Global Warming Update

[dukeofbaja]

Or we could lead the way in sustainable technology, create more jobs here in America doing it, and export the products to India and China. I have only looked into cap and trade during college economics and did not like the idea so much then, I haven't looked into it since but it would not be my favored solution. I would let those companies polluting the shit out of our planet (which still costs us money if you deny CC) continue to do so while doing R&D on sustainable technologies. We can pass a law mandating that a certain percentage of their profits be put towards better, cleaner, more long term energy solutions. Such a law would also mandate that they not pass the cost on to the consumer. I imagine the public would love the idea. Again, their pollution costs us money whether or not CC is a hoax or not, so why not tax it? Again, my understanding of economics is primitive but I believe we should subsidize social 'goods' and tax social 'bads'. It is not free to clean up rivers that catch on fire because they have been polluted so badly. Who better to foot the bill than the folks causing it?

 

[CrackerJax]

Please post the data where 90% of the scientists believe in man made global warming......

FDD .... my Mexican crew has a ranch in Southern Mexico....they tell me they see UFO's coming out of a mountain all the time. They have a hill they go to at night and watch them.

 

[fdd2blk]

Please post the data where 90% of the scientists believe in man made global warming......

FDD .... my Mexican crew has a ranch in Southern Mexico....they tell me they see UFO's coming out of a mountain all the time. They have a hill they go to at night and watch them.

there was another dude who had rooftop cameras set-up. US dude was on the roof with him during mid day checking it all out. his partner was across town buying a bundle of mylar balloons. would you like to see them?


actual video, shot from the rooftop ......

[youtube]kZP62TaeVII[/youtube]

they set the dude up and he failed.

 

[Illegal Smile]

there was another dude who had rooftop cameras set-up. US dude was on the roof with him during mid day checking it all out. his partner was across town buying a bundle of mylar balloons. would you like to see them?


actual video, shot from the rooftop ......

[youtube]kZP62TaeVII[/youtube]

they set the dude up and he failed.

Saw that on tv. People in mexico will apparently do anything to get on tv.

 

[fdd2blk]

Saw that on tv. People in mexico will apparently do anything to get on tv.

politicians, and maybe even some scientists, will do anything for money.

 

[CrackerJax]

People see what they want to see.

 

[dukeofbaja]

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
Sorry, it's 97% of scientists.

You should take a brief skim of this section, which discusses how many scientists who find themselves listed as denying CC are listed as such without their permission and ask to be removed from the list. Climategate was a hoax. But then again, some people just see what they want to see....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus#Allegations_of_coercion.2C_censorship.2C_or_other_external_factors

 

[ChChoda]

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
Sorry, it's 97% of scientists.

You should take a brief skim of this section, which discusses how many scientists who find themselves listed as denying CC are listed as such without their permission and ask to be removed from the list. Climategate was a hoax. But then again, some people just see what they want to see....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus#Allegations_of_coercion.2C_censorship.2C_or_other_external_factors

CC? Is that the same as MMGW? Or are the 97% of scientists not in total agreement on that?

 

[ChChoda]

CC?

 

[PadawanBater]

CC? Is that the same as MMGW? Or are the 97% of scientists not in total agreement on that?

The questions asked;

"1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"

More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees.

Results show that overall, 90% of participants answered “risen” to question 1 and 82% answered yes to question 2."

 

[ChChoda]

The questions asked;

"1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"

More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees.

Results show that overall, 90% of participants answered “risen” to question 1 and 82% answered yes to question 2."

Just goes to show the value of a Masters or a PHD in the soft sciences...

 

[ChChoda]

You dudes are hard up. Check out this paragraph from the report you're quoting...

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
Sorry, it's 97% of scientists.

An invitation to participate in the survey
was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists.
The database was built from Keane and
Martinez [2007], which lists all geosciences
faculty at reporting academic institutions,
along with researchers at state
geologic surveys associated with local
universities, and researchers at U.S. federal
research facilities (e.g., U.S. Geological
Survey, NASA, and NOAA (U.S.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration) facilities; U.S. Department
of Energy national laboratories; and
so forth). To maximize the response rate,
the survey was designed to take less than
2 minutes to complete, and it was administered
by a professional online survey
site (http://
www
.questionpro
.com)
that
allowed one-time
participation by those
who received the invitation.





So, in summary: I send invitations to my friends to attend my party, and if you didn't get one, you ain't shit but a dumb ass loser?

Earth Science is soooo junior high...

 

[CrackerJax]

The questions asked;

"1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"

More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees.

Results show that overall, 90% of participants answered “risen” to question 1 and 82% answered yes to question 2."

yes, what do they 'think" ... not what they "know.

And as the recent debacle is now showing everyone....the data they used to make their "opinions" was misleading.

Now what do they say?

It is also a far cry to make the assumption that if man is adding to the carbon content (true enough), how much is too much?

then there is the all gut busting statistic that carbon levels don't follow the actual patterns of temp swings globally.

It's all wrong.... a do over is necessary ... else the public is going to lose faith in Science. Damage has already been done...it needs to be truncated.

ur not helping by the way .... ur still hopped up on bad data.

 

[Illegal Smile]

One has to wonder to what extent the global warming fraud has helped to drag down Obamacare with it.

 

[CrackerJax]

Even van Jones now admits that the earth is cooling and has been cooling for a decade. A little late to stick the finger in the dyke....

Carbon is not the culprit.... not at all.

 

[PadawanBater]

Just goes to show the value of a Masters or a PHD in the soft sciences...

Your gonna use that fallacy? Agree with the experts only when they support your opinion?

You dudes are hard up. Check out this paragraph from the report you're quoting...




An invitation to participate in the survey
was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists.
The database was built from Keane and
Martinez [2007], which lists all geosciences
faculty at reporting academic institutions,
along with researchers at state
geologic surveys associated with local
universities, and researchers at U.S. federal
research facilities (e.g., U.S. Geological
Survey, NASA, and NOAA (U.S.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration) facilities; U.S. Department
of Energy national laboratories; and
so forth). To maximize the response rate,
the survey was designed to take less than
2 minutes to complete, and it was administered
by a professional online survey
site (http://
www
.questionpro
.com)
that
allowed one-time
participation by those
who received the invitation.





So, in summary: I send invitations to my friends to attend my party, and if you didn't get one, you ain't shit but a dumb ass loser?

Did you read the whole article? If you did, you would have caught the previous paragraph, where it said this;

However, attempts to quantify the scientific consensus on anthropogenic warming have met with criticism.

For instance, Oreskes [2004] reviewed 928 abstracts from peer-reviewed research papers and found that more than 75% either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view that Earth’s climate is being affected by human activities.

Yet Oreskes’s approach has been criticized for overstating the level of consensus acceptance within the examined abstracts [Peiser, 2005] and for not capturing the full diversity of scientific opinion [Pielke, 2005].

A review of previous attempts at quantifying the consensus and criticisms is provided by Kendall Zimmerman [2008].

The objective of our study presented here is to assess the scientific consensus on climate change through an unbiased survey of a large and broad group of Earth scientists.

Also;

While respondents’ names are kept private, the authors noted that the survey included participants with well-documented dissenting opinions on global warming theory.

 

[CrackerJax]

So it has no weight.... next!

Also, Van Jones was right....but now he's wrong?

keep back peddling ... but ur on the wrong side of the issue.

Science will prove you wrong ... but not now. Science needs to completely start over....and get some smarter minds applied. So far, the current set of scientists have damaged the entire debate.

 

[ChChoda]

Your gonna use that fallacy? Agree with the experts only when they support your opinion?

Screw that fallacy. I am an expert in weather forecasting. My ten day prediction is as accurate as any out there...

As for the long term climate trends, I got eyes and a brain, which is starting out with twice what most of your doctors started out with...

Did you read the whole article? If you did, you would have caught the previous paragraph, where it said this;

However, attempts to quantify the scientific consensus on anthropogenic warming have met with criticism.

For instance, Oreskes [2004] reviewed 928 abstracts from peer-reviewed research papers and found that more than 75% either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view that Earth’s climate is being affected by human activities.

Yet Oreskes’s approach has been criticized for overstating the level of consensus acceptance within the examined abstracts [Peiser, 2005] and for not capturing the full diversity of scientific opinion [Pielke, 2005].

A review of previous attempts at quantifying the consensus and criticisms is provided by Kendall Zimmerman [2008].

The objective of our study presented here is to assess the scientific consensus on climate change through an unbiased survey of a large and broad group of Earth scientists.

Also;

While respondents’ names are kept private, the authors noted that the survey included participants with well-documented dissenting opinions on global warming theory.

So, in summary: I send invitations to my friends to attend my party, and if you didn't get one, you ain't shit but a dumb ass loser?

Earth Science is soooo junior high...

 

[CrackerJax]

It shows that even scientists can be corrupted.

The more grants Jones got, the harder he fudged. As did the others.

Like Pavlov's dogs ... quite ironic.

 

[Illegal Smile]

The argument here is if you get enough liars speaking in unison, their lies become truth.