CrackerJax
New Member
Don't forget to keep opposing opinion out of peer reviewed material. 
that's SCIENCE!!! Uhhh, no it isn't. that's politics.
that's SCIENCE!!! Uhhh, no it isn't. that's politics.
Global Warming Update
- Thread starter NoDrama
- Start date
P
PadawanBater
Guest
What each of you guys are doing here is dishonest and disingenuous, you should be ashamed. I couldn't be more disgusted with the way you guys are regarding science right now. Especially you CrackerJax because I know you can see the clear parallels with how you and I both explain evolution to the creationists that pop up in the Atheism thread. What has happened is the right wing media has grabbed onto modern day piltdown man and ran with it because it's what the "conservative" politicians oppose (because they're in bed with the current energy corporations).
We've shown you the facts, the data, the PUBLIC MEASUREMENTS, we've shown you the evidence, we've shown you the most up to date international scientific consensus, made up of thousands of Phd.'s, we've shown you exactly how and why these guys lie on air and admit that human activity contributes to climate change off the record... We've even shown you why EVEN IF CLIMATE CHANGE IS TOTALLY FAKE, IT IS STILL A GOOD IDEA TO GTFO FOSSIL FUELS. All of this goes unanswered.
All you have is pundits with square haircuts and a loud microphone with zero science backing them.
That's really all I have left to say, I'm not worried about your opinions on this issue. You guys make up the minority and the rest of the people know it's something to be concerned with. Your generation did the damage, and we have to clean it up.
We've shown you the facts, the data, the PUBLIC MEASUREMENTS, we've shown you the evidence, we've shown you the most up to date international scientific consensus, made up of thousands of Phd.'s, we've shown you exactly how and why these guys lie on air and admit that human activity contributes to climate change off the record... We've even shown you why EVEN IF CLIMATE CHANGE IS TOTALLY FAKE, IT IS STILL A GOOD IDEA TO GTFO FOSSIL FUELS. All of this goes unanswered.
All you have is pundits with square haircuts and a loud microphone with zero science backing them.
That's really all I have left to say, I'm not worried about your opinions on this issue. You guys make up the minority and the rest of the people know it's something to be concerned with. Your generation did the damage, and we have to clean it up.
dukeofbaja
New Member
In general, as the level of active research
and specialization in climate science
increases, so does agreement with the two
primary questions (Figure 1). In our survey,
the most specialized and knowledgeable
respondents (with regard to climate
change) are those who listed climate science
as their area of expertise and who
also have published more than 50% of
their recent peer-reviewed
papers on the
subject of climate change (79 individuals
in total). Of these specialists, 96.2%
(76 of 79) answered risen to question 1
and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question
2.and specialization in climate science
increases, so does agreement with the two
primary questions (Figure 1). In our survey,
the most specialized and knowledgeable
respondents (with regard to climate
change) are those who listed climate science
as their area of expertise and who
also have published more than 50% of
their recent peer-reviewed
papers on the
subject of climate change (79 individuals
in total). Of these specialists, 96.2%
(76 of 79) answered risen to question 1
and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question
CrackerJax
New Member
because what I have observed ISN'T science.... only politics.
that's why.... CrackerJax WANTS science....but REAL science....not cardboard cutouts of science. Not cherry picked data, not squeezing out opposing views in peer reviews.
that's NOT science...not a science I want any part of...and the country agrees with me.
dukeofbaja
New Member
No, they don't.
And you still haven't been able to show me anything wrong with all that scientific shit about longwave radiation or the 29,000+ data sets. Get crackin' and tell me hy that ain't 'real science' (without using the words dogma, emails, or conspiracy)
And you still haven't been able to show me anything wrong with all that scientific shit about longwave radiation or the 29,000+ data sets. Get crackin' and tell me hy that ain't 'real science' (without using the words dogma, emails, or conspiracy)
CrackerJax
New Member
That's great.... just keep screaming that the earth is warming while everyone now admits it's cooling.
that makes your data irrelevant. It also makes the interpretation ... wrong. Almost as if science doesn't REALLY know what is going on with long term global weather patterns.
uhh, not almost ... that much is a certainty. The scientists you love to quote have HURT the real issue.
that's not science....
that makes your data irrelevant. It also makes the interpretation ... wrong. Almost as if science doesn't REALLY know what is going on with long term global weather patterns.
uhh, not almost ... that much is a certainty. The scientists you love to quote have HURT the real issue.
that's not science....
dukeofbaja
New Member
Still waiting on any refutation in the least....
Keep saying it's cooling, maybe that will make this not the hottest decade on record. And guess what? If it heats up a lot for 30 years, then cools a bit for 10 (or abates), then goes back to warming, that is not a refutation of anything. That is a temporary cooling trend embedded within a larger, more long term trend of warming.
Keep saying it's cooling, maybe that will make this not the hottest decade on record. And guess what? If it heats up a lot for 30 years, then cools a bit for 10 (or abates), then goes back to warming, that is not a refutation of anything. That is a temporary cooling trend embedded within a larger, more long term trend of warming.
CrackerJax
New Member
You are obviously NOT up to speed. the current consensus is that the planet is cooling.
Your own GURU, Van Jones just admitted it 2 weeks ago.
You need to update your data.
Your own GURU, Van Jones just admitted it 2 weeks ago.
You need to update your data.
dukeofbaja
New Member
Van Jones is not my guru. You need to check a thermometer (besides the one in your grow room)
P
PadawanBater
Guest
Dude, GET AWAY FROM THE TV! Stop watching the "NEWS". That is where the politics are coming from. Any of those pundits, left or right, OReilly or Olbermann, LIE, you and I know this man, we've talked about it in countless other threads, all of us who frequent the politics forum agree on that, they all lie because they all have an agenda. That's why I always tell you DO NOT BELIEVE THEM, DON'T EVEN BELIEVE ME! GO RESEARCH CLIMATE CHANGE FOR YOURSELF! That's the only way you will ever be 100% satisfied with yourself and the only way you can be certain your opinions are researched to the best of your ability. Go to the sources and read the measurements, read how we know about and gather all the information, how the equipment works, who records the data and where it's stored, etc. As much as you can. You have to understand the SCIENCE behind something to actually understand it, YOU KNOW THAT.
Get me a credible peer reviewed dissenting opinion, I'll read it and give it an honest opinion. But before you do, I'll ask beforehand that you try to get it from an unbiased source, because we know how important that is. The credibility is paramount! That's the first thing I check.
50% of the country believes climate change is caused at least a little by human activity, another 47% believe climate change happens but there are also other factors to consider (I'm included in this group). Most of the US (and world) agrees that climate change exists, and a significant portion agree (among 97% of the scientific community) we're at least in part responsible. Source your numbers and these polls you're citing.
Nobody admits it's cooling.
The measurements are accurate and verifiable. (not to mention we don't need them to prove acc)
Like I said, Piltdown man... The creationists love to hold science responsible, so now science isn't credible so that's why evolution isn't true...
Put politics aside for once in your life.Politics is not science.
Prove it. Source?
Couldn't give a fuck less what Van Jones thought. Is that an attempted appeal to authority?
I've cited data as new as 2009, someone from the climate gate side brought up data sets from 1978. Are you fuckin' kidding me with that one man?
dukeofbaja
New Member
WH posted a video a whole bunch of pages back that once I watched, stuck with me.
The contentious issue of whether climate change is real or not is a moot point.
Let's take a look at the possibilities using Game Theory.
This is an argument along the lines of 'What's the worst that could happen?'
We have two rows: CC is false, or CC is true.
We have two columns: We do something, or we don't do something.
Assume the worst that could happen, does.
Row 1, Column 1: CC is false, but we do something
So CC is false, but we spend all this money and go into a global economic depression because of it. People lose jobs, taxes rise, and all hell breaks loose.
Row 2, Column 1: CC is true, but we do something
Smiley face. Some economic costs, but we averted disaster.
Row 1, Column 2: CC is false, but we did not do something
Again, smiley face. We did not need to do anything and we didn't.
Row 2, Column 2: CC is true, but we did not do something
Complete global disaster. Not only are we faced with a global economic depression, as in scenario 1, but we also have scarce resources causing global wars and entire peoples forced to relocate. Complete humanitarian crisis. All this happens very quickly, like flicking a light switch. Within 10-20 years, the earth is a hellscape.
Since we don't know the truth of the rows (whether CC is true or false), we need to base our decision on the columns. If you look at it from the perspective of 'what's the worst that could happen?', then you clearly see column 2 ('we do something') clearly has the best probabilistic expectation.
This argument has a fair share of holes in it, which I only realized upon restating the argument, but is noetheless a good argument. Just take the 10 damn minutes and watch it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ
The contentious issue of whether climate change is real or not is a moot point.
Let's take a look at the possibilities using Game Theory.
This is an argument along the lines of 'What's the worst that could happen?'
We have two rows: CC is false, or CC is true.
We have two columns: We do something, or we don't do something.
Assume the worst that could happen, does.
Row 1, Column 1: CC is false, but we do something
So CC is false, but we spend all this money and go into a global economic depression because of it. People lose jobs, taxes rise, and all hell breaks loose.
Row 2, Column 1: CC is true, but we do something
Smiley face. Some economic costs, but we averted disaster.
Row 1, Column 2: CC is false, but we did not do something
Again, smiley face. We did not need to do anything and we didn't.
Row 2, Column 2: CC is true, but we did not do something
Complete global disaster. Not only are we faced with a global economic depression, as in scenario 1, but we also have scarce resources causing global wars and entire peoples forced to relocate. Complete humanitarian crisis. All this happens very quickly, like flicking a light switch. Within 10-20 years, the earth is a hellscape.
Since we don't know the truth of the rows (whether CC is true or false), we need to base our decision on the columns. If you look at it from the perspective of 'what's the worst that could happen?', then you clearly see column 2 ('we do something') clearly has the best probabilistic expectation.
This argument has a fair share of holes in it, which I only realized upon restating the argument, but is noetheless a good argument. Just take the 10 damn minutes and watch it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ
Antidisestablishmentarian
Well-Known Member
The sample size is too small to make an accurate prediction.
Period.
Period.
I
Illegal Smile
Guest
Anyone talking about climate change is not to be trusted. The very fact that they go along with the semantic ploy of changing it from global warming to climate change shows they are part of the hoax.
CrackerJax
New Member
Some economic costs.... lawdy....
Paddy, I don't watch TV.... nuff said.
Carbon is NOT it.
It isn't.
Mr. Jones IS the man behind the curtain for the most part...he is the guru...like it or not. If you are "feeling" that man made global warming is a real disaster....you can thank Mr. Jones. He is obviously not the sum total of info, but he has lead the charge.
Now he recants, but you folks now dismiss HIM!!! It's a laugh riot of blind emotion.
Almost like girls.
Paddy, I don't watch TV.... nuff said.
Carbon is NOT it.
It isn't.
Mr. Jones IS the man behind the curtain for the most part...he is the guru...like it or not. If you are "feeling" that man made global warming is a real disaster....you can thank Mr. Jones. He is obviously not the sum total of info, but he has lead the charge.
Now he recants, but you folks now dismiss HIM!!! It's a laugh riot of blind emotion.
Almost like girls.
CrackerJax
New Member
From White castle to the Nile.... Man those guys were lyrical geniuses....
Man those guys were lyrical geniuses....
P
PadawanBater
Guest
Slap yourself...
Why don't you go try to refute any of the data I sourced in previous posts?
And I already explained to you why it's called climate change... Do I need to repeat it?
Big P
Well-Known Member
pada although the reason you may call it climate change may be legitimate and true
the reason "they" changed it from always calling it global warming to climate change is because the earth stopped warming in 1995 and it was an inconvenient truth for them, so they just changed the truth and called it climate change.
its an age old trick called moving the goal post
you ever played games with others as a kid? if so then you are quite familiar and versed in how tricky our fellow "classmates" can somtimes be
http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=worldofputri.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fworldofputri.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F11%2F5-bargaining-the-life.jpg
I
Illegal Smile
Guest
Padawan, I'm just not following you. Start over again at the beginning and explain it all again.
P
PadawanBater
Guest
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Decade/climate-2009-caps-hottest-decade-record/story?id=9283733
The current decade likely ranks as the hottest since temperature records began in the 1850s, the U.N. World Meteorological Organization announced today.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2009/1208/climate-change-scientists-say-this-decade-likely-hottest-on-record
The first decade of the 21st century is shaping up to be the warmest decade on record globally, while 2009 is likely to crack the Top 10 list of warmest years, perhaps rising as high as No. 5.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/science/earth/22warming.html
The decade ending in 2009 was the warmest on record, new surface temperature figures released Thursday by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration show.
http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/environment/Australia-Sweats-After-Hottest-Decade-on-Record-80789377.html
The past decade was Australia's hottest on record as a result of global warming. And the nation's Bureau of Meteorology says 2010 will be even warmer, with temperatures as much as one degree above the average.
If you guys are just gonna come back with "they're LIARS!!!" - don't even bother, it's just going to be a waste of your time.