"global warming petition project" peer reviewed and everything???

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
You're calling me the fanatic? That's funny. They weren't "peer reviewed". The author of the study refuses to this day to even identify who the writers were or even the group they were from, the numbered sampled, or anything else one would expect from a valid survey. You're going to have to prove I ever said 2+2=5. Nah, you don't have to. You're starting to get even more asinine now. Pretending something I said over a year ago on an entirely different subject has any bearing on the subject at hand. I don't understand how you people are so self-righteous while behaving like ........well I really don't have anything to compare you to.
"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)."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=24

What you say has consequences, in this case what you said cost you whatever bit of dignity you might have had left with anyone reading this thread



All of your citations were from government funded scientists who are clearly displaying a bias.
Mix politics and monetary incentives with scientists, you get corruption.
Yeah, we know you won't accept anything as proof already
 

joe macclennan

Well-Known Member
well i don't frequent politics much but I don't believe buck is dishonest. He doesn't need to be. He puts himself smack dab in the middle of things every time without being dishonest....and likes it.

extreme? yes

dishonest? no
 

joe macclennan

Well-Known Member
perhaps you should go back a few posts then buddy. I've called buck out on more than one occasion.

and no I don't agree with all of his ideals. but I also do agree with many of them too.

anyone who pays attention to my posts knows where I stand on issues of right and wrong..at least my idea of right and wrong.
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
"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)."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=24

What you say has consequences, in this case what you said cost you whatever bit of dignity you might have had left with anyone reading this thread





Yeah, we know you won't accept anything as proof already
Global warming is caused by the sun. What we are arguing over is whether humans have any effect. If the person cannot even write a proper title, how do you expect the article to have any relevance?
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member

Red1966

Well-Known Member
ok so I read the lasts 60 or so posts of that thread. Yep, red was outta line there. Bagging on a guy who just lost the love of his life. and due to these highly inflammatory comments i guess whats good for the goose is good for the gander so to speak. I still will not heckle a guy for losing his family. By doing so buck you really are no better than him. and I will say to red that if it is true about you losing your family in such a horrible way. it would seem you could have a little compassion for others who lost theirs. karma does indeed work both ways ime. my .02 cents shit arguments like this are the primary reason I don't venture into politics much.
I had every bit as much compassion as Carne did. He never complained about the loss of his lover, just not getting his money and house. Let's not pretend this was a long standing, committed, relationship. Carne was a boy toy for a wealthier man who provided him a place to sleep. The fact that Carne was concerned only with the money and house indicate this just a sexual relationship, not a love relationship. His embellishments about his lover being murdered at random just because in was gay (in California, known for its widespread bigotry against gays) ONLY after I accused him of gold digging seems suspicious, nay, false, to me. We have no indication the man did NOT have a will. If he did, then that shows he had no desire for Carne to get his property. If he didn't have a will, then that, again, shows he had no desire for Carne to get his property. Would you deprive your possessions to your family after your death to give it to some bimbo you were shacking up with just for sex? No? Well, neither did Carne's "lover". Let's not pretend every sexual relationship you ever had was a life-long commitment. Let's not pretend an accusation of gold digging is the same as an accusation of multiple child rape and murder. Let's be honest here. Disagreeing with Buck is now a crime punishable with accusations of the most horrific crimes imaginable. None of these incidences have anything to do with the many debates we have had. Yet, Buck brings them up every time he starts losing an argument. I haven't even touched on the matter of Buck making up false "quotes" he attributed to me on some web site known as "Stormfront". Buck can't defend his bizarre agenda, so he resorts to personal attacks on the character of his opposition.
 

Red1966

Well-Known Member
"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)." http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=24 What you say has consequences, in this case what you said cost you whatever bit of dignity you might have had left with anyone reading this thread
Yeah, we know you won't accept anything as proof already
So 97% has now become 100%? Funny how your numbers change to suit your purposes. Let's not pretend you are the arbitrater of my "dignity". Too many times we have discovered that data has been falsified, and people misquoted. Yet you demand we accept whatever has yet to be proven false as gospel. I know that there have been a few that DID reject the "consensus position". You yourself have even mentioned the "industry funded biased studies". Yet Oreskes' article found absolutely none. That clearly indicates a "selected" sampling. Yeah, we know you will accept anything as proof, if it agrees with you.
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
So 97% has now become 100%? Funny how your numbers change to suit your purposes. Let's not pretend you are the arbitrater of my "dignity". Too many times we have discovered that data has been falsified, and people misquoted. Yet you demand we accept whatever has yet to be proven false as gospel. I know that there have been a few that DID reject the "consensus position". You yourself have even mentioned the "industry funded biased studies". Yet Oreskes' article found absolutely none. That clearly indicates a "selected" sampling. Yeah, we know you will accept anything as proof, if it agrees with you.
Talking to you is like sharpening a knife with a cotton ball
 

