Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 19921 - 19940 of total 20048 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Mar 27, 2015 - 07:19am PT
flip-flop, count me in, guys... why didn't you just explain earlier that global warming, oops, i mean climate change would lower the price hookers charge?


https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/29


seriously, you gotta read it to believe it

so, according to this liberal congresswoman, women are so helpless their only means for survival in the climate apocalypse will be prostitution...hey ladies, better find yourself a red state, climate denyin' nra member to protect you


why do climate changers hate women so much?
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Mar 27, 2015 - 08:18am PT
actually it's an interesting read... I'd recommend it
http://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/29

not sure where the "hate" comes in though.
EdwardT

Trad climber
Retired
Mar 27, 2015 - 08:20am PT
Whereas food insecure women with limited socioeconomic resources may be vulnerable to situations such as sex work, transactional sex, and early marriage that put them at risk for HIV, STIs, unplanned pregnancy, and poor reproductive health;

Interesting read? It's absurd.

Let's pass a resolution* to provide additional considerations for women, in the event the planet becomes a desert wasteland. Brilliant.

* Thanks Ed.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Mar 27, 2015 - 08:47am PT
I think it's a resolution, not a law, and the intent is to resolve to include more women in policy creation, which on the whole would be a good thing.

It does seem to be a troll to get conservative men to respond... which seems to be working even on this forum....
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Mar 27, 2015 - 08:48am PT
"not sure where the "hate" comes in though"

i know you're just playing dumb, ed, but i'll play along

see, every time a conservative suggests something outrageous like...

the reason why there are fewer women scientists might be because fewer women are interested in becoming scientists

or, women in college should avoid getting wasted at a frat party because it could make them an easy target for sexual assault

or, a major cause of poverty and crime in the black community is the lack of two-parent families and the lack of positive male figures in childrens' lives

or, social security needs to be reformed

or, we should try eliminate fraud in the medicare system

or, we should require people on welfare to work


you libs claim we "hate" women, black people, old people, poor people, etc.; so, if since that's how you define hate, i thought it would be helpful to point out whenever a lib says something "hate"-ful
crunch

Social climber
CO
Mar 27, 2015 - 08:56am PT
The climate is changing and if it continues to do so the effects will fall unfairly on the third world, the poor, women and children. Pretty unassailable logic:

"Whereas women will disproportionately face harmful impacts from climate change,
particularly in poor and developing nations where women regularly assume
increased responsibility for growing the family's food and collecting
water, fuel, and other resources;"

[as a result]
"food-insecure women with limited socioeconomic resources may be
vulnerable to situations such as sex work, transactional sex, and early
marriage that put them at risk for HIV, STIs, unplanned pregnancy, and
poor reproductive health;"

"Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),
That Congress--
(1) recognizes the disparate impacts of climate change on
women and the efforts of women globally to address climate
change;

"(5) affirms its commitment to empower women to have a voice
in the planning, design, implementation, and evaluation of
strategies to address climate change so that their roles and
resources are taken into account;"

Fine sentiment. Not sure if this has any practical value or worth beyond a brave attempt at a counterpoint to the Senate and Senator Inhofe:

"I take my religion seriously," Inhofe writes. "[T]his is what a lot of alarmists forget: God is still up there, and He promised to maintain the seasons and that cold and heat would never cease as long as the earth remains."

"The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous,"
McHale's Navy

Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
Mar 27, 2015 - 10:41am PT
The climate is changing and if it continues to do so the effects will fall unfairly on the third world, the poor, women and children. Pretty unassailable logic:

Rex Tillerson, CEO of Exxon, thinks all the third world needs is more fossil fuel to get out of their dilemma. Look up his talk with the Foreign Relations Council. He's right out of a John Wayne movie, but the speech is 2012 I think. I just reviewed it yesterday. The good stuff starts at 45 minutes I think.
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Mar 27, 2015 - 08:53pm PT
Bullshit from Texas
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/03/19/ted_cruz_stream_of_global_warming_denial_on_seth_meyers_show.html
EdwardT

Trad climber
Retired
Mar 28, 2015 - 07:48am PT

Phil Plait seems like a bit of a kneejerk hysteric. There's nothing wrong with Cruz's quote. The problem comes from what people read into it. People like the aggro, hysterical Phil Plait.

