The horror of global warming!

echelon1k1

New Member
No it's just no position your trying to sneak in "more study"


******
"Why did you not count those studies opinion on climate change"

******
"They didn't give one"

You posted "scientific consensus" a picture you took from cooks website. You haven't read his study but want to debate it... Silly cunt... It was based on abstract ratings and self ratings. And now you're trying to move the goalposts to say "97% of papers" should've clarified that earlier, now we know you're full of shit so is cook.
 

ricky1lung

Well-Known Member
Im not here to argue, Im merely pointing out with examples
that we don't know enough to be 100% sure what may or may not
be happening.

The dinosaurs are a small yet perfect example of what we think we know,
and what we don't know.


 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
You posted "scientific consensus" a picture you took from cooks website. You haven't read his study but want to debate it... Silly cunt... It was based on abstract ratings and self ratings. And now you're trying to move the goalposts to say "97% of papers" should've clarified that earlier, now we know you're full of shit so is cook.
your arguments started to circle

I haven't moved any goalposts you just didn't understand it properly before you went ranting about it

97% of papers that give an opinion on agw endorse agw

That shouldn't be such a hard concept to grasp should it?


Oh and I have read the paper
 

echelon1k1

New Member
your arguments started to circle

I haven't moved any goalposts you just didn't understand it properly before you went ranting about it

97% of papers that give an opinion on agw endorse agw

That shouldn't be such a hard concept to grasp should it?


Oh and I have read the paper
Bro you're drug-fucked...
 

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
your arguments startto circle

I haven't moved any goalposts you just didn't understand it properly before you went ranting about it

97% of papers that give an opinion on agw endorse agw

That shouldn't be such a hard concept to grasp should it?


Oh and I have read the paper
Wow, it's gone from "97% of scientists" to "97% of scientists that published papers on the subject" and you don't think anyone objectively reading this thread would agree you and UB are full of shit? Think again.

Just a few quick questions, exactly how many of the scientists within that 97% receive ANY funding, specifically for their work on MMGW? Would it be fair to assume about 97%, that would be quite a co-ink-e-dink. More importantly, precisely how many of them would lose their funding if their research didn't support MMGW? Again, is it fair to assume 97%?

If scientists that reject MMGW are dismissed as oil company shills, then the relevance of funding for the proponents is fair game. It's really a pointless exercise, since EVERYONE is aware you only get the government cheddar if you support MMGW. But, I'm sure high dollar funding combined with the security that inflated 50-100 year predictions won't be exposed in their lifetimes, doesn't influence their results at all. I mean, scientists don't worry about funding, that's preposterous. They're just doing the Lord's good work.

Almost forgot.

REMEMBER THE SPOTTED OWL!!!™
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Wow, it's gone from "97% of scientists" to "97% of scientists that published papers on .
Yeah only in you head there bud...

Just a few quick questions, exactly how many of the scientists within that 97% receive ANY funding, specifically for their work on MMGW? Would it be fair to assume about 97%, that would be quite a co-ink-e-dink. More importantly, precisely how many of them would lose their funding if their research didn't support MMGW? Again, is it fair to assume 97%?
No
If scientists that reject MMGW are dismissed as oil company shills, then the relevance of funding for the proponents is fair game. It's really a pointless exercise, since EVERYONE is aware you only get the government cheddar if you support MMGW. But, I'm sure high dollar funding combined with the security that inflated 50-100 year predictions won't be exposed in their lifetimes, doesn't influence their results at all. I mean, scientists don't worry about funding, that's preposterous. They're just doing the Lord's good work.
Again no
 

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
Yeah only in you head there bud...


No

Again no
Thought so, lies and bullshit. Thanks for playing.

I think we ALL know that 100% of your 97% receive government or university funding for their work on MMGW, but thanks for denying it off hand, it makes it so much easier exposing you for the Eco-loon halfwit you are.
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Thought so, lies and bullshit. Thanks for playing.

I think we ALL know that 100% of your 97% receive government or university funding for their work on MMGW, but thanks for denying it off hand, it makes it so much easier exposing you for the Eco-loon halfwit you are.
Exposing? You making shit up

You all know what? Should be simple for you to show if it's that obvious
 

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
Exposing? You making shit up

You all know what? Should be simple for you to show if it's that obvious
I'm sorry, the burden of proof lies with you. In true UB fashion, because I say so. You claim 97% support your position and that they are credible. You claim a consensus beyond reproach. I simply asked for proof of that claim. Surely, these scientists aren't being motivated by the almighty dollar, which would invalidate YOUR claims. I only asked for evidence as I want to believe you.
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
I'm sorry, the burden of proof lies with you. In true UB fashion, because I say so. You claim 97% support your position and that they are credible. You claim a consensus beyond reproach. I simply asked for proof of that claim. Surely, these scientists aren't being motivated by the almighty dollar, which would invalidate YOUR claims. I only asked for evidence as I want to believe you.
I've got 3 studies backing me up I've already been thru this

Your making the claim that it's just about money how abouts you back that bullshit claim up
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
I'm sorry, the burden of proof lies with you. In true UB fashion, because I say so. You claim 97% support your position and that they are credible. You claim a consensus beyond reproach. I simply asked for proof of that claim. Surely, these scientists aren't being motivated by the almighty dollar, which would invalidate YOUR claims. I only asked for evidence as I want to believe you.
Hey, Muy, I see you found my friend to play with on this subject. Don't let him make you take him too seriously.

Ain't he something?
 

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
We all know that CO2 increases follow temperature increases, always has and always will (and proven in 2012). We all know that the average global temperature has risen less than 1°F since the 1970's (failed prediction, throwing you a bone UB), which is well within the natural cycle. Coupled with the facts that even a 10°F average increase would facilitate an environment that humans would thrive in and that the proponents of MMGW admit it would take centuries to get there.

It brings up an obvious question. Why are we wasting so many valuable resources trying to prove we're causing climate change, rather than spending those resources on developing the technology that would make the argument moot?

I'm all for solar powered everything, cars, planes, factories, residences...everything. Until the technology is developed to the point it can replace fossil fuels, we aren't going to stop or even slow down our use of them. Even if we restrict them, worldwide population growth is going to increase our use of them as a species. You can argue, bitch, moan, demonize and tax the use of them all you want, the widespread use of them will continue unabated. You can argue the point, but you're living in a liberal pipe-dream if you actually think otherwise.

If we really believe mankind is facilitating its own destruction and we really want to avoid that scenario, not just use it as an opportunity to have something to protest and argue about, then let's direct ALL of those public and private resources to developing the technology that everyone agrees will save us.

Think about how much could be diverted to speeding up the advances. The vast amount of money spent on both sides of the argument, rallies, protest placards, banners, website development, t-shirts, conferences, TV time, fuel and transportation costs to said events, legal expenses, MMGW research funding and most importantly, the time that humans are spending. Including every second anyone (myself included) spends on the computer interacting on the subject to every second spent by both sides trying to further their selected position. They could be out doing something with that time that generates money that could be donated, along with all the money not being spent on the above, to entities developing solar technology. Another big one, the vast amount of electricity needed to power the movement and the debate. From the IPad I'm on right now, to the lights in the basement of the science building where Professor Dickcheese posts his inflated predictions (sorry, couldn't resist).

All combined, it has to be tens of billions of dollars annually, probably more. But, I guess it's more important to "win" the argument than to solve the puzzle.
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
We all know that CO2 increases follow temperature increases, always has and always will (and proven in 2012). We all know that the average global temperature has risen less than 1°F since the 1970's (failed prediction, throwing you a bone UB), which is well within the natural cycle. Coupled with the facts that even a 10°F average increase would facilitate an environment that humans would thrive in and that the proponents of MMGW admit it would take centuries to get there.

It brings up an obvious question. Why are we wasting so many valuable resources trying to prove we're causing climate change, rather than spending those resources on developing the technology that would make the argument moot?

I'm all for solar powered everything, cars, planes, factories, residences...everything. Until the technology is developed to the point it can replace fossil fuels, we aren't going to stop or even slow down our use of them. Even if we restrict them, worldwide population growth is going to increase our use of them as a species. You can argue, bitch, moan, demonize and tax the use of them all you want, the widespread use of them will continue unabated. You can argue the point, but you're living in a liberal pipe-dream if you actually think otherwise.

If we really believe mankind is facilitating its own destruction and we really want to avoid that scenario, not just use it as an opportunity to have something to protest and argue about, then let's direct ALL of those public and private resources to developing the technology that everyone agrees will save us.

Think about how much could be diverted to speeding up the advances. The vast amount of money spent on both sides of the argument, rallies, protest placards, banners, website development, t-shirts, conferences, TV time, fuel and transportation costs to said events, legal expenses, MMGW research funding and most importantly, the time that humans are spending. Including every second anyone (myself included) spends on the computer interacting on the subject to every second spent by both sides trying to further their selected position. They could be out doing something with that time that generates money that could be donated, along with all the money not being spent on the above, to entities developing solar technology. Another big one, the vast amount of electricity needed to power the movement and the debate. From the IPad I'm on right now, to the lights in the basement of the science building where Professor Dickcheese posts his inflated predictions (sorry, couldn't resist).

All combined, it has to be tens of billions of dollars annually, probably more. But, I guess it's more important to "win" the argument than to solve the puzzle.
Cite(s)?........
 

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
I've got 3 studies backing me up I've already been thru this

Your making the claim that it's just about money how abouts you back that bullshit claim up
Oh, I think asking about the funding of the scientists in the surveys you tout as the end of the argument, is more than reasonable. As you pointed out earlier in the thread, you're in the court of public opinion on this forum. I'm certain any objective person reading this thread would agree it's a valid question to be answered before you get to claim victory. Using your logic, I could post a pie chart of three surveys of thousands of scientists that all collaborate a consensus of 100% against MMGW. The three surveys would be made up entirely of scientists under the employ of the oil companies. I claim victory.
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Oh, I think asking about the funding of the scientists in the surveys you tout as the end of the argument, is more than reasonable. As you pointed out earlier in the thread, you're in the court of public opinion on this forum. I'm certain any objective person reading this thread would agree it's a valid question to be answered before you get to claim victory. Using your logic, I could post a pie chart of three surveys of thousands of scientists that all collaborate a consensus of 100% against MMGW. The three surveys would be made up entirely of scientists under the employ of the oil companies. I claim victory.
I don't give a flying duck about the court of public opinion here that's why I have fans like doer

Anyway the rest of your post is nothing but speculative bullshit

Got anything substantial?
 

echelon1k1

New Member
I don't know how many times you need to be shown it's flawed and misleading paper. Honestly, ease up on the LSD...

http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2013/05/27/cook-et-al-2013-flawed-incomplete-search/

In a self-publicized Environmental Research Letters paper, Cook et al claim to have performed a climate consensus-hunting literature survey they call “the most comprehensive of its kind” using “the largest sample”. The comprehensive nature of the survey is important to the author and his group. For instance, close associate Lewandowsky writes:
There has been evidence in the peer-reviewed literature already that more than 95 out of 100 climate scientists agree on the basic premise that human greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet. [...]
But until now, tools for the visualization of that evidence have been limited.
This is where the new study by Cook et alplays such a particularly important role: Going beyond previous surveys of climate scientists, Cook et al. performed a systematic review of the massive literature on climate change.
In a nutshell, they used a scientific search engine (ISI Web of Knowledge) to gather allpapers published on ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’ between 1991 and 2011. This search returned a mind-boggling 12,000 papers
Several folks have looked at the Cook paper, assuming its basic soundness. But does the paper do what it says it does?
The climate change literature comprises well over hundred thousand articles and books. Cook et al’s strategy was to focus on papers directly related to “global warming” or “global climate change” in Web of Science. Here’s how they describe it:
In March 2012, we searched the ISI Web of Science for papers published from 1991–2011 using topic searches for ‘global warming’ or ‘global climate change’. Article type was restricted to ‘article’, excluding books, discussions, proceedings papers and other document types.
A Web of Science search performed following the authors’ description to the letter actually returns 30,940 entries, not 12,464. Excluding the ‘Arts and Humanities Citation Index’ (A&HCI), this becomes 30,876. This is when search phrases are not enclosed in double-quotes (i.e., ‘global warming’ instead of “global warming”).
Scopus is an academic database covering technical, medical, and social science disciplines. Surprisingly, when Scopus is searched using the correct search phrases, a total of 19,417 entries are retrieved. A Web of Knowledge search returns ~21,488 records. These figures are 7473 records (Scopus) and ~9544 records (Web of Knowledge) greater than what Cook et al eventually analysed.
These results make plain that a large body of relevant literature has been excluded by the authors in their study.
Conclusion
The Cook et al numbers are somewhat replicable, only if search is limited to the Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index databases in Web of Science. Presumably, this made the job of classification easier. Contrary to claims however, this makes their literature search incomplete. It is neither ‘comprehensive’ nor produces the “largest” possible data set. The finding of incomplete search has further implications as it affects all conclusions drawn in the paper.
 
Top