|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|April 12th, 2016 09:35 PM|
Originally Posted by JohnC View Post
|April 12th, 2016 05:20 PM|
Originally Posted by Novanutcase View Post
|April 12th, 2016 04:50 PM|
Take a look here and then ask what's going on!!??
|April 12th, 2016 04:28 PM|
BTW congratulate me. I just joined the 1%.
|April 12th, 2016 02:19 PM|
You know if they have to go that far, they've got something to hide. They're trying to protect themselves from the true scientific process.
|April 12th, 2016 12:37 PM|
And now the full force of government will be used to silence opposing research.
Dem AGs mounting Big Tobacco-style probe of oil companies, industry fights back | Fox News
|April 11th, 2016 06:07 PM|
Originally Posted by 03SonicBoom View Post
This goes for both sides of any argument, and again, there is no denying that there is "Climate Change". There is a lot of things taken for granted that prove "human caused" climate change though, and the vast majority of it is worked into politics to control money and power. There is really no denying that, and to me, that taints all the science and the scientists associated with it.
|April 11th, 2016 05:35 PM|
I cannot tell you how many times I've seen political people and people in the global warming money scheme try to do various things to make the global warming deniers silent. When a "scientist" wants to make it impossible to speak against their work or prove it wrong, they aren't a scientist and they are bought by someone. They are no longer interested in proving science, they are interested in making money (for them or their sponsors).
Every time I see a scientist (or group) trying to silence opposition through regulations they instantly lose all credibility.
|April 11th, 2016 03:02 PM|
Originally Posted by JohnC View Post
I saw a movie about Stephen Hawkings last year. He published his ground breaking theory at a fairly young age. When asked what he intended to do next he said he intended to disprove his own theory. It isn't the agreement with a scientific theory that validates it. It's the inability to provide a counter theory and prove it false.
Alarmists have jumped on the political and funding bandwagon even though their theory is not supported by empirical evidence. And anyone providing a different theory is completely ostracized as being paid off by the fossil fuel industry. To attack the credibility of the speaker instead of providing a counter-argument to the theory is a political maneuver not a scientific one. The entire idea that scientists would be arrested for publishing counter-theories goes completely against accepted scientific method.
But, that is probably a circular argument as well [sarcasm].
|April 11th, 2016 11:38 AM|
About the shenanigans on that 97% consensus...
Deep-sixing another useless climate myth
Guest Blogger / 1 day ago April 10, 2016
The vaunted “97% consensus” on dangerous manmade global warming is just more malarkey
by Dr. David R. Legates
By now, virtually everyone has heard that “97% of scientists agree: Climate change is real, manmade and dangerous.” Even if you weren’t one of his 31 million followers who received this tweet from President Obama, you most assuredly have seen it repeated everywhere as scientific fact.
The correct representation is “yes,” “some,” and “no.” Yes, climate change is real. There has never been a period in Earth’s history when the climate has not changed somewhere, in one way or another.
People can and do have some influence on our climate. For example, downtown areas are warmer than the surrounding countryside, and large-scale human development can affect air and moisture flow. But humans are by no means the only source of climate change. The Pleistocene ice ages, Little Ice Age and monster hurricanes throughout history underscore our trivial influence compared to natural forces.
As for climate change being dangerous, this is pure hype based on little fact. Mile-high rivers of ice burying half of North America and Europe were disastrous for everything in their path, as they would be today. Likewise for the plummeting global temperatures that accompanied them. An era of more frequent and intense hurricanes would also be calamitous; but actual weather records do not show this.
It would be far more deadly to implement restrictive energy policies that condemn billions to continued life without affordable electricity – or to lower living standards in developed countries – in a vain attempt to control the world’s climate. In much of Europe, electricity prices have risen 50% or more over the past decade, leaving many unable to afford proper wintertime heat, and causing thousands to die.
Moreover, consensus and votes have no place in science. History is littered with theories that were long denied by “consensus” science and politics: plate tectonics, germ theory of disease, a geocentric universe. They all underscore how wrong consensus can be.
Science is driven by facts, evidence and observations – not by consensus, especially when it is asserted by deceitful or tyrannical advocates. As Einstein said, “A single experiment can prove me wrong.”
During this election season, Americans are buffeted by polls suggesting which candidate might become each party’s nominee or win the general election. Obviously, only the November “poll” counts.
Similarly, several “polls” have attempted to quantify the supposed climate change consensus, often by using simplistic bait-and-switch tactics. “Do you believe in climate change?” they may ask.
Answering yes, as I would, places you in the President’s 97% consensus and, by illogical extension, implies you agree it is caused by humans and will be dangerous. Of course, that serves their political goal of gaining more control over energy use.
The 97% statistic has specific origins. Naomi Oreskes is a Harvard professor and author of Merchants of Doubt, which claims those who disagree with the supposed consensus are paid by Big Oil to obscure the truth. In 2004, she claimed to have examined the abstracts of 928 scientific papers and found a 100% consensus with the claim that the “Earth’s climate is being affected by human activities.”
Of course, this is probably true, as it is unlikely that any competent scientist would say humans have no impact on climate. However, she then played the bait-and-switch game to perfection – asserting that this meant “most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.”
However, one dissenter is enough to discredit the entire study, and what journalist would believe any claim of 100% agreement? In addition, anecdotal evidence suggested that 97% was a better figure. So 97% it was.
Then in 2010, William Anderegg and colleagues concluded that “97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support … [the view that] … anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for most of the unequivocal warming of the Earth’s average global temperature” over a recent but unspecified time period. (Emphasis in original.)
To make this extreme assertion, Anderegg et al. compiled a database of 908 climate researchers who published frequently on climate topics, and identified those who had “signed statements strongly dissenting from the views” of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The 97–98% figure is achieved by counting those who had not signed such statements.
Silence, in Anderegg’s view, meant those scientists agreed with the extreme view that most warming was due to humans. However, nothing in their papers suggests that all those researchers believed humans had caused most of the planetary warming, or that it was dangerous.
The most recent 97% claim was posited by John Cook and colleagues in 2013. They evaluated abstracts from nearly 12,000 articles published over a 21-year period and sorted them into seven categories, ranging from “explicit, quantified endorsement” to “explicit, quantified rejection” of their alleged consensus: that recent warming was caused by human activity, not by natural variability. They concluded that “97.1% endorsed the consensus position.”
However, two-thirds of all those abstracts took no position on anthropogenic climate change. Of the remaining abstracts (not the papers or scientists), Cook and colleagues asserted that 97.1% endorsed their hypothesis that humans are the sole cause of recent global warming.
Again, the bait-and-switch was on full display. Any assertion that humans play a role was interpreted as meaning humans are the sole cause. But many of those scientists subsequently said publicly that Cook and colleagues had misclassified their papers – and Cook never tried to assess whether any of the scientists who wrote the papers actually thought the observed climate changes were dangerous.
My own colleagues and I did investigate their analysis more closely. We found that only 41 abstracts of the 11,944 papers Cook and colleagues reviewed – a whopping 0.3% – actually endorsed their supposed consensus. It turns out they had decided that any paper which did not provide an explicit, quantified rejection of their supposed consensus was in agreement with the consensus. Moreover, this decision was based solely on Cook and colleagues’ interpretation of just the abstracts, and not the articles themselves. In other words, the entire exercise was a clever sleight-of-hand trick.
What is the real figure? We may never know. Scientists who disagree with the supposed consensus – that climate change is manmade and dangerous – find themselves under constant attack.
Harassment by Greenpeace and other environmental pressure groups, the media, federal and state government officials, and even universities toward their employees (myself included) makes it difficult for many scientists to express honest opinions. Recent reports about Senator Whitehouse and Attorney-General Lynch using RICO laws to intimidate climate “deniers” further obscure meaningful discussion.
Numerous government employees have told me privately that they do not agree with the supposed consensus position – but cannot speak out for fear of losing their jobs. And just last week, a George Mason University survey found that nearly one-third of American Meteorological Society members were willing to admit that at least half of the climate change we have seen can be attributed to natural variability.
Climate change alarmism has become a $1.5-trillion-a-year industry – which guarantees it is far safer and more fashionable to pretend a 97% consensus exists, than to embrace honesty and have one’s global warming or renewable energy funding go dry.
The real danger is not climate change – it is energy policies imposed in the name of climate change. It’s time to consider something else Einstein said: “The important thing is not to stop questioning.” And then go see the important new documentary film, The Climate Hustle, coming soon to a theater near you.
David R. Legates, PhD, CCM, is a Professor of Climatology at the University of Delaware in Newark, Delaware.
|April 4th, 2016 03:14 PM|
|April 3rd, 2016 07:37 PM|
If the global warming scientists were right and the info they gave Al Gore was true, shouldn't the ice caps be melted away, polar bears extinct and the coasts flooded by now?
I thought so...
We can have clean air, water, and energy sources, but I refuse to be fear mongered in to some catastrophic tin-foil-hat conspiracy theory so a bunch of globalist Marxist socialists can control and tax the shit out of us to fund their socialism off capitalism.
|March 28th, 2016 03:57 PM|
Originally Posted by brtnstrns View Post
Originally Posted by Novanutcase View Post
|March 28th, 2016 02:07 PM|
LOL this thread should just be closed. Nobody is going to change anyone's mind here. Every article that comes out showing that the world is going to go to shit due to climate change is going to be accompanied by an article explaining why the scientist that did the study are liberal shills or the data is massaged or whatever.
We all know where we stand and its not going to change anything. I'll do what I can to reduce pollution and what not but I've given up hope (mainly because I keep reading about how a large source of pollution/greenhouse gas is from consumption of meat [from the vast number of cattle, etc] - no way can I give that up - I don't even eat vegetables!). I ain't bringing children into this world so as long as the shit hits the fan after my death, meh...
|March 28th, 2016 01:36 PM|
|March 28th, 2016 12:31 PM|
Originally Posted by Sixpointslow View Post
Besides, that paragraph was not really serious. It was put in there more for friendly needling than anything else. I knew it would get your attention.
|March 28th, 2016 11:56 AM|
|March 28th, 2016 09:35 AM|
Sensational headlines sell papers. Or to bring the saying to the 21st century, sensational headlines get hits.
One of the things that I find particularly interesting about the sun is that unlike earth different parts of its surface rotate around its axis faster than others and now that is being explained by the double-dynamo theory. There is a high correlation of sunspot activity to earth's climate. In most other disciplines such a correlation would be taken more seriously than it is now. That is probably because we do not yet understand the mechanism by which sun activity affects climate.
You used the word "denier" but I sometimes wonder who the real deniers are. Perhaps they are the ones who deny the fact that nature can cause climate change.
If I were a researcher in today's political climate I would avoid saying anything in my research that would suggest global cooling. I read a paper on Vikings and the Northwest Passage several years ago. Although all of the author's research indicated that the Medieval Warm Period was as warm or warmer than today, he put a disclaimer in his summary. I suppose even to suggest that nature is contributing to warming is a threat to funding.
P.S. I realize that we are at an impasse on this topic and I don't really want to re-hash all of the old discussion but I thought the "double-dynamo theory" was interesting.
|March 28th, 2016 01:53 AM|
Misrepresentation is one of the main logical fallacies used by denialists.
|March 27th, 2016 09:40 PM|
Questionable NOAA adjustments aside, researchers in the UK have developed a "double dynamo" theory of solar output that is reported to be 97% accurate looking backward. These researchers are predicting that by 2030-2040 our sun's output could be reduced by as much as 60% similar to the Maunder Minimum of 1645-1715 with will result in global cooling.
Royal Astronomical Society?s National Astronomy Meeting 2015 ? report 4 ? Astronomy Now
GLOBAL COOLING: Decade long ice age predicted as sun 'hibernates' | Science | News | Daily Express
Do I personally think we are heading to mini-ice age? Nope. It's too soon to tell if the computer model can actually predict future sun activity. But its an interesting theory.
|This thread has more than 20 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|