Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 7281 - 7300 of total 20087 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 20, 2013 - 11:37pm PT
Bullsh#t.

If a scientist in Antarctica is reporting data gathered in an experiment, he's not expected to give an opinion on AGW, he's just reporting results.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 20, 2013 - 11:40pm PT
^^what an idiot^^

You mean Spencer and Christy et all won't take up a position when they publish a peer reviewed paper?
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 20, 2013 - 11:44pm PT
Bullsh#t

They are there to gather data in the study of climate change.

No need for them to state a position in every paper.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 20, 2013 - 11:57pm PT
I wonder how many of the scientists mentioned in the following link are counted as among the 97.1% consensus? I know of at least five other scientists from another source who were falsely counted as part of the consensus. One of them had 111 of his papers falsely attributed.

http://www.petitionproject.org/
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 20, 2013 - 11:59pm PT
A follow-up study by the Skeptical Science team of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013). The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming.

They rated their own papers in the followup study, Lord Sumner.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 21, 2013 - 12:11am PT
Click onto this link to hear testimonials from the five scientists i mentioned as being falsely counted among the 97.1% consensus. I wonder if this is just the tip of a huge and rotten ice berg calved off from one of the melted poles?

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html

What, no explanation?
nature

climber
Boulder, CO
Aug 21, 2013 - 12:28am PT
http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2021647222_sealevelsxml.html
dave729

Trad climber
Western America
Aug 21, 2013 - 02:16am PT
Lots of road building up in the Arctic these days on top of permafrost.
If the road surface is made with light colored material rather than black
asphalt an entire meter of ground stays frozen that would otherwise melt
and have to be dealt with.

Adaptation will not be allowed if the AGW tards have their way.




dirtbag

climber
Aug 21, 2013 - 09:08am PT

That word "COULD" is indeed the basis of the AGW hysteria

Chief Hypocrite, you're the one who is the most hysterical on this thread.
dirtbag

climber
Aug 21, 2013 - 09:30am PT
Chief Cherry Picker.

dirtbag

climber
Aug 21, 2013 - 09:44am PT
4. Discussion

Of note is the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW. This result is expected in consensus situations where scientists '...generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees' (Oreskes 2007, p 72). This explanation is also consistent with a description of consensus as a 'spiral trajectory' in which 'initially intense contestation generates rapid settlement and induces a spiral of new questions' (Shwed and Bearman 2010); the fundamental science of AGW is no longer controversial among the publishing science community and the remaining debate in the field has moved to other topics. This is supported by the fact that more than half of the self-rated endorsement papers did not express a position on AGW in their abstracts.


From that same source, Chief Dumbass.

monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 21, 2013 - 10:20am PT
...the fundamental science of AGW is no longer controversial among the publishing science community and the remaining debate in the field has moved to other topics. This is supported by the fact that more than half of the self-rated endorsement papers did not express a position on AGW in their abstracts.

[The Chief]Does NOT indicate a consensus nor any type of agreement. Unless you and the others wish to think it does. Just another perfect example of complete manipulation of the verbiage to do just as Steve Schneider indicated must be done back in 1989 in order to fool and deceive idiots as yourself (BAGLADY) in believing the manipulated propaganda bullshet and jump onboard the train of AGW socialistic utopian ideology.

The Chief has reading comprehension issues.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 21, 2013 - 10:30am PT
More than half of the abstracts that we rated as 'No Position' or 'Undecided' were rated 'Endorse AGW' by the paper's authors.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 21, 2013 - 11:46am PT
Most cancers are related to lifestyle choices. Poor diet, smoking, drinking, etc.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 21, 2013 - 03:26pm PT
Asteroid extinction events happen on the order of every tens of millions of years Chief.

That's no reason to tolerate something we can prevent in the next few hundreds of years.

Please keep spouting your incoherent babble, it's mildly entertaining.
nature

climber
Boulder, CO
Aug 21, 2013 - 03:36pm PT
monolith++

I'm sure it helps ed and those that wish to engage him at his nonsense sharpen their wits.

the rest of us - we're just laughing

the chief - you do realize the longer you go on the more hysterical you sound the less anyone will actually take your side of the story seriously. You're trying to put forth an argument against AGW yet the only thing you are accomplishing is making your self look more extreme and nutty.

Anyone besides rong and rick care to disagree with me?
dirtbag

climber
Aug 21, 2013 - 05:11pm PT
Hey Chief loudmouth,


Did you even bother to read the article's explanation regarding the 32%, where it goes on to explain that the number isn't higher because the other 67% of scientists probably don't dispute it?

Of course you didn't.

All you ever do cherry pick information that supports your basically indefensible theses, scream loudly and use lots of bold font and photos to make your silly point, remain ignorant of the science and math, insult those who patiently try to teach you something as being zealots (and worse), then change the subject to Egypt, cancer or whatever else you think of.

Newsflash Popeye: that sheet don't work with civilians.

So go gobble a donkey dong.
AndyMan

Sport climber
Aug 21, 2013 - 05:15pm PT
Will true believers in the climate scam please tell us in your own words, exactly what is the EVIDENCE that man has caused any of the warming since the Little Ice Age ... the warming that stopped 2 decades ago ...

monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 21, 2013 - 05:17pm PT
photo not found
Missing photo ID#312885
nature

climber
Boulder, CO
Aug 21, 2013 - 05:42pm PT
monolith++
Messages 7281 - 7300 of total 20087 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 Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews