive us for occasionally stooping to your level, even if just for the fun of it.
The Chief

climber
From the Land Mongols under the Whites
Aug 4, 2013 - 02:26am PT
There are times I admit when it seems like a big horse fly has landed on my leg...

You do of course know that Horse Flies are attracted to, eat and lay their eggs in horse shet. That must then make you Bruce one bigass piece of walking horse shet. Got it. Nice.

must come as broad scale public policy initiatives built into energy and tax policies - so the costs are distributed equitably and logically.

Ah, nothing like a little wealth distribution. A totally socialistic philosophy. Spot on Bruce. The foundation of this entire issue. You have finally confessed to the fact that is what this all about. Your political ideology and dogma. Not one bit about the environment. Thanks for coming clean on that. But, NO THANKS!

Thank god them Canuk Rednecks are and will remain in power. Cus the likes of you totally suck. Big Time.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Aug 4, 2013 - 08:11am PT
That was a little weird Ed..

Actually, it's sort of cool. I can't be the only one wondering how his/her own contribution would look through this lens. Is it handmade or quick now?
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Aug 4, 2013 - 09:38am PT
and yet its STILL the CC crowd that posts the most NON topic posts to dis heer thread..
Dr. Christ

Mountain climber
State of Mine
Aug 4, 2013 - 10:14am PT
Shame on them, eh Ron? They should just keep posting the FACTS that you douche nozzles refuse to acknowledge... over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over

Explaining math to a denier: If one bag has 5 apples in it and the other bag has 10 apples in it, you have an average of 7 and 1/2 apples per bag.

I DON'T LIKE APPLES. YOU CAN'T MAKE ME EAT THEM. AND 1/2 HALF APPLE? YOU DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE APPLES BEING CUT. [Cite blog rantings here].

fuking idiots
Messages 10821 - 10840 of total 27953 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 Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews