RE: Does anybody here truly not believe in Climate Change? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

bounty44 -> RE: Does anybody here truly not believe in Climate Change? (5/12/2016 6:54:16 PM)

I can appreciate your sensitivity to the "middle school" comment, and I apologize for that, it was rude of me.

at the same time, that number has been so bandied about for years, and its pretty *@^# frustrating.

that said---the "97%" is not SCIENCE---if that is what you fall back on, please don't carp about "countering science with science" then.

the thread here, and other threads like it have been filled with "science"---the lefties ignore it, which is pretty *$^# frustrating too.

now that all said:

quote:

Not that you have any objectively linked science on which to base your claims, which is why you always fall back on offensive language and attempts at intimidation via half-truths and self-reassuring bromides.


ive made a couple thousand posts here, many of them concerning global warming. go back and read them before you sound any more foolish saying things that aren't true.



bounty44 -> RE: Does anybody here truly not believe in Climate Change? (5/12/2016 7:16:46 PM)

posted this a year ago:

[image]http://www.collarchat.com/upfiles/1936645/22D6E19A65A949359C93C07AE60C89B4.jpg[/image]

and here is this again:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/30/the-myth-of-the-97-climate-change-consensus/



markyugen -> RE: Does anybody here truly not believe in Climate Change? (5/12/2016 7:20:39 PM)

As for Dr. Woodcock’s statements, he is welcome to present his findings about global warming to peer-reviewed scientific journals and see how much traction they get within the scientific community just like every other scientist does. The fact that I am unable to find any other scientists confirming his claims and following up on them with verifiable research either means there is a huge conspiracy of silence among his nefarious, money-grubbing peers, or else he is simply part of the 3% of outliers that don’t think MMGW is real and thus doesn’t really deserve much of my attention. This is not to say that his views don’t deserve to be respected, but until the pendulum swings in his favor, I don’t see why I, as a member of the non-scientific public who approaches this subject as objectively as I can, should take his opinion more seriously than the vast, thunderous majority of scientists who disagree with him.



Phydeaux -> RE: Does anybody here truly not believe in Climate Change? (5/12/2016 8:23:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: markyugen

As for Dr. Woodcock’s statements, he is welcome to present his findings about global warming to peer-reviewed scientific journals and see how much traction they get within the scientific community just like every other scientist does. The fact that I am unable to find any other scientists confirming his claims and following up on them with verifiable research either means there is a huge conspiracy of silence among his nefarious, money-grubbing peers, or else he is simply part of the 3% of outliers that don’t think MMGW is real and thus doesn’t really deserve much of my attention. This is not to say that his views don’t deserve to be respected, but until the pendulum swings in his favor, I don’t see why I, as a member of the non-scientific public who approaches this subject as objectively as I can, should take his opinion more seriously than the vast, thunderous majority of scientists who disagree with him.


How about ... because you actually haven't heard from a thunderous majority of scientiest who disagree with him?

By and large the people bandying this number about - aren't scientists. Bill Nye. Actor. Naomi Orestes, philsophy/economist. John Cook Cartoonist.
etc.



Phydeaux -> RE: Does anybody here truly not believe in Climate Change? (5/12/2016 8:45:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: markyugen

The 97% figure comes from "multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals," according to NASA's website. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

The latest comes from April, 2016. Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”




The "multiple studies" they list are -
Cook. Cartoonist.
Orestes - Economist

I've covered these in exhausting detail, many times. Use the search button, search on my name with keyword orestes - and you will find a variety of papers, as well as posts that show orestes study actually showed 3% agreed with AGW. Out of 11000 papers or so - she threw out all but a couple of hundred, and rated those. So out of 11000 papers, of the paper that expressed an opinion, 97
% of those.. like 65, supported AGW. Its complete falsification covered over by a supine press.

The Keanne and Martinez "study" can be found here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009EO030002/epdf

asked two questions. Note that these were conducted via the web with no screening or controls. In other words, its about as accurate as going to the local bus stop, walking into the mens room, and asking people if they believe in global warming.

1. When compared with pre- 1800s lev-els, do you think that mean global tem-peratures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a sig-nificant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Note also that neither of these statement actually has anything to do with the IPCC theory of global warming; itself watered down it reads that humans are responsible for a majority of observed warming via CO2 emissions. But that bit of sleight of hand wasn't enough, oh no.

Out of 3146 people - they "manipulated the data" to get down to a sample size of 79 "experts". 97% of these self reported experts - supported global warming.

Do I really have to point out the numerous methodology flaws in this? For example, by choosing whom to throw out - they can end up with any final number they want. 100 gave them 55% approval. Oops - cut the sample size. This is why double blind studies are the gold standards.

The Final Study, by Anderegg, considers the universe of people that signed the ACC-6. Oh boy. So they polled people that signed on to a pro-AGW statement -to find out they were 97% in favor of AGW. Wow .. theres a surprise. And to top it off - they distilled it further by only taking the people who had published the most papers.

Considering that AGW people have been caught refusing the publication of anti-AGW papers, and considering the political climate - (La times - won't publish Anti AGW articles. Nor Huff poo. Bill Nye wants to fine them; Democrat AG's are criminially investigating).

This isn't science. Its outright fraud.



Termyn8or -> RE: Does anybody here truly not believe in Climate Change? (5/12/2016 9:45:17 PM)

"AGW's say carbon causes warming. They have 41 models included in the IPCC. The "best" of them is off by 300%. None of them included the 20 year hiatus.

They cannot come up with a working theory that says - given this much carbon - this will be the temperature increase. "

The only real scientific proof lies in a double blind study. How convenient. Just like with the vaccines, doing a double blind study would be unethical, but in this case it is impractical. What's more, I think they should be able to model it somehow and get hard figures. but these people do not like hard figures because if they knew hard figures they would know that fixing AGW would make the dollar worth less than a peseta.

"If they could - the best correlation would show an extremely tiny correlation between co2 and temperature. Ie little sensitivity to CO2 "

For one, methane is ten times worse than CO2 when it comes to that.

I want to get this straight, I do not deny that everything we do makes heat, and I doubt that is a good thing. However it is the severity and scope of these claims that I refuse to blindly believe. Also, the actions of the governments have been totally out of hand with one state trying to make it illegal to report any rise in sea level. That is worse than the carbon credit scam, but smaller in scope. Still appalling in a supposedly civilized country.

"Which would cause them to lose the gravy train of funding. So they are forced to pound the table ever louder and make ever louder predictions. "

Interesting metaphor. I remember this chick worked concessions, the money wasn't right at the end of the day and she said "A little more paperwork". But closer to the mark, research is funded. Research is funded by people who want to find out something. Problem is the already know what they want to find out, they just want it "proven". Just like a court disallowing evidence that could exonerate the defendant, which happens more than most people think, they are paid to come up wiht a certain result. Someone actually found Monsantos shit to cause cancer, and the big money moved against him so fast you could not see it. Like yeah, the government is supposed to research this but actually pays others to do it. Mosanto pays the government. Monsanto bribed a shitload of people IN SCOTLAND !!! to UNPUBLISH his paper. However, they never offered up any analysis of how he supposedly got it wrong.

Things like this are why I do not trust modern science. Everyone seems To be an expert, or "authority" on the subject when the fact is that nobody can be.

Fukit.

T^T



AtUrCervix -> RE: Does anybody here truly not believe in Climate Change? (5/13/2016 1:24:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

what? you think you deserve a thesis or an abstract? ya right.


[8|][8|][8|][8|][8|][8|][8|]


(He wants....like all posters who can't find an appropriate way to respond to truth....to have others post links for them/him so he doesn't have to think on his own).

Lol,

Lucy comes on and never contributes anything to any conversation except ill manners. She tries to do it in a way that makes her seem smart. She isn't, she's just unpleasant. You, apparently, believe she's smart and adds to a conversation. Her response was completely unaware of anything having to do with the science. It was, however, full of the expectation of sounding smart by regurgitating leftist koolaide.

You aren't as clever as her. And notice I said clever which isn't the same as smart.


I bet you feel better now.



Lucylastic -> RE: Does anybody here truly not believe in Climate Change? (5/13/2016 6:40:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix

I bet you feel better now.

LOL



Nnanji -> RE: Does anybody here truly not believe in Climate Change? (5/13/2016 10:13:49 AM)

Hum, earlier you said this:

If you want me to take you seriously as somebody who seeks to counter the science with science, you might want to start by toning down your extravagant claims of opponents perpetuating a myth, as well as the personal insults that usually only get trotted out when an argument has nothing of substance to support it. Not that you have any objectively linked science on which to base your claims, which is why you always fall back on offensive language and attempts at intimidation via half-truths and self-reassuring bromides.

Now you say this:
quote:

ORIGINAL: markyugen

As for Dr. Woodcock’s statements, he is welcome to present his findings about global warming to peer-reviewed scientific journals and see how much traction they get within the scientific community just like every other scientist does. The fact that I am unable to find any other scientists confirming his claims and following up on them with verifiable research either means there is a huge conspiracy of silence among his nefarious, money-grubbing peers, or else he is simply part of the 3% of outliers that don’t think MMGW is real and thus doesn’t really deserve much of my attention. This is not to say that his views don’t deserve to be respected, but until the pendulum swings in his favor, I don’t see why I, as a member of the non-scientific public who approaches this subject as objectively as I can, should take his opinion more seriously than the vast, thunderous majority of scientists who disagree with him.


I guess you named yourself.



Nnanji -> RE: Does anybody here truly not believe in Climate Change? (5/13/2016 10:19:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic


quote:

ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix

I bet you feel better now.

LOL


Apropos of exactly what I was saying. Thank you love. Oh, and, I understand that when you are so passive aggressive you are driven to have the last word. You may do so now. I've made my point and I'll let you continue to illustrate it.



AtUrCervix -> RE: Does anybody here truly not believe in Climate Change? (5/13/2016 3:21:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

what? you think you deserve a thesis or an abstract? ya right.


[8|][8|][8|][8|][8|][8|][8|]


(He wants....like all posters who can't find an appropriate way to respond to truth....to have others post links for them/him so he doesn't have to think on his own).

Lol,

Lucy comes on and never contributes anything to any conversation except ill manners. She tries to do it in a way that makes her seem smart. She isn't, she's just unpleasant. You, apparently, believe she's smart and adds to a conversation. Her response was completely unaware of anything having to do with the science. It was, however, full of the expectation of sounding smart by regurgitating leftist koolaide.

You aren't as clever as her. And notice I said clever which isn't the same as smart.


Well....I've never been accused of being the brightest bulb on the block (only the one with the most assets and cash....sue me....I'm gifted in that arena).

(I'm actually ok with that).

(No....seriously....I'm entirely ok with that).



bounty44 -> RE: Does anybody here truly not believe in Climate Change? (5/13/2016 3:42:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: markyugen
...than the vast, thunderous majority of scientists who disagree with him.


who exactly is this "vast thunderous majority of scientists?" and where are they again?

oh---and what phydeaux said...




AtUrCervix -> RE: Does anybody here truly not believe in Climate Change? (5/13/2016 4:59:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic


quote:

ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix

I bet you feel better now.

LOL


Apropos of exactly what I was saying. Thank you love. Oh, and, I understand that when you are so passive aggressive you are driven to have the last word. You may do so now. I've made my point and I'll let you continue to illustrate it.


I'm thinking of you: http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=puke+in+my+face&=&view=detail&mid=5AB76CC992E6C7E5F39D5AB76CC992E6C7E5F39D&FORM=VDHSOP&fsscr=0



Nnanji -> RE: Does anybody here truly not believe in Climate Change? (5/13/2016 5:03:31 PM)

Oops, six posts now.



Nnanji -> RE: Does anybody here truly not believe in Climate Change? (5/13/2016 6:40:53 PM)

You're as entertaining as MNottertail when he gets whacko. Keep it up.



Aylee -> RE: Does anybody here truly not believe in Climate Change? (5/13/2016 6:57:49 PM)

Wow. Gay-baiting. That is not cool.

It is also not cool to use homosexuality as an insult.



Nnanji -> RE: Does anybody here truly not believe in Climate Change? (5/14/2016 7:01:19 AM)

He did go around the bend.



tweakabelle -> RE: Does anybody here truly not believe in Climate Change? (5/14/2016 7:43:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

Hum, earlier you said this:

If you want me to take you seriously as somebody who seeks to counter the science with science, you might want to start by toning down your extravagant claims of opponents perpetuating a myth, as well as the personal insults that usually only get trotted out when an argument has nothing of substance to support it. Not that you have any objectively linked science on which to base your claims, which is why you always fall back on offensive language and attempts at intimidation via half-truths and self-reassuring bromides.

Now you say this:
quote:

ORIGINAL: markyugen

As for Dr. Woodcock’s statements, he is welcome to present his findings about global warming to peer-reviewed scientific journals and see how much traction they get within the scientific community just like every other scientist does. The fact that I am unable to find any other scientists confirming his claims and following up on them with verifiable research either means there is a huge conspiracy of silence among his nefarious, money-grubbing peers, or else he is simply part of the 3% of outliers that don’t think MMGW is real and thus doesn’t really deserve much of my attention. This is not to say that his views don’t deserve to be respected, but until the pendulum swings in his favor, I don’t see why I, as a member of the non-scientific public who approaches this subject as objectively as I can, should take his opinion more seriously than the vast, thunderous majority of scientists who disagree with him.


I guess you named yourself.

Wow! I hadn't realised that marknguyen is a paid up member of the " huge conspiracy of silence among his nefarious, money-grubbing peers". I haven't seen any evidence of this conspiracy, but now that I am assured by one of our looney Right posters that it exists, I want to join it.
How do I join it? How much $ will I make when I join it? Are there any qualifications needed (apart from a desire to pass off the great global warming conspiracy and its sister conspiracy, the great secret leftist conspiracy to redistribute the world's wealth by getting scientific grants to ensure the ongoing success of the first conspiracy ...)

When do we start redistributing the world's wealth? I can't wait for that - it sure sounds like fun!
When do I get my first grant?



Nnanji -> RE: Does anybody here truly not believe in Climate Change? (5/14/2016 8:06:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

Hum, earlier you said this:

If you want me to take you seriously as somebody who seeks to counter the science with science, you might want to start by toning down your extravagant claims of opponents perpetuating a myth, as well as the personal insults that usually only get trotted out when an argument has nothing of substance to support it. Not that you have any objectively linked science on which to base your claims, which is why you always fall back on offensive language and attempts at intimidation via half-truths and self-reassuring bromides.

Now you say this:
quote:

ORIGINAL: markyugen

As for Dr. Woodcock’s statements, he is welcome to present his findings about global warming to peer-reviewed scientific journals and see how much traction they get within the scientific community just like every other scientist does. The fact that I am unable to find any other scientists confirming his claims and following up on them with verifiable research either means there is a huge conspiracy of silence among his nefarious, money-grubbing peers, or else he is simply part of the 3% of outliers that don’t think MMGW is real and thus doesn’t really deserve much of my attention. This is not to say that his views don’t deserve to be respected, but until the pendulum swings in his favor, I don’t see why I, as a member of the non-scientific public who approaches this subject as objectively as I can, should take his opinion more seriously than the vast, thunderous majority of scientists who disagree with him.


I guess you named yourself.

Wow! I hadn't realised that marknguyen is a paid up member of the " huge conspiracy of silence among his nefarious, money-grubbing peers". I haven't seen any evidence of this conspiracy, but now that I am assured by one of our looney Right posters that it exists, I want to join it.
How do I join it? How much $ will I make when I join it? Are there any qualifications needed (apart from a desire to pass off the great global warming conspiracy and its sister conspiracy, the great secret leftist conspiracy to redistribute the world's wealth by getting scientific grants to ensure the ongoing success of the first conspiracy ...)

When do we start redistributing the world's wealth? I can't wait for that - it sure sounds like fun!
When do I get my first grant?

Lol, party line koolaide. I think even you can understand the point. Although, you are an offender pretty often. Has Lucy acquired another sock?



Lucylastic -> RE: Does anybody here truly not believe in Climate Change? (5/14/2016 8:08:24 AM)

lmao you still think I have socks
snorts



Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625