Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 12401 - 12420 of total 26482 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
WBraun

climber
Oct 7, 2013 - 06:55pm PT
I'm here .....

I know everything .......
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Oct 7, 2013 - 07:00pm PT
GARY,

You are such as fking idiot.


The Japanese Airmen I posted are among the 8500 dedicate Kamikaze's that all snorted meth for six months straight in preparation for their one and only suicide bombing mission.


There is not ONE U.S. Airmen/Squadron during WWII that ever took on any oath of death as did the false bullshet ideological following Kamikaze Japanese Airmen that did.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Oct 7, 2013 - 07:00pm PT
No. But I've read enough to know it's BS.

No, you have not. You're trying to fake it based on what you've read by people who agree with your politics. It sounds like you don't and can't read actual science, but if you think you can, take a look at the actual Cook et al. paper (it's free!) and find something in that which you believe is a lie.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Oct 7, 2013 - 07:02pm PT
You're trying to fake it based on what you've read by people who agree with your politics

Gee, Larry.

A little Black Kettling there huh?


It is pretty obvious Larry Hamilton that you are not a registered Republican nor Independent.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 7, 2013 - 07:17pm PT
And did you not state that YOU SMOKED BITD, KMAN???


Umm, The Chief, no. I did not ever state that I smoked.



Never smoked, never will.




Got any more foolish things you need to post today?
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Oct 7, 2013 - 07:31pm PT
Repubs and Independents never believe in AGW?

About as many Libs that DO NOT believe in it.

My bad KMAN. Had you confused with BREWSKY.

Same confirmed ideological commentary from the two of you.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 7, 2013 - 07:33pm PT
My bad KMAN.


LOL. Confuse me with Bruce all you want, I like the way he writes prose.
blahblah

Gym climber
Boulder
Oct 7, 2013 - 07:37pm PT
So is there anybody other than Ron, Rick, Rick, and sketchy out there?
It depends on what you mean--
the alarmists like to spin it so that anyone who is slightly less panicked than they are is a "denier" who rejects "science," and it doesn't take long for them to let loose with the insults. That gets old fast, so a lot of us have probably stopped posting on this thread, in whole or at least in part.

I imagine there's a silent majority that has no problem accepting that human released CO2 has caused and will continue to cause some warming, but also takes notice of things like:
    as reported in mainstream, credible publications such as the Economist, the global warming industry has tended to exaggerate the problem,
    at least some thought leaders question the utility of at least some aspects of the alarmists beloved "models"; not just that the current models need to be improved, but that the whole enterprise just doesn't and won't work (consider an analogy to actively managed equity mutual funds, that on average underperform indexed funds, once fees are accounted for. It's not just that the current group of stock pickers suck; it's that their "models" will never work). I don't have any deep knowledge of whether this is correct, but it's notable to me how much hostility this observation has engendered.
    just as there's an industry based on extracting and using fossil fuels, there's now an industry based on government subsidies to various "industries," climate change "experts," and so on. We recognize that there's bias on both sides, and so we tend to take everything with a grain of salt.

The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Oct 7, 2013 - 07:46pm PT
MONO.... Wrong!

This graph is more about "believing"

Similarly, Gallup finds a 32-point gap between the percentages of Democrats (50%) and Republicans (18%) who say global warming will pose a serious threat to them or to their way of life during their lifetime.


Like I said, MONO, about as many Libs that do believe IN AGW.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Oct 7, 2013 - 07:47pm PT
You can keep on with the unsupported claims. It doesn't change the fact that Cook's claims are little more than dishonest propaganda.

Sketch, my claims aren't unsupported -- I've actually read the paper, while you're flailing to hide the fact that you haven't. I'll help you out, here's the abstract. Where's your lie?

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.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Oct 7, 2013 - 07:54pm PT
Prove it MONO. Prove it.

Besides, we are talking about the next 100 years into the future and how AGW will affect/impact us all into that time frame of our "life times". Correct?


LARRY HAMILTON... your paper results comes from this

Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC


SO the 97% consensus comes from 1,372 Climate Researches out of the 20Kplus globally.

Now that is complete bullshet and just goes to prove how bias and cooked this Peer Review process truly is.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Oct 7, 2013 - 07:57pm PT
Precisely!

NICE EDIT MONO!!!

You were right the first time cus this all has to do with our life time not NOW.

Thus my point that more LIBs believe in AGW than both Ind and Rep combined is correct.

Thank you for agreeing.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Oct 7, 2013 - 08:01pm PT
This graph proves my point.





Besides, neither refer to AGW.

Just GCC.

This one specifically refers to AGW
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Oct 7, 2013 - 08:05pm PT
Yur the fking dumbass MONO!

Once again you posted the wrong graph/data to prove your point!

This one refers to AGW as I stated.


And your side is losing the Independents. Big time. I was off by 9 points. BFD.

Obviously LIBs believe in AGW far more than Independents and Repubs.

So I was right.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Oct 7, 2013 - 08:06pm PT
During their lifetime, idiot.

One problem with that question form is that it mixes up belief about the physical reality with a respondent age effect, which also is real. "In your lifetime" has different meanings to a 20 and 80 year old.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Oct 7, 2013 - 08:11pm PT
You can't read??

50% from the original 65% ten years ago. Steady decline the entire time.

What was that about neurons??

Pepe Le Poseur

Social climber
Parts North
Oct 7, 2013 - 08:13pm PT
Good point Chiloe...most repubs are geriatrics
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Oct 7, 2013 - 08:14pm PT
Maybe in the disabled and illegally populated state of California.^^^^
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Oct 7, 2013 - 08:52pm PT
The study examined nearly 12,000 abstracts. Among them, 64 explicitly state man is the primary cause of global warming since 1950. Another 922 state man caused some warming. Combined, the account for about 8% of the abstracts considered.

What you're confirming, Sketch, is not just that you haven't read the paper (which you're certain is full of lies) but that you can't read it -- not even the 166 words of the abstract.

But many others here do have that ability. In case some of them are following this, here's what Cook et al. actually wrote, again...

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.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Oct 7, 2013 - 08:58pm PT
except there is no physical theory which has been put forward to explain economics (at least not one generally accepted by economists)

Ed, I think I believe otherwise

there IS a generally accepted "conventional wisdom" theory of not only what is good and not economic "policy" but also a long history of both successes and failures from putting various polices into practice, and it is that experience that has evolved into what we now believe to be an actual, tried and true, economic "theory"

even on its most simplest and most tested and peer reviewed terms, an example would be that we KNOW what causes inflation, and hyperinflation, and we also know the consequences, among MANY of parts of the overall Accepted Economic Theory

yes there is debate and disagreements, largely politically ideologically driven...

and there ARE indeed a large set of undisputed economic theories beyond question
Messages 12401 - 12420 of total 26482 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