jahbrudda

Well-Known Member
The Myth of the 98 Percent
By Joseph L. Bast
*
Do 98 percent of climate scientists really
believe in man-made global warming? A
little research reveals that the often-cited
figure is a confused and erroneous reference
to two different studies that both fail to prove
what those who cite them believe or allege.
Doran and Zimmerman
The first study, by Doran and Zimmerman, appeared in EOS, the journal of the American
Geophysical Union (AGU) in 2009. You can retrieve it at
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
. This article reports the results of a
survey, but it was a meaningless one.
The researchers – a professor at the University of Illinois and a graduate student – sent a
two-minute online survey to 10,257 Earth scientists working for universities and government
research agencies, generating responses from 3,146 people. Only 5 percent of respondents
self-identified as climate scientists. The survey asked two questions:
“Q1. “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures
have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”
Q2. “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean
global temperatures?”
Overall, 90 percent of respondents answered “risen” to question 1 and 82 percent answered
“yes” to question 2. The authors get their fraudulent “98 percent of climate scientists believe”
sound bite by focusing on only 79 (not a typo) scientists who responded and “listed climate

science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50 percent of their
recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.


-2-
Given that there are tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of scientists with real
expertise in basic sciences related to climate, a survey that looks at the views of only 79 climate
scientists is ridiculous. Its tiny sample size makes it meaningless.
Even worse than the sample size, though, is the complete irrelevance of the questions asked in
the survey to the real debate taking place about climate change. Most skeptics would answer
those two questions the same way as alarmists would”https://heartland.org/sites/default/files/10-2012_myth_of_the_98_percent.pdf
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
The Myth of the 98 Percent
By Joseph L. Bast
*
Do 98 percent of climate scientists really
believe in man-made global warming? A
little research reveals that the often-cited
figure is a confused and erroneous reference
to two different studies that both fail to prove
what those who cite them believe or allege.
Doran and Zimmerman
The first study, by Doran and Zimmerman, appeared in EOS, the journal of the American
Geophysical Union (AGU) in 2009. You can retrieve it at
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
. This article reports the results of a
survey, but it was a meaningless one.
The researchers – a professor at the University of Illinois and a graduate student – sent a
two-minute online survey to 10,257 Earth scientists working for universities and government
research agencies, generating responses from 3,146 people. Only 5 percent of respondents
self-identified as climate scientists. The survey asked two questions:
“Q1. “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures
have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”
Q2. “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean
global temperatures?”
Overall, 90 percent of respondents answered “risen” to question 1 and 82 percent answered
“yes” to question 2. The authors get their fraudulent “98 percent of climate scientists believe”
sound bite by focusing on only 79 (not a typo) scientists who responded and “listed climate

science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50 percent of their
recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.


-2-
Given that there are tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of scientists with real
expertise in basic sciences related to climate, a survey that looks at the views of only 79 climate
scientists is ridiculous. Its tiny sample size makes it meaningless.
Even worse than the sample size, though, is the complete irrelevance of the questions asked in
the survey to the real debate taking place about climate change. Most skeptics would answer
those two questions the same way as alarmists would”https://heartland.org/sites/default/files/10-2012_myth_of_the_98_percent.pdf
The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian[SUP][2][/SUP] public policy think tank based in Chicago, which states that it advocates free market policies.

In the 1990s, the group worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question serious cancer risks to secondhand smoke, and to lobby against government public-health reforms.

More recently, the Institute has focused on questioning the science of human-caused climate change, and was described by the New York Times as "the primary American organization pushing climate change skepticism."

In 2011, the Institute received $25,000 from the Charles G. Koch Foundation

Oil and gas companies have contributed to the Heartland Institute, including over $600,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005.[SUP][51][/SUP] Greenpeace reported that Heartland received almost $800,000 from ExxonMobil.[SUP][23][/SUP] In 2008, ExxonMobil said that they would stop funding to groups skeptical of climate warming, including Heartland.[SUP][51][/SUP][SUP][52][/SUP][SUP][53][/SUP] Joseph Bast, president of the Heartland Institute, argued that ExxonMobil was simply distancing itself from Heartland out of concern for its public image.

Some of the documents also contained details of payments to climate skeptics and financial support to skeptics' research programs, namely the founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), physicist Fred Singer ($5,000 plus expenses per month), geologist Robert M. Carter ($1,667 per month) and a pledge of $90,000 to meteorologist Anthony Watts. Carter and Watts confirmed receiving payments.[SUP][59][/SUP] The documents also indicated that the institute planned to provide materials to teachers in the United States to undercut the teaching of global warming in schools.








derp dee der, you got duped by an oil company funded pile of bullshit, mahsistah.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
I had every bit as much compassion as Carne did. He never complained about the loss of his lover, just not getting his money and house. Let's not pretend this was a long standing, committed, relationship. Carne was a boy toy for a wealthier man who provided him a place to sleep. The fact that Carne was concerned only with the money and house indicate this just a sexual relationship, not a love relationship. His embellishments about his lover being murdered at random just because in was gay (in California, known for its widespread bigotry against gays) ONLY after I accused him of gold digging seems suspicious, nay, false, to me. We have no indication the man did NOT have a will. If he did, then that shows he had no desire for Carne to get his property. If he didn't have a will, then that, again, shows he had no desire for Carne to get his property. Would you deprive your possessions to your family after your death to give it to some bimbo you were shacking up with just for sex? No? Well, neither did Carne's "lover". Let's not pretend every sexual relationship you ever had was a life-long commitment. Let's not pretend an accusation of gold digging is the same as an accusation of multiple child rape and murder. Let's be honest here. Disagreeing with Buck is now a crime punishable with accusations of the most horrific crimes imaginable. None of these incidences have anything to do with the many debates we have had. Yet, Buck brings them up every time he starts losing an argument. I haven't even touched on the matter of Buck making up false "quotes" he attributed to me on some web site known as "Stormfront". Buck can't defend his bizarre agenda, so he resorts to personal attacks on the character of his opposition.
carne was clearly talking about what rights he did not have as a gay man that the rest of us take for granted as straight people.

you not only mocked the murder of his partner, you went on to claim that gays already have full equal rights (because like straight people, they can also marry the opposite sex! :dunce: ) and that they are just whiners who want "more equal" rights.

you are a despicable person and everyone can see this. i simply posted the quotes and independent parties weighed in on what a POS you are.
 

jahbrudda

Well-Known Member
.The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian[SUP][2][/SUP] public policy think tank based in Chicago, which states that it advocates free market policies.

In the 1990s, the group worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question serious cancer risks to secondhand smoke, and to lobby against government public-health reforms.

More recently, the Institute has focused on questioning the science of human-caused climate change, and was described by the New York Times as "the primary American organization pushing climate change skepticism."

In 2011, the Institute received $25,000 from the Charles G. Koch Foundation

Oil and gas companies have contributed to the Heartland Institute, including over $600,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005.[SUP][51][/SUP] Greenpeace reported that Heartland received almost $800,000 from ExxonMobil.[SUP][23][/SUP] In 2008, ExxonMobil said that they would stop funding to groups skeptical of climate warming, including Heartland.[SUP][51][/SUP][SUP][52][/SUP][SUP][53][/SUP] Joseph Bast, president of the Heartland Institute, argued that ExxonMobil was simply distancing itself from Heartland out of concern for its public image.

Some of the documents also contained details of payments to climate skeptics and financial support to skeptics' research programs, namely the founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), physicist Fred Singer ($5,000 plus expenses per month), geologist Robert M. Carter ($1,667 per month) and a pledge of $90,000 to meteorologist Anthony Watts. Carter and Watts confirmed receiving payments.[SUP][59][/SUP] The documents also indicated that the institute planned to provide materials to teachers in the United States to undercut the teaching of global warming in schools.
The US government (proven liars) and the United Nations (proven liars) funded your 97% of peer reviewed scientists (alarmists)
You have been proven wrong as well, the only citations you can provide are from government funded studies, unless of course you believe the government has never lied to us.
 

squarepush3r

Well-Known Member
Greenpeace co-founder: No scientific evidence of man-made global warming

8:46 PM 02/25/2014


Michael Bastasch





There is no scientific evidence that human activity is causing the planet to warm, according to Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, who testified in front of a Senate committee on Tuesday.
Moore argued that the current argument that the burning of fossil fuels is driving global warming over the past century lacks scientific evidence. He added that the Earth is in an unusually cold period and some warming would be a good thing.
“There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” according to Moore’s prepared testimony. “Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species.”
“It is important to recognize, in the face of dire predictions about a [two degrees Celsius] rise in global average temperature, that humans are a tropical species,” Moore said. “We evolved at the equator in a climate where freezing weather did not exist. The only reasons we can survive these cold climates are fire, clothing, and housing.”
“It could be said that frost and ice are the enemies of life, except for those relatively few species that have evolved to adapt to freezing temperatures during this Pleistocene Ice Age,” he added. “It is ‘extremely likely’ that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.”
Indeed, cold weather is more likely to cause death than warm weather. RealClearScience reported that from “1999 to 2010, a total of 4,563 individuals died from heat, but 7,778 individuals died from the cold.” Only in 2006 did heat-related deaths outnumber cold deaths.
In Britain, 24,000 people are projected to die this winter because they cannot afford to pay their energy bills. Roughly 4.5 million British families are facing “fuel poverty.”
“The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming,” Moore said.
“When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time,” he added. “Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today.”
Moore, a Canadian, helped found the environmental activist group Greenpeace in the 1970s. He left the group after they began to take on more radical positions. He has since been a critic of radical environmentalism and heads up the group Ecosense Environmental in Vancouver, Canada.
Moore’s comments come after President Obama declared global warming a “fact” in the State of the Union. His administration has attempted to argue that the recent U.S. cold snap was influenced by a warmer planet.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/25/greenpeace-co-founder-no-scientific-evidence-of-man-made-global-warming/#ixzz2uSyua3KP
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
Greenpeace co-founder: No scientific evidence of man-made global warming

8:46 PM 02/25/2014


Michael Bastasch





There is no scientific evidence that human activity is causing the planet to warm, according to Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, who testified in front of a Senate committee on Tuesday.
Moore argued that the current argument that the burning of fossil fuels is driving global warming over the past century lacks scientific evidence. He added that the Earth is in an unusually cold period and some warming would be a good thing.
“There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” according to Moore’s prepared testimony. “Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species.”
“It is important to recognize, in the face of dire predictions about a [two degrees Celsius] rise in global average temperature, that humans are a tropical species,” Moore said. “We evolved at the equator in a climate where freezing weather did not exist. The only reasons we can survive these cold climates are fire, clothing, and housing.”
“It could be said that frost and ice are the enemies of life, except for those relatively few species that have evolved to adapt to freezing temperatures during this Pleistocene Ice Age,” he added. “It is ‘extremely likely’ that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.”
Indeed, cold weather is more likely to cause death than warm weather. RealClearScience reported that from “1999 to 2010, a total of 4,563 individuals died from heat, but 7,778 individuals died from the cold.” Only in 2006 did heat-related deaths outnumber cold deaths.
In Britain, 24,000 people are projected to die this winter because they cannot afford to pay their energy bills. Roughly 4.5 million British families are facing “fuel poverty.”
“The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming,” Moore said.
“When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time,” he added. “Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today.”
Moore, a Canadian, helped found the environmental activist group Greenpeace in the 1970s. He left the group after they began to take on more radical positions. He has since been a critic of radical environmentalism and heads up the group Ecosense Environmental in Vancouver, Canada.
Moore’s comments come after President Obama declared global warming a “fact” in the State of the Union. His administration has attempted to argue that the recent U.S. cold snap was influenced by a warmer planet.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/25/greenpeace-co-founder-no-scientific-evidence-of-man-made-global-warming/#ixzz2uSyua3KP
I'm sure Bucky will come along any minute now and tell you all about how your source is really being manipulated by the Koch brothers and cannot be trusted.
 

jahbrudda

Well-Known Member
I'm sure Bucky will come along any minute now and tell you all about how your source is really being manipulated by the Koch brothers and cannot be trusted.
took the words right out of my mouth.
But does buck have any credibility on this site, anyway?
 
Top