Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 7281 - 7300 of total 20343 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Jebus H Bomz

climber
Peavine Basecamp
Aug 20, 2013 - 02:16am PT
Heh. Right, muff man. Pretend choir boy. Did you not see your own line of talk on the last page or are you just stupid?

Or did your dumb ass just get nailed so hard his muff mouth is left gaping like a shelled mussel? Owned at every game you play. It must hurt.

You've talked of killing gays, whore mongering, and make unsubtle threats to many of your online "enemies". 'Scuse me while I flip you the bird for your pretended sanctimony, hypocrite. Again, rethink the strategy and deploy later. The element of surprise is lost and you are just burbling out what I can't tell. Hard to look at even.
Jebus H Bomz

climber
Peavine Basecamp
Aug 20, 2013 - 02:31am PT
Rong belatedly realizes:

"ZERO posts with any actual substance to the thread. Yur just here to ridicule PERIOD."

Duuurrrrrrr.... Yes! I have stated that repeatedly, dumb ass!!! The phonics DO work! Sweet Jebus, halelujah!

Bless your cleft lips, laddie, I believe there's hope for you yet! Why, with these new skills of R-E-A-D-I-N-G, I'd wager he could build that model aero plane he always wanted!

You just made my night, Rong. Precious fella, LOL!

And even more Rongitude:

"and again relevance to CC? Other than any methane like CO2 escaping from your queefuss noises."

Carbon dioxide is not a methane, your rongness. Methane is methane (CH4). They are both considered 'greenhouse gasses', true, but are chemically quite different. If you don't see the difference, you may have been drinking C3H8O instead of C2H6O. Oops! I contributed substance!
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
And every fool knows, a dog needs a home, and...
Aug 20, 2013 - 09:35am PT
Ill bet if i actually cared to look we would find

Lol.

Education will out.

DMT
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
And every fool knows, a dog needs a home, and...
Aug 20, 2013 - 09:41am PT
Right?

DMT
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
And every fool knows, a dog needs a home, and...
Aug 20, 2013 - 09:43am PT
Por nada.

DMT
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 20, 2013 - 11:20pm PT
No chief. Not all climate papers state pro or con. Most of these are just reporting results to fill in the details of climate dynamics.

The 97% is for those papers that do take a position.

Is it necessary for papers today to take up positions on whether the earth is round or not? If they don't, do you assume they think the earth is flat or undecided?
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 20, 2013 - 11:32pm PT
In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of 928 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004).

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.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 20, 2013 - 11:33pm PT
Well duh. 67% took no position and were reporting results. There's lots of study on how climate dynamics work. No need to state a position.

Scientists don't argue about whether the earth is round or not either.

Do ya really think they are fence sitters?
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.
Messages 7281 - 7300 of total 20343 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