I just came back from New Hampshire where there’s snow and ice everywhere. - True

And my view actually is simple: Debates on this should follow science, and should follow data. - I agree

And many of the alarmists on global warming, they got a problem cuz the science just doesn’t back them up. And in particular, satellite data demonstrates that the last 17 years there’s been zero warming. - True

I did a little research on this one. Using (just) RSS date, I plotted OLS trend lines from 97-'04 to the present. As you can see, one slopes up, three are flat and four slope down.





It’s why—you remember how it used to be called global warming and then magically the theory changed to climate change? The reason is it wasn’t warming, but the computer models still say it is, except the satellites show it’s not.

I looked and didn't find anything to prove or disprove his claim. From my subjective perspective, it did seem like "global warming" was replaced by "climate change" after temps went sideways for a few years.

One last thing. I don't like Ted Cruz. I commented on this because I also don't like how warmists try to demonize anyone who talks AGW heresy.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Mar 28, 2015 - 07:57am PT
Actually we in Cali are not waiting at all,
since we have numerous unilateral rules in this state,
which is a costly and ineffective method compared to national+international policy agreements.

Bullet train to nowhere - being justified as green transport (mainly just green for the pockets of the commission).
Carbon trading charges.
Green energy electricity mandates for power companies - Exxxpensive electricity.
Local rules on carbon reduction, such as new home sale rules requiring home mods.

Good point splat. We're going to end up rescinding these moronic gestures, you'll see. We haven't wasted enough labor on them yet for folks to see the light, however.

DMT
EdwardT

Trad climber
Retired
Mar 28, 2015 - 08:19am PT
Climate scientists have spent decades researching how greenhouse gas emissions are prompting global warming. And they’ve spent decades flying around the world to talk about it.

A report published this month by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, a collaborative research center associated with the University of East Anglia in the U.K., points out this hypocrisy: If climate scientists want to protect the climate, they shouldn’t be organizing conferences that torch it.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/nudging-climate-scientists-to-follow-their-own-advice-on-flying/



Richard Tol takes the 97%ers to the cleaners.
Now almost two years old, John Cook’s 97 per cent consensus paper on anthropogenic global warming has been a runaway success. Downloaded more than 300,000 times, voted the best 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters, frequently cited by peers and politicians from around the world, the paper seems to be the definitive proof that the science of climate change is settled. It isn’t.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/global-warming-consensus-claim-doesnt-stand-up/story-e6frg6zo-1227276959248



Speaking of trends... global warming maintains a low concern.




And John Christy tells the witch hunt warministas to piss off.
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060015776
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Mar 28, 2015 - 09:57am PT
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Mar 28, 2015 - 10:11am PT
is there any literature that does not address the issue of climate change?

perhaps EdwardT can post a list of titles... from the climate journal literature.

The current central question in climate science regards the question of the 20th century climate change, especially what it's source is and how to predict the future of the change.

I would say that 100% of the literature is related to answering this question. That's a supposition, I will wait for EdwardT's response rebutting that...

If consensus is built out of a common subject for scientific research (which I'd say is a very good way to define consensus) then there is a very strong consensus among climate researchers as to what the important questions in climate science are.

EdwardT will attempt to deflect on this... no doubt.
moosedrool

climber
Andrzej Citkowicz far away from Poland
Mar 28, 2015 - 11:57am PT
Global landmarks go dark for Earth Hour

At 8:30 p.m. Saturday, people and public places across the globe will switch off their lights for one hour to raise awareness about the impact of energy use on climate change.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/03/28/earth-hour-worldwide/70589730/
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Mar 28, 2015 - 12:17pm PT
Tol's fulminations against Cook et al. (2013) have made him a laughingstock among scientists, while not denting the C13 conclusions -- because they're basically right, there is a very strong consensus, as even Tol himself has admitted. Consensus does not "prove" the consensus view is right, that's one of Tol's straw men. However it does reflect how convincing the real evidence is, among those who can actually read it.

Off topic on this off topic thread, but maybe not too far ... I came across this article on what it's like teaching evolution at the University of Kentucky. As James Krupa notes in this inspired but sobering piece, "there are some students I will never reach." Sound familiar?

We live in a nation where public acceptance of evolution is the second lowest of 34 developed countries, just ahead of Turkey. Roughly half of Americans reject some aspect of evolution, believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, and that humans coexisted with dinosaurs. Where I live, many believe evolution to be synonymous with atheism, and there are those who strongly feel I am teaching heresy to thousands of students. A local pastor, whom I’ve never met, wrote an article in the University Christian complaining that, not only was I teaching evolution and ignoring creationism, I was teaching it as a non-Christian, alternative religion.

I won't quote more but it's worth reading, as a note on the science/culture wars seen in another guise here.
EdwardT

Trad climber
Retired
Mar 28, 2015 - 03:59pm PT
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA

Mar 28, 2015 - 10:11am PT

is there any literature that does not address the issue of climate change?

perhaps EdwardT can post a list of titles... from the climate journal literature.

You're asking about climate journal literature that does not address the issue of climate change?

What an odd request. I'd guess there is climate literature that is not directly relevant to anthropogenic climate change. I'm not sure why you care. I don't.

The current central question in climate science regards the question of the 20th century climate change, especially what it's source is and how to predict the future of the change.

I would agree.

I would say that 100% of the literature is related to answering this question.

Sure. Why not. It makes sense that further understanding any aspect of the climate would help with understanding climate change.

That's a supposition, I will wait for EdwardT's response rebutting that...

What specifically should I be rebutting?

If consensus is built out of a common subject for scientific research (which I'd say is a very good way to define consensus) then there is a very strong consensus among climate researchers as to what the important questions in climate science are.

Um. Yeah. That's reasonable.

EdwardT will attempt to deflect on this... no doubt.

Rebut?

Deflect?

Why?
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Mar 28, 2015 - 04:32pm PT
If all the scientists are addressing climate change as an issue, then it is an indication of "consensus" of the strongest sort, that they are willing to spend their time pursuing a topic they consider to be important.

It is also true that among all the scientific hypotheses, none explain the "anomaly" more completely than anthropogenic GHG emissions exhausted into the atmosphere.

One can have arguments over the quantitative aspects of Cook's survey, no one has published an independent survey refuting the Cook survey (that I know of) in the literature. Cook's was not the first survey of it's kind, though it was probably the largest, and it is in line with what the previous survey's were indicating.

Why this is so controversial is rather strange...
dave729

Trad climber
Western America
Mar 28, 2015 - 05:46pm PT
The govt dr provides undeniable proof that the simple lure of
receiving unending cash grants to write lots of
'Global Warming Is True... Damn It!' papers
makes the case they are criminals with science degrees.



Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Mar 28, 2015 - 05:57pm PT
"As a scientist myself, it became clear to me that the contrarians were not capable of providing the science to support their 'skepticism' on climate change. The evidence simply does not exist to justify continued denial that climate change is caused by humans and will be bad. There is always legitimate debate around the cutting edge of research, something we see regularly. But with climate change, science that has been established, constantly tested, and reaffirmed for decades was routinely called into question.

"Over and over, solid peer-reviewed science was insulted as corrupt, while blog posts from fossil-fuel-funded groups were cited as objective fact.


their rejection of climate science is not based on an accurate understanding of the science but on political preferences and personality. As moderators responsible for what millions of people see, we felt that to allow a handful of commenters to so purposefully mislead our audience was simply immoral."

http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/5392/20131220/organizations-bankrolling-climate-change-denial-revealed-new-study.htm
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Mar 28, 2015 - 07:43pm PT
^^^LOL, snark boy is back ^^^

http://www.drexel.edu/culturecomm/news/archive/not-just-the-koch-brothers-brulle/

Full paper from the journal Climatic Change link at bottom of article.




Messages 19921 - 19940 of total 20048 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

Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews