Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 12381 - 12400 of total 21618 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 29, 2013 - 12:12pm PT
Norton,
That's one heck of a chart!

Indeed, let's cut down the rainforests because they produce too much greenhouse gas... Whoa Nelly, we got a live one there!
new world order2

climber
Dec 29, 2013 - 12:27pm PT
This is a re-post in response to someone making mention of "CHEMTRAILS", in the ask ED thread.


"Sunshade" to fight climate change costed at $5 bln a year
http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/08/30/climate-sunshade-idINDEE87T0K420120830

Oh! So they want to spray chemicals into the atmosphere to slow climate change?! Sue-weet! Would that be like...chemtrails?
Planes or airships could carry sun-dimming materials high into the atmosphere for an affordable price tag of below $5 billion a year as a way to slow climate change, a study indicated on Friday.

Transporting a million tonnes of particles to at least 18 km (11 miles) above the Earth every year to form a sunshade is "both feasible and affordable", U.S. scientists concluded in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

Al Blood and Gore makes mention of spraying chemicals in the atmosphere here, and although he is against it,
simply introducing the subject, is a hint that it may be an option in the future. Think not?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrrWXurroWw


You guys over 50....do you recall ever seeing the sky like this, when you were a child?
I sure don't. I remember seeing contrails from jets disappearing within minutes.
You can bet, that within an hour of this photo being taken, the sky appeared a milky white haze. Have a look up.

What a lovely day to chemtrail/geo-engineer the atmosphere.
What a lovely day to chemtrail/geo-engineer the atmosphere.
Credit: new world order2




rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Dec 29, 2013 - 01:06pm PT
Bruce- " and arguably the single most efficient system responsible for the advancement of human existence on this planet or any other".

Can you please rejigger your gibberish so us mortals can understand?

Never. I will continue to be that crest of thorns bloodying your forehead as you drag your cross uphill to meet your maker.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
U.N. Ambassador, Crackistan
Dec 29, 2013 - 01:11pm PT
The science haters hate science because they FEAR it makes them look stupid.

Sound reasoning for once on their part.

DMT
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
U.N. Ambassador, Crackistan
Dec 29, 2013 - 02:02pm PT
Actually the imagery of the thorny crown (placed upon the christhead in denial of the 'truth') is a pretty good one.

Apt, you might say.

DMT
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Dec 29, 2013 - 02:56pm PT
I will continue to be that crest of thorns bloodying your forehead as you drag your cross uphill to meet your maker.
the proper analogy for your contributions to an intelligent discussion in this thread is dogshit on a shoe.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Dec 29, 2013 - 03:52pm PT
I'm talking in the same lingo as you catastrophist wackos. Clearly your beliefs are anchored to nothing more than faith since every contrary peice of evidence prompts you to a "reanalysis of your scriptures" to divine new interpretations , infills, and other manufactures to explain this world which is evolving away from explanations of old.The way all you flies were attracted makes one think you are a very familiar with this pile of shet. And back to my rental snowplowing. What are you idiots doing, besides busting your guts and damaging your eyeballs in front of the screens you are glued to.
TLP

climber
Dec 29, 2013 - 04:11pm PT
Now that's a bit of a weird statement. A page or two ago, you provided a link to an actual scientific review, implying that it provides convincing basis to conclude that recent climate data is explained by solar variation. So, I read (not just skimmed) it. It does provide an exhaustive review of the relevant science, and hundreds of references (some 400 or 450), and I read a bunch of those too.

Bottom line is, your source and the references it cites conclude that the variation in total solar output, averaged over solar cycles, hasn't actually trended very much at all over the last four centuries, and all the non-anthropogenic variations combined are nowhere near enough to explain observed temperatures over recent decades; therefore, warming due to CO2 is real.

That's the scientific source that you provide. Do you just not believe it? and if so why did you cite it as supporting your position?
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Dec 29, 2013 - 06:36pm PT
Now that's a bit of a weird statement. A page or two ago, you provided a link to an actual scientific review, implying that it provides convincing basis to conclude that recent climate data is explained by solar variation.
While Sketch and the Chief are mostly one-trick ponies on this thread, Rick employs oddly bi- or tri-polar posting voices. Variously the Curious Student, the Make-Believe Perfessor, or the Bizarro-World Ranter. He slips into the last voice pretty often, as just seen, which can be puzzling if like TLP you thought he was still the Perfessor. Maybe someone else can deconstruct one of Rick's dense Rant paragraphs, I started a few times but gave up.
new world order2

climber
Dec 29, 2013 - 06:48pm PT
Crickets, (just like last time) re. my posts on chemtrails/geo-engineering.

Why is that? I mean, I provided links from mainstream media, and a link to comments from Al blood and Gore, but yet nothing.

Hmmmm.....

Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Dec 29, 2013 - 06:52pm PT
Regarding the politicized distrust of scientists, that can be found at many extremes of the political compass, but the distribution is not random or "balanced." These survey results I posted a while back resemble what many others have found, as well.



How did we get here? A number of researchers have studied the deliberate campaigns that turned environmental protection from a bipartisan goal (doesn't everybody want clean water?) into a political wedge issue. For example, Jacques et al. 2008,

The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks andenvironmental scepticism
Jacques, Dunlap, Freeman
Abstract
Environmental scepticism denies the seriousness of environmental problems, and self-professed ‘sceptics’ claim to be unbiased analysts combating‘junk science’. This study quantitatively analyses 141 English-language environmentally sceptical books published between 1972 and 2005. We find that over 92 per cent of these books, most published in the US since 1992, are linked to conservative think tanks (CTTs). Further, we analyse CTTs involved with environmental issues and find that 90 per cent of them espouse environmental scepticism. We conclude that scepticism is a tactic of an elite-driven counter-movement designed to combat environmentalism, and that the successful use of this tactic has contributed to the weakening of US commitment to environmental protection.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Dec 29, 2013 - 07:00pm PT
Or more recently, this paper by Hmielowski et al. (2013),

An attack on science? Media use, trust in scientists, and perceptions of global warming
Hmielowski, Feldman, Myers, Leiserowitz, Maibach
Abstract
There is a growing divide in how conservatives and liberals in the USA understand the issue of global warming. Prior research suggests that the American public’s reliance on partisan media contributes to this gap. However, researchers have yet to identify intervening variables to explain the relationship between media use and public opinion about global warming. Several studies have shown that trust in scientists is an important heuristic many people use when reporting their opinions on science-related topics. Using within-subject panel data from a nationally representative sample of Americans, this study finds that trust in scientists mediates the effect of news media use on perceptions of global warming. Results demonstrate that conservative media use decreases trust in scientists which, in turn, decreases certainty that global warming is happening. By contrast, use of non-conservative media increases trust in scientists, which, in turn, increases certainty that global warming is happening.
TLP

climber
Dec 29, 2013 - 07:07pm PT
For an objective measure of who is hysterical, one might reasonably look at an individual's last 10 or 20 posts and see how often there are lots of capitalized words, repeated letters, exclamation points, and other standard means of expressing hysteria in writing.

I personally find it useless and unrewarding to rant or respond to ranting. If somebody posts some actual science references, I'll read them and comment on what they say. I'm very interested in long-term ecological change, so anything that's factual or scientific related to it is of interest. And I'm objectively curious how someone processes the fact that the reference they're presenting in support of a particular position actually states the opposite.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Dec 29, 2013 - 07:16pm PT
For an objective measure of who is hysterical, one might reasonably look at an individual's last 10 or 20 posts and see how often there are lots of capitalized words, repeated letters, exclamation points, and other standard means of expressing hysteria in writing.

+1. As an objective loon-alarm I think that should yield a very low rate of false positives, but false negatives would still be a problem.
new world order2

climber
Dec 29, 2013 - 07:24pm PT
Hi Ed.

Do you support Geo-Engineered Food and a Geo-Engineered Climate?

Are you a pawn for Monsanto?

Say it isn't so, Ed?
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Dec 29, 2013 - 07:35pm PT
Another widely cited sociological study of the politicization of climate science, by McCright and Dunlap (2011), confirmed earlier findings suggesting "biased assimilation" in how people accept or reject science depending on their political views.

THE POLITICIZATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND POLARIZATION IN THE AMERICAN PUBLIC'S VIEWS OF GLOBAL WARMING, 2001–2010
McCright, Dunlap
Abstract
We examine political polarization over climate change within the American public by analyzing data from 10 nationally representative Gallup Polls between 2001 and 2010. We find that liberals and Democrats are more likely to report beliefs consistent with the scientific consensus and express personal concern about global warming than are conservatives and Republicans. Further, the effects of educational attainment and self-reported understanding on global warming beliefs and concern are positive for liberals and Democrats, but are weaker or negative for conservatives and Republicans. Last, significant ideological and partisan polarization has occurred on the issue of climate change over the past decade.
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Dec 29, 2013 - 07:45pm PT
For an objective measure of who is hysterical, one might reasonably look at an individual's last 10 or 20 posts and see how often there are lots of capitalized words, repeated letters, exclamation points, and other standard means of expressing hysteria in writing.


Emotion is heavily used by those with weak arguments. They are too stupid to realize that it only impresses 5 year olds (of any chronological age).
new world order2

climber
Dec 29, 2013 - 08:15pm PT
No reply from Ed.

He can't swallow his pride, and admit chemtrails are for reals. Ego, or don't bite the hand that feeds you, Ed?

Poor feller. I'm sure he knows all that radiation he's being exposed to is accumulative, if (I said if) he is in contact with it all the time.

Who's up for some chemtrails? Ooppsss....I mean geo-engineering.
Who's up for some chemtrails? Ooppsss....I mean geo-engineering.
Credit: new world order2

rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Dec 29, 2013 - 09:01pm PT
Thanks Chief for the accurate compilation of the state of and revelations of CAGW science. Or should we just call it CO2 scientology?

TLP- As is typical of pro CAGW posters on this thread, you misinterpreted the reason I posted the link to the paper "Solar Effects on Climate". It was the most complete compilation of Solar/atmospheric influences I have seen to date and it repeatedly stated that the measured effects of the various mechanisms may not hold up in solar conditions of a maunder like minimum. In short-a huge uncertainty that might well be looming.

Ed-I acknowledge some of you folks as true believers. Not you of course, you know better. Bruce, on the other hand, has always seemed as if he had a cross to bear.

The rest of you guys must be awfully bored.

Chiloe- Why are you doing studies of peoples completely rational fear of the agenda of huge taxation and loss of mobility and freedoms thinly veiled behind CAGW theory/scientists? I mean, even a low level moron can see through it, so why study the obvious? Why don't you study peoples completely irrational fear of new generation nuclear and advanced hydrocarbon extraction? If you truly believe in CO2 scientology, certainly you would want the most effective mitigation possible afforded through expanded use of these on the shelf technologies.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Dec 29, 2013 - 09:14pm PT
Why don't you study peoples completely irrational fear of new generation nuclear and advanced hydrocarbon extraction? If you truly believe in CO2 scientology, certainly you would want the most effective mitigation possible afforded through expanded use of these on the shelf technologies.


Oww!

Messages 12381 - 12400 of total 21618 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
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