Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 6741 - 6760 of total 27312 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
WBraun

climber
May 29, 2013 - 11:38pm PT
Dr F is always wrong

Along with the dog .......
The Chief

climber
Climber from the Land Mongols under the Whites
May 29, 2013 - 11:46pm PT
An October 2012 survey also found that since 2009 an increasing percentage of Americas think that global warming is not natural, reporting that 42% of Americans believed that global warming is mostly caused by human activity, such as burning fossil fuels, up from 38% in 2011 and 34% in 2010.

BAM!

The consensus amongst "the People" fairs far differently than the supposed "Experts". 58% are not taking the GCC fatalists bait that it is all cus of us humans. Hmmmm. There is where you still fail. Miserably.



http://www.pewresearch.org/2013/04/02/climate-change-key-data-points-from-pew-research/


So it truly appears that you fatalists are in the minority. Big Time. As it stands, you will never leave that slot either.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 29, 2013 - 11:52pm PT
well sooo much fer polls eh? (guffaw)....
The Chief

climber
Climber from the Land Mongols under the Whites
May 29, 2013 - 11:58pm PT
Not for long. Growing at 4% a year.


Really. 4% a year. And you still believe in the Tooth Fairy. Got it. You are all the Minority. And you are not going to leave that pos. Never. Huh.

According to that poll DRF, you are WRONG.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
May 30, 2013 - 12:00am PT
Bless you Bluey!

OK - Now explain the apparent co-relation between strength of religious conviction and strength of AGW denial conviction?


And puleeze.... don't just say because they are just naturally smarter


This was apparently only "apparent" to you and yours. I see no relation other than maybe political. AGW peeps seem to hate religion and blame their detractors likewise.

Kinda like blaming the AP, IRS, Benghazi scandals on right-wing knee-jerks. No, it's not just them, but they were RIGHT! It WAS a real scandal. You just want to believe it was racism or demagoguery.


dirtbag

climber
May 30, 2013 - 12:02am PT
The consensus amongst "the People" fairs far differently than the supposed "Experts". 58% are not taking the GCC fatalists bait that it is all cus of us humans. Hmmmm. There is where you still fail. Miserably.

So?



I guess Chief Blowhard doesn't know what a theory is. Of course, that won't keep him from opening his stoopid trap about it.
The Chief

climber
Climber from the Land Mongols under the Whites
May 30, 2013 - 12:11am PT
As I see it, "The People" do not believe the science. "The People" according to you here, are all idiots. Got it. Fact is, they are the majority and they will determine whether your scam flies or not. So far, you are still waiting for permission to leave the terminal and wasting fuel just sitting there. When AR5 is finalized and released in Sept, shet will hit the fan. Them numbers will fall, again, when the AR5 indicates how Solar forcing is indeed playing a stronger part in this GCC issue than what was first theorized. Also, the "smoothed" models will indicate a far different increase as well. Decreased almost 50% if not greater. Along with Sea Level Rise projections. All going down. Down.

The Minority. DRF. Not the Consensus. The People say different. They are what matters. Big Time.


DIRTCLAUD. Your posts are why you are the Minority. And why you will remain there. You are Losing, Big Time. Loser.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
May 30, 2013 - 12:13am PT
I have nothing, Bruce. I'm comfortable with what I've laid out. It all seems pretty clear to me.
dirtbag

climber
May 30, 2013 - 12:14am PT
As I see it, "The People" do not believe the science. "The People" according to you here, are all idiots. Got it. Fact is, they are the majority and they will determine whether your scam flies or not. So far, you are still waiting for permission to leave the terminal and wasting fuel just sitting there. When AR5 is finalized and released in Sept, shet will hit the fan. Them numbers will fall, again, when the AR5 indicates how Solar forcing is indeed playing a stronger part in this GCC issue than what was first theorized. Also, the "smoothed" models will indicate a far different increase as well. Decreased almost 50% if not greater. Along with Sea Level Rise projections. All going down. Down.

The Minority. DRF. Not the Consensus. The People say different. They are what matters. Big Time.

The Chief

climber
Climber from the Land Mongols under the Whites
May 30, 2013 - 12:21am PT
Amazing what comes out when you're losing huh DIRTCLAUD. Straws. Grab them straws you Sheepshead. Then the fork and knife comes. All done. Gone. Yur all gone. Minority lose. HA HA HA HA.



Nice lot (DIRTCLAUD) you got their DRF, ED, Bruce etc. Nice. No wonder you are losing. And will continue to do so.

The Chief

climber
Climber from the Land Mongols under the Whites
May 30, 2013 - 12:54am PT
You are still in the minority Bruce. AGW is all still all a Theory. NOT a reality. The People decide. NOT science. The People.

ignorant you are just begging to be taken for a ride

Must be the AGW Camps mantra. Take em for a ride. Sorry. Not gonna happen anytime in the near future. Not.

The dude is a proponent of AGW and ignorance yet lights up and inhales cigarettes. Nice.
The Chief

climber
Climber from the Land Mongols under the Whites
May 30, 2013 - 01:04am PT
How about another question. Do you "trust" the Koch brothers? Exxon? James Inhoffe?

Do you trust the IRS? Nancy Pelosi (Inside Trading Thief)? Solyndra? Same same Bruce.

Then why do you do their bidding?

Just cus I do not go along with your agenda doesn't mean I am going along with their's. Dump that thought Bruce. Dump it. There are more of us "Independent" realists than you could ever imagine. Not all have to be to the Left or the Right. Not all. Dump that theory. Both sides of the fence. I go along with that. I call it adapting to change. Adapting.

"The Master sees things as they are, without trying to change them.
She always lets them go their own way and resides in the center of the circle."


Bruce, the dude in your latest flick smokes cigarettes. Even after science has determined with 100% certaintly that it causes all them fatal diseases. WTF? Hypocrite at best.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
May 30, 2013 - 01:16am PT
Do you trust the IRS? Nancy Pelosi (Inside Trading Thief)? Solyndra? Same same Bruce.


Let's not leave out Feinstein, who's husband just got a sweet gov't deal, I wonder how that happened?

Pelosi is crazy too. She has to go.

Everything liberals whined about with Bush, Obama has doubled-down on and gotten away with far less scrutiny. Hypocrisy it is.

Gitmo, drones, gov't bailouts, oppression of rights. He gets away with it.
The Chief

climber
Climber from the Land Mongols under the Whites
May 30, 2013 - 01:19am PT
Bruce or any other GCC fan here, any of you smoke cigarettes?
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
May 30, 2013 - 01:26am PT
You paint a picture of black and white. The whole world is black and can't be trusted so you pretend to yourself that you are a rugged individual and nobodies patsy, which of course is a pretty easy out.

Me? IMO gov't is black/white. The have strict duties from the Constitutional. Go back to those and stop all the other bullshit!

It's very clear. Those duties not enumerated here...relegated to the States.
The Chief

climber
Climber from the Land Mongols under the Whites
May 30, 2013 - 01:27am PT
chickensh#t.
Nice. Exactly why you too are losing. Bruce. You are losing. Big time.

Do you smoke Bruce?

They love guys like you.

Prove it Bruce. You can't.

Do you smoke Bruce?


BTW: I had absolutely NO idea who the KOCH Bros were until this thread. Not any. Nor any of most of the ideologists you claim you disdain and that I am for. Nope. No idea wtf you are talking about. Yup. You got me all wrong. Big time. I will put a round in their head just as quickly as anyone else that dares intrude on my area. In a heart beat. I and many others dance to a whole different tune than you and the other side of the political aisle. Fact.
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
May 30, 2013 - 01:46am PT
The Chief...Who gives a sh#t what you think about climate change...?
The Chief

climber
Climber from the Land Mongols under the Whites
May 30, 2013 - 01:49am PT
I used to smoke and once a year or so I'll spark one up around the fire. So what? Thats what you call personal risk taking

Nice. Great example for the next generation/s that you supposedly need to save from the .... Koch Brothers and their Fossil Fuel infestation of humanity.

How many millions of human beings have died all due to cigarette's? Oh the hypocrisy. Nice one Bruce.

The Chief...Who gives a sh#t what you think about climate change...?

Apparently you do. You would not have posted had you not. Mr. Yabadabadoo.
slayton

Trad climber
Here and There
May 30, 2013 - 02:36am PT
This article is worthy of being repeated.

97% Global Warming Consensus Meets Resistance from Scientific Denialism

The robust climate consensus faces resistance from conspiracy theories, cherry picking, and misrepresentations

by Dana Nuccitelli
Published on Tuesday, May 28, 2013 by The Guardian
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/05/28-9


Global warming could change our maps, and displace people from cities and tropical islands. (Photograph: National Geographic)The Skeptical Science survey finding 97% expert consensus on human-caused global warming has drawn an incredible amount of media attention. Hundreds of media stories documented our survey and results. Lead author John Cook and I participated in a number of interviews to discuss the paper, including on Al Jazeera, CNN, and ABC. President Obama even Tweeted about our results to his 31 million followers.

The story has been so popular mainly because our results present a simple but critical message. There is a wide gap between the public awareness and the reality of the expert consensus on human-caused global warming.
The consensus gap between public perception and reality



Credit: Dr. F.

Additionally, as John Cook has discussed, research has shown that perception of consensus is linked to support for climate policy. This is true along most of the ideological spectrum when people are aware of the expert consensus on human-caused global warming, they are more likely to support taking action to solve the problem.

Opponents of climate action have been aware of the powerful influence of the scientific consensus for decades. As far back as 1991, Western Fuels Association launched a $510,000 campaign to "reposition global warming as theory (not fact)" in the public perception. A memo from communications strategist Frank Luntz leaked in 2002 advised Republicans "to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate."

Thus although our results were straightforward and consistent with previous research, we were not surprised when they met with resistance from certain groups, and anticipated the critiques with an FAQ. However, in reviewing the various criticisms of our paper, we noticed some common threads amongst them. A 2009 paper published in the European Journal of Public Health by Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKee discussed five characteristics common to scientific denialism:

1) Cherry picking;
2) Fake experts;
3) Misrepresentation and logical fallacies.
4) Impossible expectations of what research can deliver; and
5) Conspiracy theories;

These characteristics were present throughout the criticisms of our paper, and in fact we found examples of each of the five characteristics among them.

For example, the author of one blog post contacted a handful of scientists whose papers were included in our survey and claimed that we had 'falsely classified' their papers. Climate economist Richard Tol echoed the criticism of our paper in this blog post. This particular criticism manages to check off three of the five characteristics of scientific denialism.

Specifically contacting these few scientists is a classic example of cherry picking. Our survey received responses from 1,200 climate researchers; the author of this post carefully selected a few of them who all just happen to be well-known climate 'skeptics'. It's also a variant of the fake expert characteristic, as John Cook explained in his textbook with G. Thomas Farmer, Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis.



"A variation of the Fake Expert strategy is to take the handful of remaining dissenting climate scientists and magnify their voices to give the impression of more significant disagreement then there actually is."

The handful scientists contacted for this blog post are among the less than 3% of climate researchers who dispute human-caused global warming. As a result, the voices of this small minority of 'skeptics' are magnified.

Third, this blog post argument is a misrepresentation of our study. The Skeptical Science team categorized the papers based solely on their abstracts, whereas the scientists were asked about the contents of their full papers. We invited the scientific authors to categorize their own papers, so if they responded, their 'correct' classifications of the full papers are included in our database. As illustrated in the graphic below, we found the same 97% consensus in both the abstracts-only and author self-rating methods.

Another characteristic of movements that deny a consensus involves impossible expectations. The tobacco industry perfected this approach in the 1970s, demanding ever-more stringent levels of proof that smoking caused cancer in order to delay government regulation of their products. This technique of impossible expectations was illustrated in another blog post claiming that only papers which quantify the human contribution to global warming count as endorsing the consensus. Most climate-related research doesn't quantify how much global warming humans are causing, especially in the abstract; there's simply no reason to.

We didn't expect scientists to go into nitty gritty detail about settled science in the valuable real estate of the abstract (the short summary at the start of the paper). However, we did expect to see it more often in the full paper, and that's exactly what we observed. When scientists were asked to rate the level of endorsement of their own papers, in the 237 papers that actually specified the proportion of human-caused global warming, over 96% agreed that humans have caused more than half of the recent global warming.

In yet another blog post, Christopher Monckton, whom my colleague John Abraham exposed as habitually misrepresenting climate scientists' research, has also misrepresented our results. Monckton compared apples to oranges by looking at previous consensus studies in an effort to argue that our results show a 'collapsing' consensus. On the contrary, using a consistent apples-to-apples comparison over a two-decade span, we showed that the consensus on human-caused global warming is growing.
The growth of the scientific consensus on human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2011, from Cook et al. (2013) The growth of the scientific consensus on human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2011, from Cook et al. (2013)
In recent years, fewer papers have taken a position on the cause of global warming in the abstract. This was predicted by Naomi Oreskes in 2007, who noted that scientists will move on to focus on questions that are not settled. Some blogs advanced a related logical fallacy by claiming that this shows 'an increase in uncertainty.' However, if uncertainty over the cause of global warming were increasing, we would expect to see the percentage of papers rejecting or minimizing human-caused global warming increasing. On the contrary, the percentage of rejecting studies is declining as well. That scientists feel the issue is settled science actually suggests there is more certainty about the causes of global warming.

Finally, a conspiracy theory has been proposed, suggesting that the consensus is simply a result of scientific journals refusing to publish papers that reject human-caused global warming. Our analysis included results from 1,980 journals all around the world. For all of these nearly two thousand international scientific journals to block 'skeptic' research would involve a massive conspiracy indeed.

Due to the importance of our results, we fully expect the resistance to continue, and we fully expect those who resist our findings to continue to exhibit the five characteristics of scientific denialism. However, we have used two independent methods and confirmed the same 97% consensus as in previous studies. That overwhelming agreement on human-caused global warming manifests in so many independent ways indicates that the scientific consensus is a robust reality.
Degaine

climber
May 30, 2013 - 02:39am PT
the chief wrote:
Oooops. 60 something years.

How about LEAD PAINT? Hmmm.

Admit it, you don't actually read people's posts, do you? You just throw sh#t out there and hope it sticks or in some tiny way references a couple of words written in a post you are responding to.

4 years, the right answer is 4 years. It took 4 years for one group of scientists to provide proof that another scientist's work was wrong and harmful.

It took sixty years to force industry to let go of a cash cow. Like I wrote, the scientific method is not the problem, it's industry, money, political interests, and the inherent fallibility of human beings that is the root of using what we know for harm.
Messages 6741 - 6760 of total 27312 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 Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews