Global Warm, er, Climate Chan, er, SCIENCE = WRONG!

[IMMensaMind 459]

Most of the people that I know that don't recycle and throw all their ###### in the trash and drive gas guzzlers are liberals who support climate change. Some of the worst hypocrites you would ever see.

 

But, it goes with the liberal ideology: Do as I say, not as I do. We want YOU to sacrifice for climate change, not us.

They know the real purpose: taxation and control. They don't give one sht about an environment that they truly believe isn't affected in the way that they preach.

[Baker Boy 1,484]

Most of the people that I know that don't recycle and throw all their ###### in the trash and drive gas guzzlers are liberals who support climate change. Some of the worst hypocrites you would ever see.

 

But, it goes with the liberal ideology: Do as I say, not as I do. We want YOU to sacrifice for climate change, not us.

And when the MMGW leaders have a conference the all arrive in private jets. If things were as bad as they say they would meet on video conference or fly commercial. You have to be a fool to take them seriously.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,569]

Both sides are subject to bias and corruption. If its a topic I dont fully understand, I tend to err in believing the most preeminent scientists in the field, those with the most peer-reviewed publications. I aint talking about Gore or Nye. Who are the most reputable scientists, and are they a part of the dissenting 40% ...and while youre at it, can you send a link where that number came from?

 

you asked me what my opinion is on what % do I think

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,569]

What percentage of climatologists do you think disagree with the consensus? Why did you choose to follow the three?

 

here, so I don't have a link, you asked me a second time, what I thought

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,569]

heres a break down of where that 97% number we frequently see comes from

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle

[Baker Boy 1,484]

What percentage of climatologists do you think disagree with the consensus?

This is only the opinion of the climatologists who are on the payroll. HTH

[mobb_deep 917]

heres a break down of where that 97% number we frequently see comes from

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle

All you need to do is look at Ted Cruz in the thumbnail, and know the content is a bunch of BS.

[IMMensaMind 459]

All you need to do is look at Ted Cruz in the thumbnail, and know the content is a bunch of BS.

That's flat focking stupid, and absolutely no surprise whatsoever.

[penultimatestraw 473]

here, so I don't have a link, you asked me a second time, what I thought

I understand you dont like the 97% stat, but how in the world did you guesstimate 40% of climatologists reject anthropogenic climate change? Are 40% of the peer-reviewed papers refuting the science? Im not asking for estimates based on conservative podcasts, given by celebrities with no climatology training - the opposing viewpoints equivalent of Gore and Nye.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,569]

All you need to do is look at Ted Cruz in the thumbnail, and know the content is a bunch of BS.

 

I can say the same about Al Gore, but I at least took the time to watch the first of his garbage propoganda movies.

 

thats the different, I will at least examine stuff presented by the other side, while the left refuses to and jumps to name calling

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,569]

I understand you dont like the 97% stat, but how in the world did you guesstimate 40% of climatologists dont think anthropogenic climate change is a problem? Are 40% of the peer-reviewed papers refuting the science? Im not asking for estimates based on conservative podcasts given by celebrities with no climatology training - the opposing viewpoints equivalent of Gore and Nye.

 

when have I presented a conservative podcast with celebrities with no climatology training

 

I have said I watch Joe Rogan (not a conservative in the least), and I have learned from actual climate scientists talking to him on that program, but I have never quoted any celebrity, or presented it as evidence

 

again, even the most liberal scientists have said if we dont fix this and that, it will cause a .5 degree raise, causing absolutely no change or catastrophe

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,569]

I understand you dont like the 97% stat, but how in the world did you guesstimate 40% of climatologists dont think anthropogenic climate change is a problem? Are 40% of the peer-reviewed papers refuting the science? Im not asking for estimates based on conservative podcasts given by celebrities with no climatology training - the opposing viewpoints equivalent of Gore and Nye.

 

dude, I don't understand the problem, you asked me a question, and I said I think 40%, its what I think, from watching various scientists discussing it who regularly mention people in their field (not govt funded)

[penultimatestraw 473]

here, so I don't have a link, you asked me a second time, what I thought

No, I am asking why your minority viewpoint is more credible than what I believe is the overwhelming majority’s understanding of the state of the science. I’d be amazed if 40% of climatologists thought climate change wasn’t a problem.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,569]

No, I am asking why your minority viewpoint is more credible than what I believe is the overwhelming majority’s understanding of the state of the science. I’d be amazed if 40% of climatologists thought climate change wasn’t a problem.

 

would you ask Galileo why his minority viewpoint wasnt credible?

 

he was 1 against the world

 

until there is proof actual proof of what man is causing, what the effect actually is and what the long term outcome will be, I will stand against it, cause I am not finding ANY non paid for scientists fighting this MMCC fight

[penultimatestraw 473]

when have I presented a conservative podcast with celebrities with no climatology training

 

I have said I watch Joe Rogan (not a conservative in the least), and I have learned from actual climate scientists talking to him on that program, but I have never quoted any celebrity, or presented it as evidence

 

again, even the most liberal scientists have said if we dont fix this and that, it will cause a .5 degree raise, causing absolutely no change or catastrophe

Joe Rogan isn’t a scientist. Crowder isn’t a scientist. And I asked for the qualifications of the “scientists” you’ve linked. They are so obscure I can figure out who the hell they are.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,569]

did I ever say they were? I only linked them discussing stuff with scientists

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(environmentalist)

 

Patrick Moore

 

http://sacredgeometryinternational.com/randall-carlson

 

Randall Carlson

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Coleman_(meteorologist)

 

John Coleman (Founder of the weather channel) I just found out died this week

 

and I found it, I knew I had heard these numbers before

 

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0170840612463317

 

Indeed, while there is a broad consensus among climate scientists (IPCC, 2007a, 2007b), scepticism regarding anthropogenic climate change remains. The proportion of papers found in the ISI Web of Science database that explicitly endorsed anthropogenic climate change has fallen from 75% (for the period between 1993 and 2003) as of 2004 to 45% from 2004 to 2008, while outright disagreement has risen from 0% to 6% (Oreskes, 2004; Schulte, 2008). This drop in endorsement may be a manifestation of increasing taken-for-grantedness (e.g., Green, 2004) of anthropogenic climate science; the rise in disagreement may be a result of increased funding of sceptics by fossil fuel industries, conservative foundations and think tanks (McCright & Dunlap, 2010). Yet, apart from discussions among scientists, public concern over climate change is also waning in the US (Leiserowitz, Maibach & Roser-Renouf, 2008, 2010; Maibach, Leiserowitz, Roser-Renouf, & Mertz, 2011; Pew Research Center, 2009), the UK (Jowit, 2010), and Canada (Berry, Clarke, Pajot, Hutton, & Verret, 2009).

[penultimatestraw 473]

Most of the people that I know that don't recycle and throw all their ###### in the trash and drive gas guzzlers are liberals who support climate change. Some of the worst hypocrites you would ever see.

 

But, it goes with the liberal ideology: Do as I say, not as I do. We want YOU to sacrifice for climate change, not us.

I cycle and recycle, and have a PV array to power my home. What do I win?

[penultimatestraw 473]

dude, I don't understand the problem, you asked me a question, and I said I think 40%, its what I think, from watching various scientists discussing it who regularly mention people in their field (not govt funded)

OK, I think it is 5% or less. And Id trust government funding more than private/corporate grants.

 

Either way, no one is saying the science is infallible - by design, hypotheses are meant to be tested and revised to reflect the data. Some interpret any change in theories as dishonest, but it is the nature of science.

[penultimatestraw 473]

did I ever say they were? I only linked them discussing stuff with scientists

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(environmentalist)

 

Patrick Moore

 

http://sacredgeometryinternational.com/randall-carlson

 

Randall Carlson

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Coleman_(meteorologist)

 

John Coleman (Founder of the weather channel) I just found out died this week

 

and I found it, I knew I had heard these numbers before

 

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0170840612463317

 

Indeed, while there is a broad consensus among climate scientists (IPCC, [/size]2007a, [/size]2007b), scepticism regarding anthropogenic climate change remains. The proportion of papers found in the ISI Web of Science database that explicitly endorsed anthropogenic climate change has fallen from 75% (for the period between 1993 and 2003) as of 2004 to 45% from 2004 to 2008, while outright disagreement has risen from 0% to 6% ([/size]Oreskes, 2004; [/size]Schulte, 2008). This drop in endorsement may be a manifestation of increasing taken-for-grantedness (e.g., [/size]Green, 2004) of anthropogenic climate science; the rise in disagreement may be a result of increased funding of sceptics by fossil fuel industries, conservative foundations and think tanks ([/size]McCright & Dunlap, 2010). Yet, apart from discussions among scientists, public concern over climate change is also waning in the US ([/size]Leiserowitz, Maibach & Roser-Renouf, 2008, [/size]2010; [/size]Maibach, Leiserowitz, Roser-Renouf, & Mertz, 2011; [/size]Pew Research Center, 2009), the UK ([/size]Jowit, 2010), and Canada ([/size]Berry, Clarke, Pajot, Hutton, & Verret, 2009).[/size]

Great. An amateur astronomer, architect and weatherman are your trusted authorities on climatology?!? And that journal article polled engineers and geoscientists - while Im not quite sure about the latter group, why should I trust an engineers opinion on climate?

 

I appreciate your effort, but its clear you have sought out information that confirms your bias, without regard to the scientists who actually work in climatology.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,569]

Great. An amateur astronomer, architect and weatherman are your trusted authorities on climatology?!? And that journal article polled engineers and geoscientists - while Im not quite sure about the latter group, why should I trust an engineers opinion on climate?

 

I appreciate your effort, but its clear you have sought out information that confirms your bias, without regard to the scientists who actually work in climatology.

 

holy crap thats hilarious, I googled Patrick Moore and linked it without reading the wiki cause I was putting this together on my phone

 

http://ecosense.me/

 

Dr. Patrick Moore has a PHD in Ecology and was the Founder of Greenpeace

 

Randall Carlson is more than an architect, he has been a field research geologist studying ancient civilizations since the 60's

 

John Coleman, calling him a weather man is like calling Bill Gates a college dropout

 

those are just a few of the more recent ones. I notice you want nothing to do with the 1300+ peer reviewed papers, nor the quote from the sage journals

 

also there is this

https://www.nas.org/articles/Estimated_40_Percent_of_Scientists_Doubt_Manmade_Global_Warming

 

and this

 

the bottom line is that the climate alarmists have moved the goal posts so many times since the Kyoto protocol, that its hard to believe anything they say. There is no direct correlation between CO2 and temperature, and there is no proof that more CO2 is harmful much less a pollutant

[penultimatestraw 473]

holy crap thats hilarious, I googled Patrick Moore and linked it without reading the wiki cause I was putting this together on my phone

 

http://ecosense.me/

 

Dr. Patrick Moore has a PHD in Ecology and was the Founder of Greenpeace

 

Randall Carlson is more than an architect, he has been a field research geologist studying ancient civilizations since the 60's

 

John Coleman, calling him a weather man is like calling Bill Gates a college dropout

 

those are just a few of the more recent ones. I notice you want nothing to do with the 1300+ peer reviewed papers, nor the quote from the sage journals

 

also there is this

https://www.nas.org/articles/Estimated_40_Percent_of_Scientists_Doubt_Manmade_Global_Warming

 

and this

 

 

the bottom line is that the climate alarmists have moved the goal posts so many times since the Kyoto protocol, that its hard to believe anything they say. There is no direct correlation between CO2 and temperature, and there is no proof that more CO2 is harmful much less a pollutant

 

Ecologist, geologist and TV weatherman with a degree in journalism - Why do you expect these people to have valid opinions on climate change?

 

Sorry I didnt have time to look at the 1300 papers. What fraction of the total evidence base do those papers represent? Is their data more compelling than the thousands of opposing studies?

 

The goal posts move because science evolves as new data is collected. But that doesnt invalidate the basic premise of anthropogenic climate change.

[drobeski 3,061]

Ecologist, geologist and TV weatherman with a degree in journalism - Why do you expect these people to have valid opinions on climate change?

 

Sorry I didnt have time to look at the 1300 papers. What fraction of the total evidence base do those papers represent? Is their data more compelling than the thousands of opposing studies?

 

The goal posts move because science evolves as new data is collected. But that doesnt invalidate the basic premise of anthropogenic climate change.

does intentionally fudging the data every time in one direction invalidate it ?

Care to explain why they always fudge the data ?

[penultimatestraw 473]

does intentionally fudging the data every time in one direction invalidate it ?

Care to explain why they always fudge the data ?

I don’t know who “they” are. Nor do I think all the data is doctored.

[drobeski 3,061]

I dont know who they are. Nor do I think all the data is doctored.

https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/former-noaa-scientist-confirms-colleagues-manipulated-climate-records

[wiffleball 4,635]

God, I'm so sick of this . We get it, every time there's a weather event that's involving the cold, some idiots going to chime in about global warming.

 

Jesus, if the people who believe in climate change posted nearly as much as the people who feel the need to spout off with thank you global warming! The board would be nothing but that.

 

Never understood what the point is. Because, no matter what you believe, at the end of the day, put me in the camp that would rather have, ceteris parabis, solar energy than Coal Power.

 

We know for a fact that man can change the immediate environment for both good and bad. Frick, most of the Northeast is in far better shape now than it was a hundred years ago. Chalk that up to man. Why was it in such bad shape in the first place? Chalk that up to man.

 

As to measuring Hundred Year swings and a half inch here and there in Ocean levels? I don't know and I don't care. But again, most of the things that I've seen proposed to help the environment just seem like a good fuucking idea. - as opposed to 200 year old coal technology for example.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

What exactly does that 97% agree upon?

[Hardcore troubadour 12,618]

The oceans are filthy, thats a fact. How come there isn't so much hollering about that?

[penultimatestraw 473]

What exactly does that 97% agree upon?

The 97% was derived using poor methodology. The question is, what percentage of reputable scientists disagree with man's negative influence on climate? More importantly, what are the pros/cons of maintaining the status quo versus aggressively lowering CO2 emissions?

[IMMensaMind 459]

The 97% was derived using poor methodology. The question is, what percentage of reputable scientists disagree with man's negative influence on climate? More importantly, what are the pros/cons of maintaining the status quo versus aggressively lowering CO2 emissions?

Funny, really.

 

The '97%' was derived using nearly identical methodology used by climatologists in general to create the protocols we're supposed to follow as a result.

[penultimatestraw 473]

those are just a few of the more recent ones. I notice you want nothing to do with the 1300+ peer reviewed papers, nor the quote from the sage journals

Probably best to go to the IPCC if you really want to scrutinize the data: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml

 

ETA I like that Prager U video (not a fan of a conservative site posing as an institution of higher learning though). Pretty reasonable explanation, though he goes a little overboard after the 4 minute mark.

I agree with much of what he says. If you do as well, the only thing we likely disagree about is the relative number of scientists in groups 1 & 2. I also feel like a lot of your "data" is derived from group 3, whom I think are irrelevant in this discussion.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,618]

It seems cleaning up the oceans is something everyone could get behind and actually be accomplished. Why don't we?

[lickin_starfish 1,479]

The oceans are filthy, thats a fact. How come there isn't so much hollering about that?

You can tax the whole population for air, but only some of the population for the sea. It's all about the money.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

It seems cleaning up the oceans is something everyone could get behind and actually be accomplished. Why don't we?

 

The reason the ocean is filthy is because fish poop in it.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,618]

You can tax the whole population for air, but only some of the population for the sea. It's all about the money.

And it's third world shitholes doing a lot of the polluting. God forbid we say anything.

[drobeski 3,061]

The oceans are filthy, thats a fact. How come there isn't so much hollering about that?

its rising too fast for those polluting it the most to pick up their trash, they cant swim

[Hardcore troubadour 12,618]

its rising too fast for those polluting it the most to pick up their trash, they cant swim

Lol

[Baker Boy 1,484]

Worst Deal In History: $1.5 Trillion A Year To Reduce Global Warming By 0.048°C

 

Even if every nation in the world adheres to its climate change commitments by 2030 the only difference it will make to “global warming” by the end of this century will be to reduce the world’s temperatures by 0.048°C (0.086°F).

That’s 1/20th of a degree C.

 

Earlier this year, Climate Change Business Journal calculated that the annual cost of the global warming industry is $1.5 trillion.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/10/cost-climate-change-1-5-trillion-year-reduce-global-warming-0-048c/

[12th Man 884]

 

I think you have me confused with someone that would waste a minute of my time debating with an azzhole like you. You lost that privilege when you personally attacked me and my family. Die in a puddle of aids.

You got your arse handed to you. Just leave.

[wiffleball 4,635]

Just goes to show. You guys are really missing the boat here. Meaning, one of the largest refineries in America and certainly on the East Coast just went bankrupt. It has to do with something called RINS.

 

I used to be knee deep in biodiesel. I purposefully shed this part off my portfolio from day one. It is the most cockamamie math and taxes scheme on the planet. And it is literally why this refinery is going bankrupt.

 

Alternatively, it was so easy to game the system. We actually caught some jackass who just claimed to have a refinery and just wanted a paper trail so he could apply for various tax benefits and flat-out cash grants. The Rins thing just paperwork wise is retarded. If you want a legitimate beef against something, this is what you want to beef with.

 

Google renewable energy standards credits.

 

Personally, whenever they start talking about Carbon taxes or this or anything else involving cash in lieu of environmental responsibility I know it's a scam.

 

But to dismiss any and all reporting about climate change because of crap like this is really dumb.

 

By the way, one of Trump's guys, I believe it was Icahn, came in to be like environmental secretary or something just so he could make hundreds of millions of dollars on this crap. Luckily, he was found out. So much for draining the swamp.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

Just goes to show. You guys are really missing the boat here. Meaning, one of the largest refineries in America and certainly on the East Coast just went bankrupt. It has to do with something called RINS.

 

I used to be knee deep in biodiesel. I purposefully shed this part off my portfolio from day one. It is the most cockamamie math and taxes scheme on the planet. And it is literally why this refinery is going bankrupt.

 

Alternatively, it was so easy to game the system. We actually caught some jackass who just claimed to have a refinery and just wanted a paper trail so he could apply for various tax benefits and flat-out cash grants. The Rins thing just paperwork wise is retarded. If you want a legitimate beef against something, this is what you want to beef with.

 

Google renewable energy standards credits.

 

Personally, whenever they start talking about Carbon taxes or this ###### or anything else involving cash in lieu of environmental responsibility I know it's a scam.

 

But to dismiss any and all reporting about climate change because of crap like this is really dumb.

 

By the way, one of Trump's guys, I believe it was Icahn, came in to be like environmental secretary or something just so he could make hundreds of millions of dollars on this crap. Luckily, he was found out. So much for draining the swamp.

 

There was an episode of American Greed on this. Some black dude in Baltimore (I think) was just making RINS up and selling them off. They busted him because the school bus in his subdivision couldn't come his street because of all the exotic cars he had parked out front.