- Joined
- May 6, 2011
- Messages
- 14,697
- Reaction score
- 5,704
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
This whole thing was based on the pursuit of control and cash. Nothing more.
There are also scientists who think the Earth was created 6000 years ago and who believe that homosexuality is related to pedophilia. Who care about them? They're ****ing morons.
Also, I don't think anybody claims that "all scientists" accept the reality of global warming - most people leave room for ignorant, politically motivated conspiracy theorists as they exist everywhere. What people claim is that the vast majority of scientists and scientific organizations, particularly those who study climate patterns, agree that global warming is a fact of reality. This is true.
There are also scientists who think the Earth was created 6000 years ago and who believe that homosexuality is related to pedophilia. Who care about them? They're ****ing morons.
Also, I don't think anybody claims that "all scientists" accept the reality of global warming - most people leave room for ignorant, politically motivated conspiracy theorists as they exist everywhere. What people claim is that the vast majority of scientists and scientific organizations, particularly those who study climate patterns, agree that global warming is a fact of reality. This is true.
Does anyone remember the global cooling crisses
Well, scientists who know what they're talking about do tend to ostracize and discredit people who try to pass off horrible science and myth as something of equal quality to credible scientific research, yes. What you are doing is confusing healthy, credible debate with conspiracy theories. It is no more anti-science to ostracize those who deny the reality of global warming than it is anti-science to ostracize those who would have creationism taught alongside evolution.But they attempt to ostracize/ discredit any scientist who doesn't agree. Which in itself is as anti scientific as fire is hot. Science is about theory, reproducible results and debate. Without debate science loses it's credibility.
My personal opinion is that the "climate change" scare is really environmentalists who care so much about pollution that they invented a crisis (or capitalized on a natural cycle) to effect change that reduces pollution. I agree that we should do everything in our power to safeguard the environment, but not at the point of lying to get there. Then people like Al Gore saw an opportunity to make a LOT of money by promoting it and governments saw an opportunity to gain more power through it... especially the UN.
Does anyone remember the global cooling crisses
The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth's climate seems to be cooling down
LOL, yes, I do. I was just a kid, but I knew that the assertion was ridiculous.... just like AGW is. Yes, we are getting warmer, but we are still cooler than at the time of Christ. We are not going to die, we will adapt as needed. Then the earth will begin to cool again. OH NO, another crisis!!!!
Almost snowed in April ( and I live in south Jersey ) , but then again the cold temperature did not get that cold just lasted longer > I swear the earth Is Bi polar
what I have noticed here in north Alabama is that it doesn't get cold for as long in the winter (although the time it is cold it is colder than before) and even though the time it is hot is longer, it doesn't get as hot as before.
The actual temperature "range" has shifted downward to being colder, it just stays warmer longer. this causes the "average" temperature to be higher.
Well, scientists who know what they're talking about do tend to ostracize and discredit people who try to pass off horrible science and myth as something of equal quality to credible scientific research, yes. What you are doing is confusing healthy, credible debate with conspiracy theories. It is no more anti-science to ostracize those who deny the reality of global warming than it is anti-science to ostracize those who would have creationism taught alongside evolution.
Right, you believe in a worldwide conspiracy theory perpetuated by environmentalists who somehow got scientists and scientific organizations all over the world to fabricate research and lie about their professional positions so that they could stop pollution. I heard 9/11 was an inside job too.
Link?But most scientists actually dispute AGW, so the fringe group is the proponents of AGW.
Generally False.Tetelestai said:The earth has been a lot warmer in the past than it is today. That's why they are finding human settlements where there was once ice.
Quite easily, Core samples of [remaining] ice, pollen types, plant fossils, previous sea level digs, etc.tetelestai said:Until evidence is produced that we are hotter that EVER before, it is only theory. And tell me this... Actual record keeping was only started on a large scale in 1880. How can you base any reasonable theory that we are causing this massive problem on a 133 years or records when the earth is so old?
Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections:
Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [9]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[10]
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003), and author of books supporting the validity of dowsing[11]
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU[12]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[13]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [14]
Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes:
Graph showing the ability with which a global climate model is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record, and the degree to which those temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. It shows the effects of five forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, and volcanic emissions.[15]Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[16]
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[17][18]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[19]
Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[20]
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[21]
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[22]
William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[23]
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[24]
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[25]
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[26]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[27]
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[28][29]
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[30]
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[31][32]
Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo[33]
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[34][35][36]
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[37]
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[38]
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center[39]
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[40]
Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown:
Scientists in this section have made comments that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks[41]
Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris)[42]
Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University[43]
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC[44][45]
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory[46]
Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology[47]
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma[48]
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists[49]
Link?
Welcome to Forbes
Generally False.
The last time the earth was "alot warmer" there weren't humans.
This is irrelevant as they are finding human settlement where there was ice for centuries. That means that the earth was warmer at one point, and we are all still here. Also consider that the earth is here even though it was a lot warmer before man was here. We also don't know how this will ultimately affect man, and we don't have any conclusive proof that man is causing anything.
Quite easily, Core samples of [remaining] ice, pollen types, plant fossils, previous sea level digs, etc.
In fact, YOU just said the earth used to be alot warmer while in the next sentence claiming we couldn't measure it before 1880. Great stuff.
This whole section is now Polluted/a Majority Right Wing political apparachiks with No science, just politics.
just a partial list of all the "ignorant, politically motivated shills for BIG OIL" that disagree with the "consensus" on AGW
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
just a partial list of all the "ignorant, politically motivated shills for BIG OIL" that disagree with the "consensus" on AGW
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Unsurprisingly, James Taylor misrepresented or did not understand the study in his Forbes blog post.
The authors responded directly to the Forbes article:
Dear Mr. Taylor -
Thank you for the attention you are giving to our research and continuing the discussion about how professional engineers and geoscientists view climate change. We would like to emphasize a few points in order to avoid any confusion about the results.
First and foremost, our study is not a representative survey. Although our data set is large and diverse enough for our research questions, it cannot be used for generalizations such as “respondents believe …” or “scientists don’t believe …” Our research reconstructs the frames the members of a professional association hold about the issue and the argumentative patterns and legitimation strategies these professionals use when articulating their assumptions. Our research does not investigate the distribution of these frames and, thus, does not allow for any conclusions in this direction. We do point this out several times in the paper, and it is important to highlight it again.
In addition, even within the confines of our non-representative data set, the interpretation that a majority of the respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of global warming is simply not correct. To the contrary: the majority believes that humans do have their hands in climate change, even if many of them believe that humans are not the only cause. What is striking is how little support that the Kyoto Protocol had among our respondents. However, it is also not the case that all frames except “Support Kyoto” are against regulation – the “Regulation Activists” mobilize for a more encompassing and more strongly enforced regulation. Correct interpretations would be, for instance, that – among our respondents – more geoscientists are critical towards regulation (and especially the Kyoto Protocol) than non-geoscientists, or that more people in higher hierarchical positions in the industry oppose regulation than people in lower hierarchical positions.
All frequencies in our paper should only be used to get an idea of the potential influence of these frames – e.g. on policy responses. Surely the insight that those who oppose regulation tend to have more influence on policy-making than the supporters of the Kyoto Protocol should not come as a surprise after Canada dropped out of the protocol a year ago.
But once again: This is not a representative survey and should not be used as such!
We trust that this clarifies our findings. Thank you again for your attention.
Best regards,
Lianne Lefsrud and Renate Meyer
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes
On a side note, pretty much every other survey of scientific opinion has put belief in human-caused global warming in the 80-90% range.
I know it's hard when the facts are not on your side, but: Please stop clutching at straws.
On a side note, pretty much every other survey of scientific opinion has put belief in human-caused global warming in the 80-90% range.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?