Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 10821 - 10840 of total 25963 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Aug 3, 2013 - 10:12am PT
A buddy just got back from Little Indian valley- they had frost and frozen water bottles at 7500'..Aug 1st.
Jebus H Bomz

climber
Peavine Basecamp
Aug 3, 2013 - 10:18am PT
Climate change, Ron. Maybe you need to crawl out of your Rick sandwich in order to grasp the term.
Jebus H Bomz

climber
Peavine Basecamp
Aug 3, 2013 - 10:21am PT
Yet more flawed info from the Chump, Mono? Why am I not surprised. The guy is further off than a stopped clock.
Dr. Christ

Mountain climber
State of Mine
Aug 3, 2013 - 11:02am PT
By "bunch of fuking idiots" I mean anyone who would conclude there is not scientific consensus on AGW based on an abstract of a paper based on abstracts. That means you chuff... and forbes and climate depot and wattsupwiththat and thenewamerican and all the other bullshit sites you rely on for you idiotic talking points.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Aug 3, 2013 - 12:54pm PT
http://www.newsdaily.com/environment/84bcfdd939f05fc4d9e553bcd636ee31/exclusive-frost-damages-nearly-fifth-of-brazil-sugar-cane-crop-analyst

SAO PAULO (Reuters) - Last week's frosts in southern Brazil damaged nearly a fifth of the unharvested cane crop in the principal growing region, an event likely to cut sugar exports from the world's largest producer, agriculture research company Datagro said Wednesday.

Severe early morning frosts on July 24 and 25 in three of Brazil's top sugar-cane states devastated large areas, Datagro President Plinio Nastari told Reuters. The cold blight comes at the peak the crushing season when more than half of Brazil's expected record 590-million-tonne crop remains unharvested.

Although Nastari was unable to say how much mill-output will drop or reduce a global sugar glut that has pushed prices to three-year lows, he said 65 million metric tons, or 18 percent of the cane standing uncut in fields was damaged by the frost.



http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

Normally the high Arctic has about 90 days above freezing. This year there was less than half that,
dirtbag

climber
Aug 3, 2013 - 01:08pm PT
^^^^^Another right wing, Wasilla ditz-worshiping, anti-science idiot.^^^
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Aug 3, 2013 - 01:40pm PT
So it didn't happen?
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Aug 3, 2013 - 02:17pm PT

By "bunch of fuking idiots" I mean anyone who would conclude there is not scientific consensus on AGW based on an abstract of a paper based on abstracts.

Looks as though in the above graph there's just as many scientific types that DON'T take the stand of climate change being entirely caused by humans burning sh#t.

Are they idiots too?
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



Messages 10821 - 10840 of total 25963 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