Page 27 of 41 FirstFirst ... 17252627282937 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 270 of 403

Thread: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over

  1. #261
    Sage


    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,818
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over

    Quote Originally Posted by Threegoofs View Post
    Finding a bunch of nutjobs with PhDs isnt that hard when you pay them well.

    These guys are mostly sort of a joke in scientific terms.
    More info here: https://web.archive.org/web/20140714...on-freedomfest
    Dunno, but if they are such a joke in scientific term, why would they be receiving awards for their standards and content?
    The DeSmogBlog, founded in January 2006, is a blog that focuses on topics related to global warming. The site describes itself as "the world's number one source for accurate, fact based information regarding Global Warming misinformation campaigns."[1] DeSmogBlog opposes what it describes as "a well-funded and highly organized public relations campaign" that it says is "poisoning" the climate change debate.[2][3]
    Since its inception, the site has received several mentions in the media regarding its involvement in global warming issues. The site was co-founded by Jim Hoggan, president of a public relations firm based in Vancouver, Canada. The website was recognized in December 2007 with an award by a trade organization for its standards and content.[4]
    DeSmogBlog - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    4 - "The University of Victoria's Independent Newspaper". The Martlet The University of Victoria's Independent Newspaper. Retrieved 2010-04-21.

    Why wouldn't they be dismissed, just as you have dismissed them?
    Disinformation campaign? The Russian collusion meme pushed by the 'news' media, behaving as a political propaganda organ, hell bent to destroy a legitimately elected president to implement his agenda per the votes of the same electorate. Reference The Big Lie Reference Goebbels

  2. #262
    Sage


    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,818
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over

    Quote Originally Posted by Verax View Post
    I have a degree in a scientific field, should everyone listen to me?

    The point is this is all a drop in the bucket. If you were to list all of those composing the mainstream view about global warming it would cover thousands of pages of references.

    Having a degree and holding a title does not necessarily mean you are not a nutcase or even remotely right about anything. Certainly it is noteworthy and elevates them above the typical science enthusiast and should be considered, but is in no way proof of anything.
    So the same observation and measure should be applied to the scientific community that are climate alarmists then?
    Disinformation campaign? The Russian collusion meme pushed by the 'news' media, behaving as a political propaganda organ, hell bent to destroy a legitimately elected president to implement his agenda per the votes of the same electorate. Reference The Big Lie Reference Goebbels

  3. #263
    Assassin
    Verax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    9,409

    Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over

    Quote Originally Posted by eohrnberger View Post
    So the same observation and measure should be applied to the scientific community that are climate alarmists then?
    Define alarmist. I would assume you either mean "mainstream scientific opinion" or a strawman consisting of a nutty scientists screaming the world is going to end tomorrow. Either way the term doesn't apply to the larger body of science that has determined global warming is a serious long term threat.

    Sure, everyone should be observed and measured, but you'll likely find a lot less "prolific" views within the mainstream community. The deniers generally consist of fringe elements of science, the mainstream is just that, solid science and views.

  4. #264
    Quantum sufficit

    Threegoofs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The birthplace of Italian Beef
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    26,522

    Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over

    Quote Originally Posted by eohrnberger View Post
    Dunno, but if they are such a joke in scientific term, why would they be receiving awards for their standards and content?
    DeSmogBlog - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    4 - "The University of Victoria's Independent Newspaper". The Martlet The University of Victoria's Independent Newspaper. Retrieved 2010-04-21.

    Why wouldn't they be dismissed, just as you have dismissed them?
    Recieving awards from... the Heartland Institute?
    Many Trump supporters have lots of problems, and those deplorables are bringing those problems to us. They’re racists. They’re misogynists. They’re islamophobic. They're xenophobes and homophobes. And some, I assume, are good people.

  5. #265
    Sage


    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,818
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over

    Quote Originally Posted by Threegoofs View Post
    Recieving awards from... the Heartland Institute?
    No. Received an award from "The University of Victoria's Independent Newspaper".
    Disinformation campaign? The Russian collusion meme pushed by the 'news' media, behaving as a political propaganda organ, hell bent to destroy a legitimately elected president to implement his agenda per the votes of the same electorate. Reference The Big Lie Reference Goebbels

  6. #266
    Sage
    AlbqOwl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,486
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over

    Quote Originally Posted by Bergslagstroll View Post
    It is very easy to find sources on a lot of subjects. For example I can find soucres that ”proves” that the moanlanding is a hoax. If you are not an expert you can even believe it something is fishy about the moonlanding. That you have to look at the credibility of the sources, and then you can see all the scientific and credibility sources show that the moonlanding is not a hoax.


    10 Reasons the Moon Landings Could Be a Hoax - Listverse


    That if you want to look at the debate on global warming you have to first look at the diffrent sources. And if you look at this debate it only the people believing in the scientific communities that have linked to real scientific sources.


    Also it is but risk taking.That I pointed to sources that show that the cost of reducing greenhouse gases can be relative little and also have benefits for example to local communities. That at the same time doing nothing is extremly costly and dangereus according to the scientific community.


    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...hange-science/

    Climate dollars and sense


    Even American military organizations warns about the national security threath of global warming.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/14/us...hers.html?_r=0

    http://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/MAB_2014.pdf

    http://www.cna.org/sites/default/fil...0-%20Print.pdf

    http://www.defense.gov/pubs/2014_Qua...nse_Review.pdf


    Should you then take the risk and do nothing?
    When you have 10 or 20 or 50 or 100 sources citing the same information, that is not the same thing as 10 or 20 or 50 or 100 independent opinions. Repeating the same assigned talking points or catch phrases or code words again and again and again does not make them any more valid.

    To put it into the simplest terms, what if your contractor told you the project would be done on Saturday. But when Saturday comes around and no workmen show up he says that it didn't work out for Saturday but Tuesday should be good. But on Tuesday he moves the date again and then again and. . . .how many times will he disappoint you before you realize he probably isn't going to do the job at all?

    So how many times should we believe the AGW scientists whose models again and again and again have proved wrong about conditions that exist? And each time they turn out to miss the mark they move the goal posts, change the language, redefine the expectations, and redesign the formulas, and even the terms to keep the money rolling in while never admitting that they were just flat wrong? How gullible are we supposed to be?

    I know people up close and personal who work directly and indirectly for the Dept of Defense and they assure me that climate change is waaaaaaaaaay down on the list of anything they are worried about regardless of how the leftwing media spins it.

    Looking to government to dictate policy, procedures, regulations re what the climate is likely to be in 50 years makes about as much sense as basing your economic planning on what your stockbroker tells you the market will look like in 50 years. Both have self-serving reasons to tell us what is advantageous to them now while neither have a clue how the world will be 50 years from now.
    Last edited by AlbqOwl; 07-21-14 at 04:59 PM.
    "I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776

  7. #267
    Sage


    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,818
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over

    Quote Originally Posted by Verax View Post
    Define alarmist. I would assume you either mean "mainstream scientific opinion" or a strawman consisting of a nutty scientists screaming the world is going to end tomorrow. Either way the term doesn't apply to the larger body of science that has determined global warming is a serious long term threat.

    Sure, everyone should be observed and measured, but you'll likely find a lot less "prolific" views within the mainstream community. The deniers generally consist of fringe elements of science, the mainstream is just that, solid science and views.
    The alarmists that content it's to the benefit of all human kind to destroy most of the world's economies to that the become as carbon neutral as possible as quickly as possible.

    The alarmists that content through solar, wind and sea, there'll be enough electrical generation to close all the coal fired plants. We know this not to be true.

    The alarmists that content that Earth's warming is a man made artifact, when it's really not been proven that it is. My understanding is that it may yet turn out to be part of the normal, larger Earth climate cycle.

    The alarmists that content their climate models are accurate, when in fact they've yet to predict a single thing with any sort of accuracy.

    Yeah, those guys.

    Now, I'm willing to take some simple, cheap (remember the 80/20 rule) measured steps to reduce man's impact on the planet, that's only prudent.

    But I refuse to place any world economies in jeopardy without accurate models by which to accurately measure progress and severity. That's not prudent, action without a way to accurately measure.

    And yet, you are calling the models, the science, on this the alarmist's cries are based, as 'solid science'?
    Disinformation campaign? The Russian collusion meme pushed by the 'news' media, behaving as a political propaganda organ, hell bent to destroy a legitimately elected president to implement his agenda per the votes of the same electorate. Reference The Big Lie Reference Goebbels

  8. #268
    Quantum sufficit

    Threegoofs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The birthplace of Italian Beef
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    26,522

    Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over

    Quote Originally Posted by AlbqOwl View Post
    To put it into the simplest terms, what if your contractor told you the project would be done on Saturday. But when Saturday comes around and no workmen show up he says that it didn't work out for Saturday but Tuesday should be good. But on Tuesday he moves the date again and then again and. . . .how many times will he disappoint you before you realize he probably isn't going to do the job at all?
    Using that analogy, what if you had a contractor that told you your building would fall down if it wasnt reinforced, and you consulted 99 others - and 97 of those 100 said yes, its going to fall unless you fix it.

    Would you poll passersby on the street and if only 20% agreed with the contractors, would you feel comfortable moving your kids and family in to the house?
    Many Trump supporters have lots of problems, and those deplorables are bringing those problems to us. They’re racists. They’re misogynists. They’re islamophobic. They're xenophobes and homophobes. And some, I assume, are good people.

  9. #269
    Sage


    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,818
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over

    Further, I'm very suspicious as to the often claimed 97% concensus.

    “0.3% climate consensus, not 97.1%”
    PRESS RELEASE – September 3rd, 2013
    A major peer-reviewed paper by four senior researchers has exposed grave errors in an earlier paper in a new and unknown journal that had claimed a 97.1% scientific consensus that Man had caused at least half the 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950.
    A tweet in President Obama’s name had assumed that the earlier, flawed paper, by John Cook and others, showed 97% endorsement of the notion that climate change is dangerous:

    “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” [Emphasis added]

    The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”.
    The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.
    Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.
    This shock result comes scant weeks before the United Nations’ climate panel, the IPCC, issues its fifth five-yearly climate assessment, claiming “95% confidence” in the imagined – and, as the new paper shows, imaginary – consensus.
    Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: a Rejoinder to ‘Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change’ decisively rejects suggestions by Cook and others that those who say few scientists explicitly support the supposedly near-unanimous climate consensus are misinforming and misleading the public.
    Cooks ’97% consensus’ disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors | Watts Up With That?

    I'm not certain that there's 97% scientific consensus any ANYTHING.
    Disinformation campaign? The Russian collusion meme pushed by the 'news' media, behaving as a political propaganda organ, hell bent to destroy a legitimately elected president to implement his agenda per the votes of the same electorate. Reference The Big Lie Reference Goebbels

  10. #270
    Assassin
    Verax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    9,409

    Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over

    Quote Originally Posted by eohrnberger View Post
    The alarmists that content it's to the benefit of all human kind to destroy most of the world's economies to that the become as carbon neutral as possible as quickly as possible.

    The alarmists that content through solar, wind and sea, there'll be enough electrical generation to close all the coal fired plants. We know this not to be true.
    First off, I think the word you're looking for is "contend".

    This would be done through a transition, not all at once. The goal is isn't necessarily to close them all, but that could be the end result. The goal is to reduce carbon emissions so working towards that as best we can is better than nothing.

    The alarmists that content that Earth's warming is a man made artifact, when it's really not been proven that it is. My understanding is that it may yet turn out to be part of the normal, larger Earth climate cycle.
    The science supports the notion that global warming is mostly man made through release of Co2. There is no such thing as "proving" anything. Science is about going with the best information and evidence and right now the science strongly supports AGW, this is unlikely to change but possible.

    The alarmists that content their climate models are accurate, when in fact they've yet to predict a single thing with any sort of accuracy.
    The models are not the end all be all of AGW, this is a myth. Another myth is that the models are flat out "wrong". They have had some issues but are still the best tool we have to predict future needs and mitigation strategies.

    Yeah, those guys.

    Now, I'm willing to take some simple, cheap (remember the 80/20 rule) measured steps to reduce man's impact on the planet, that's only prudent.

    But I refuse to place any world economies in jeopardy without accurate models by which to accurately measure progress and severity. That's not prudent, action without a way to accurately measure.
    "Those guys" have done a great job working out a tremendous amount of science that strongly supports significant international action to combat global warming.

    Mitigation can be done without destroying the world economies, in fact, mitigation will save us from terrible consequences that will be far more costly than preventive measures.

Page 27 of 41 FirstFirst ... 17252627282937 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •