View New Content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

Javascript Disabled Detected

You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality.

Surviving the 21st century

Started by domnix , Jul 14 2011 11:24 PM

Page 3 of 8
1
2
3
4
5

Please log in to reply

142 replies to this topic

#41
Roh234

Posted 11 September 2011 - 03:35 AM

Capitalism is the only way to survive.

Members
1,017 posts

Location11 Dimentional Hyperspace

I could present you with 100% cast iron proof that global warming is happening, and you still wouldn't accept it - so there's little point in me bothering to post here anymore. You are clearly anti-science.

Yes, win the Al Gore way.

"There is no debate" and call the skpetics anti-science; too bad I'm majoring in chemistry and aspiring to be a MD with a GPA of 3.67. I also have adequete knowledge of these programming languages:

- HTML
- Visual Basic 5.0
- Turing
- Learning Java

But proponets like assume that I'm some anti-science in-bred, trailer residing, home-schooled, who believes the earth is in the center of the solar system, the earth is flat, science is the devil, world is going to end May 22nd, creationalist.

If you could post what program you use for your graphics, I could show you the wrongs of your flawed logic.

There is no controversy regarding whether or not anthropogenic climate change is unequivocally happening. It's happening.

From Wikipedia: "This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries and is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing."

http://www.sciencema.../5702/1686.full
http://nationalacade...pi/06072005.pdf

Note A: "The 2001 joint statement was signed by the national academies of science of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada,the Caribbean, the People's Republic of China, France,Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, and the UK.^[175] The 2005 statement addedJapan, Russia, and the U.S. The 2007 statement addedMexico and South Africa. The Network of African Science Academies, and the Polish Academy of Sciences have issued separate statements. Professional scientific societies include American Astronomical Society, American Chemical Society,American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics,American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society,American Quaternary Association, Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, European Academy of Sciences and Arts, European Geosciences Union, European Science Foundation, Geological Society of America, Geological Society of Australia, Geological Society of London-Stratigraphy Commission, InterAcademy Council, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, International Union for Quaternary Research, National Association of Geoscience Teachers,National Research Council (US), Royal Meteorological Society, and World Meteorological Organization."

All scientific dissent comes from funding from oil and coal companies. There's about as much debate about global warming as there is about evolution.

We'll have to deal with it when the problem becomes bad. We'll wait until then because people are stupid and generally won't do anything until the last minute if history is any indication. People will needlessly die and their contemporaries will look back and think, "What were they thinking?" What were they thinking indeed?

Cool, as an industry funded scientist, I mislead the public. I will start with a fourm that has less than 10000 views daily instead of the more popular fourms with 100k+views. The best start to mislead......

Lets not forget the pro side gets more funding per CAPTIA then skeptics even if we use the absurd 97% consensus.

The 97% consesus.....

Only 3k out of 10k answered. That equals a 70% unknown. That wasn't included.

If somehow I am wrong... Why does the consensus DOESN'T PRACTICE WHAT IT PREACHES.

How many of these scientists that own a house have solar panels and do the lifestyle changes they recommend. Why don't they move in 'green housing'.

I'm sorry I don't believe words of hypocrites.

What is true, just, and beautiful is not determined by popular vote. The masses everywhere are ignorant, short-sighted, motivated by envy, and easy to fool. Democratic politicians must appeal to these masses in order to be elected. Whoever is the best demagogue will win. Almost by necessity, then, democracy will lead to the perversion of truth, justice and beauty. -Hans Hermann Hoppe

#42
jjf3

Posted 11 September 2011 - 04:04 AM

Not a Member of the Tea Party! Just a Concerned Conservative

Members
2,046 posts

LocationHolmdel NJ/Tampa Fl

The question that we are trying to bring up is not, "is it happening?" It's "How much of it is REALLY and truly caused by humans?"

I agree with ROH's hypocrite statement as President Barack Obama proves in Feb. 2009, "To truly transform our economy, protect our security, and save our planet from the ravages of climate change, we need to ultimately make clean, renewable energy the PROFITABLE kind of energy."

"Did you really expect some utopian fantasy to rise from the ashes?" Thomas Zarek-- Battlestar Galactica.

#43
Prolite

Posted 11 September 2011 - 05:04 AM

Member

Members
609 posts

Jesus Christ, you guys are killing this subject to a bloody pulp.

I'm a business man, that's all you need to know about me.

#44
Roh234

Posted 11 September 2011 - 05:07 AM

Capitalism is the only way to survive.

Members
1,017 posts

Location11 Dimentional Hyperspace

Jesus Christ, you guys are killing this subject to a bloody pulp.

I don't mind Global Warming being a factor in this discussion but being accused of being paid by industry, Republicans, or being an anti-science creationalist is just insulting.

#45
jjf3

Posted 11 September 2011 - 05:17 AM

Not a Member of the Tea Party! Just a Concerned Conservative

Members
2,046 posts

LocationHolmdel NJ/Tampa Fl

Jesus Christ, you guys are killing this subject to a bloody pulp.

That's usually what happens when people can't answer basic questions about a theory. Violence and hatred and then they keep on attacking you because they don't want you to be right. Roh and I have outlined the other side of the debate, which the media has blocked. I have seen a pretty fair and balanced back and forth with some insults here and there. But the fact remains that there is still doubt among different groups of people. I don't want the media telling me what to believe. I research EVERYTHING!!!! Even if there is a slight 2% possibility of a different occurring, I actually look it up and try to understand what the other side is talking about.

"Did you really expect some utopian fantasy to rise from the ashes?" Thomas Zarek-- Battlestar Galactica.

#46
Unrequited Lust

Posted 11 September 2011 - 10:03 AM

He Who Would Swallow God

Members
559 posts

I could present you with 100% cast iron proof that global warming is happening, and you still wouldn't accept it - so there's little point in me bothering to post here anymore. You are clearly anti-science.

Yes, win the Al Gore way.

"There is no debate" and call the skpetics anti-science; too bad I'm majoring in chemistry and aspiring to be a MD with a GPA of 3.67. I also have adequete knowledge of these programming languages:

- HTML
- Visual Basic 5.0
- Turing
- Learning Java

But proponets like assume that I'm some anti-science in-bred, trailer residing, home-schooled, who believes the earth is in the center of the solar system, the earth is flat, science is the devil, world is going to end May 22nd, creationalist.

If you could post what program you use for your graphics, I could show you the wrongs of your flawed logic.

There is no controversy regarding whether or not anthropogenic climate change is unequivocally happening. It's happening.

From Wikipedia: "This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries and is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing."

http://www.sciencema.../5702/1686.full
http://nationalacade...pi/06072005.pdf

Note A: "The 2001 joint statement was signed by the national academies of science of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada,the Caribbean, the People's Republic of China, France,Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, and the UK.^[175] The 2005 statement addedJapan, Russia, and the U.S. The 2007 statement addedMexico and South Africa. The Network of African Science Academies, and the Polish Academy of Sciences have issued separate statements. Professional scientific societies include American Astronomical Society, American Chemical Society,American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics,American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society,American Quaternary Association, Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, European Academy of Sciences and Arts, European Geosciences Union, European Science Foundation, Geological Society of America, Geological Society of Australia, Geological Society of London-Stratigraphy Commission, InterAcademy Council, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, International Union for Quaternary Research, National Association of Geoscience Teachers,National Research Council (US), Royal Meteorological Society, and World Meteorological Organization."

All scientific dissent comes from funding from oil and coal companies. There's about as much debate about global warming as there is about evolution.

We'll have to deal with it when the problem becomes bad. We'll wait until then because people are stupid and generally won't do anything until the last minute if history is any indication. People will needlessly die and their contemporaries will look back and think, "What were they thinking?" What were they thinking indeed?

Cool, as an industry funded scientist, I mislead the public. I will start with a fourm that has less than 10000 views daily instead of the more popular fourms with 100k+views. The best start to mislead......

Lets not forget the pro side gets more funding per CAPTIA then skeptics even if we use the absurd 97% consensus.

The 97% consesus.....

Only 3k out of 10k answered. That equals a 70% unknown. That wasn't included.

If somehow I am wrong... Why does the consensus DOESN'T PRACTICE WHAT IT PREACHES.

How many of these scientists that own a house have solar panels and do the lifestyle changes they recommend. Why don't they move in 'green housing'.

I'm sorry I don't believe words of hypocrites.

I don't think you're intentionally misleading anyone, I just think you're misinformed because there's enough funding on the opposing side to make it appear that there's doubt among the scientific community. Sort of like the Discovery Institute does with "Teach the Controversy" when really there is no controversy. It's easier to spot the reason for their dissent because they unashamedly announce that evolution violates a literal reading of Genesis. The source of global warming denialists are more crafty. But like evolution there is no doubt. The above links, showing a universal consensus, is proof of that.

I used to think that global warming was a sham not too long ago. But like Penn Jillette, I put aside the political bias (I am a Cato Institute enthusiast) and realized that global warming is certainly happening and it's the green house effect caused by our anthropogenic CO2 that's doing it.

It is stupid of Al Gore to flaunt his fossil fuel burning mansion, but it's not like they're all hypocrites. Even if they are it doesn't change anything. The science is clear.

http://www.yoluca.com/web/

#47
Roh234

Posted 11 September 2011 - 10:37 PM

Capitalism is the only way to survive.

Members
1,017 posts

Location11 Dimentional Hyperspace

I could present you with 100% cast iron proof that global warming is happening, and you still wouldn't accept it - so there's little point in me bothering to post here anymore. You are clearly anti-science.


 
Yes, win the Al Gore way.
 
"There is no debate" and call the skpetics anti-science; too bad I'm majoring in chemistry and aspiring to be a MD with a GPA of 3.67. I also have adequete knowledge of these programming languages:
 
- HTML
- Visual Basic 5.0
- Turing
- Learning Java
 
But proponets like assume that I'm some anti-science in-bred, trailer residing, home-schooled, who believes the earth is in the center of the solar system, the earth is flat, science is the devil, world is going to end May 22nd, creationalist.
 
If you could post what program you use for your graphics, I could show you the wrongs of your flawed logic.


There is no controversy regarding whether or not anthropogenic climate change is unequivocally happening. It's happening.
 
From Wikipedia: "This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries and is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing."
 
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://www.sciencema...5702/1686.full" rel="nofollow external" title="External link">http://www.sciencema.../5702/1686.full</a>
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://nationalacade...i/06072005.pdf" rel="nofollow external" title="External link">http://nationalacade...005.pdf</a>
 
Note A: "The 2001 joint statement was signed by the national academies of science of <a class="bbc_url" href="http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Australia" rel="nofollow external" title="External link">Australia</a>, <a class="bbc_url" href="http://en.wikipedia....g/wiki/Belgium" rel="nofollow external" title="External link">Belgium</a>, <a class="bbc_url" href="http://en.wikipedia....rg/wiki/Brazil" rel="nofollow external" title="External link">Brazil</a>, <a class="bbc_url" href="http://en.wikipedia....rg/wiki/Canada" rel="nofollow external" title="External link">Canada</a>,<a class="bbc_url" href="http://en.wikipedia..../The_Caribbean" rel="nofollow external" title="External link">the Caribbean</a>, the <a class="bbc_url" href="http://en.wikipedia....ublic_of_China" rel="nofollow external" title="External link">People's Republic of China</a>, <a class="bbc_url" href="http://en.wikipedia....rg/wiki/France" rel="nofollow external" title="External link">France</a>,<a class="bbc_url" href="http://en.wikipedia....g/wiki/Germany" rel="nofollow external" title="External link">Germany</a>, <a class="bbc_url" href="http://en.wikipedia....org/wiki/India" rel="nofollow external" title="External link">India</a>, <a class="bbc_url" href="http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Indonesia" rel="nofollow external" title="External link">Indonesia</a>, <a class="bbc_url" href="http://en.wikipedia....g/wiki/Ireland" rel="nofollow external" title="External link">Ireland</a>, <a class="bbc_url" href="http://en.wikipedia....org/wiki/Italy" rel="nofollow external" title="External link">Italy</a>, <a class="bbc_url" href="http://en.wikipedia..../wiki/Malaysia" rel="nofollow external" title="External link">Malaysia</a>, <a class="bbc_url" href="http://en.wikipedia....ki/New_Zealand" rel="nofollow external" title="External link">New Zealand</a>, <a class="bbc_url" href="http://en.wikipedia....rg/wiki/Sweden" rel="nofollow external" title="External link">Sweden</a>, and the <a class="bbc_url" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK" rel="nofollow external" title="External link">UK</a>.<a class="bbc_url" href="http://en.wikipedia....#cite_note-174" rel="nofollow external" title="External link">[175]</a> The 2005 statement added<a class="bbc_url" href="http://en.wikipedia....org/wiki/Japan" rel="nofollow external" title="External link">Japan</a>, <a class="bbc_url" href="http://en.wikipedia....rg/wiki/Russia" rel="nofollow external" title="External link">Russia</a>, and the <a class="bbc_url" href="http://en.wikipedia.....org/wiki/U.S." rel="nofollow external" title="External link">U.S.</a> The 2007 statement added<a class="bbc_url" href="http://en.wikipedia....rg/wiki/Mexico" rel="nofollow external" title="External link">Mexico</a> and <a class="bbc_url" href="http://en.wikipedia....i/South_Africa" rel="nofollow external" title="External link">South Africa</a>. The <a class="bbc_url" href="http://en.wikipedia....ence_Academies" rel="nofollow external" title="External link">Network of African Science Academies</a>, and the <a class="bbc_url" href="http://en.wikipedia....my_of_Sciences" rel="nofollow external" title="External link">Polish Academy of Sciences</a> have issued separate statements. Professional scientific societies include <a class="bbc_url" href="http://en.wikipedia....omical_Society" rel="nofollow external" title="External link">American Astronomical Society</a>, <a class="bbc_url" href="http://en.wikipedia....emical_Society" rel="nofollow external" title="External link">American Chemical Society</a>,<a class="bbc_url" href="http://en.wikipedia....physical_Union" rel="nofollow external" title="External link">American Geophysical Union</a>, <a class="bbc_url" href="http://en.wikipedia....ute_of_Physics" rel="nofollow external" title="External link">American Institute of Physics</a>,<a class="bbc_url" href="http://en.wikipedia....ogical_Society" rel="nofollow external" title="External link">American Meteorological Society</a>, <a class="bbc_url" href="http://en.wikipedia....ysical_Society" rel="nofollow external" title="External link">American Physical Society</a>,<a class="bbc_url" href="http://en.wikipedia....ry_Association" rel="nofollow external" title="External link">American Quaternary Association</a>, <a class="bbc_url" href="http://en.wikipedia....raphic_Society" rel="nofollow external" title="External link">Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society</a>, <a class="bbc_url" href="http://en.wikipedia....heric_Sciences" rel="nofollow external" title="External link">Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences</a>, <a class="bbc_url" href="http://en.wikipedia....raphic_Society" rel="nofollow external" title="External link">Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society</a>, <a class="bbc_url" href="http://en.wikipedia....ences_and_Arts" rel="nofollow external" title="External link">European Academy of Sciences and Arts</a>, <a class="bbc_url" href="http://en.wikipedia....sciences_Union" rel="nofollow external" title="External link">European Geosciences Union</a>, <a class="bbc_url" href="http://en.wikipedia....nce_Foundation" rel="nofollow external" title="External link">European Science Foundation</a>, <a class="bbc_url" href="http://en.wikipedia....ety_of_America" rel="nofollow external" title="External link">Geological Society of America</a>, <a class="bbc_url" href="http://en.wikipedia....y_of_Australia" rel="nofollow external" title="External link">Geological Society of Australia</a>, <a class="bbc_url" href="http://en.wikipedia....iety_of_London" rel="nofollow external" title="External link">Geological Society of London</a>-Stratigraphy Commission, <a class="bbc_url" href="http://en.wikipedia....cademy_Council" rel="nofollow external" title="External link">InterAcademy Council</a>, <a class="bbc_url" href="http://en.wikipedia....and_Geophysics" rel="nofollow external" title="External link">International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics</a>, <a class="bbc_url" href="http://en.wikipedia....rnary_Research" rel="nofollow external" title="External link">International Union for Quaternary Research</a>, <a class="bbc_url" href="http://www.nagt.org/index.html" rel="nofollow external" title="External link">National Association of Geoscience Teachers</a>,<a class="bbc_url" href="http://en.wikipedia....search_Council" rel="nofollow external" title="External link">National Research Council (US)</a>, <a class="bbc_url" href="http://en.wikipedia....ogical_Society" rel="nofollow external" title="External link">Royal Meteorological Society</a>, and <a class="bbc_url" href="http://en.wikipedia....l_Organization" rel="nofollow external" title="External link">World Meteorological Organization</a>."
 
All scientific dissent comes from funding from oil and coal companies. There's about as much debate about global warming as there is about evolution.
 
We'll have to deal with it when the problem becomes bad. We'll wait until then because people are stupid and generally won't do anything until the last minute if history is any indication. People will needlessly die and their contemporaries will look back and think, "What were they thinking?" What were they thinking indeed?


 
Cool, as an industry funded scientist, I mislead the public. I will start with a fourm that has less than 10000 views daily instead of the more popular fourms with 100k+views. The best start to mislead......
 
Lets not forget the pro side gets more funding per CAPTIA then skeptics even if we use the absurd 97% consensus.
 
The 97% consesus.....
 
Only 3k out of 10k answered. That equals a 70% unknown. That wasn't included.
 
If somehow I am wrong... Why does the consensus DOESN'T PRACTICE WHAT IT PREACHES.
 
How many of these scientists that own a house have solar panels and do the lifestyle changes they recommend. Why don't they move in 'green housing'.
 
I'm sorry I don't believe words of hypocrites.


I don't think you're intentionally misleading anyone, I just think you're misinformed because there's enough funding on the opposing side to make it appear that there's doubt among the scientific community. Sort of like the Discovery Institute does with "Teach the Controversy" when really there is no controversy. It's easier to spot the reason for their dissent because they unashamedly announce that evolution violates a literal reading of Genesis. The source of global warming denialists are more crafty. But like evolution there is no doubt. The above links, showing a universal consensus, is proof of that.
 
I used to think that global warming was a sham not too long ago. But like Penn Jillette, I put aside the political bias (I am a Cato Institute enthusiast) and realized that global warming is certainly happening and it's the green house effect caused by our anthropogenic CO2 that's doing it.
 
It is stupid of Al Gore to flaunt his fossil fuel burning mansion, but it's not like they're all hypocrites. Even if they are it doesn't change anything. The science is clear.

'Denailists'
 
I should just call you an Alarmist or a fraudist but I won't. I like to remind you the principle of mutual respect.
 
Most people quote the Doran study about the consensus. There may be a majority but not a consensus.
 
This is not honesty. This blogger shows the bias and illegmitacy of the Doran study.
 
<div>

</div>
<div>
This number will prove a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it. The number stems from a 2008 master’s thesis by student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at the University of Illinois, under the guidance of Peter Doran, an associate professor of Earth and environmental sciences. The two researchers obtained their results by conducting a survey of 10,257 Earth scientists. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers — in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.
The two researchers started by altogether excluding from their survey the thousands of scientists most likely to think that the Sun, or planetary movements, might have something to do with climate on Earth — out were the solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, astronomers and meteorologists. That left the 10,257 scientists in such disciplines as geology, geography, oceanography, engineering, paleontology and geochemistry who were somehow deemed more worthy of being included in the consensus. The two researchers also decided scientific accomplishment should not be a factor in who could answer — those surveyed were determined by their place of employment (an academic or a governmental institution). Neither was academic qualification a factor — about 1,000 of those surveyed did not have a PhD, some didn’t even have a master’s diploma.
To encourage a high participation among these remaining disciplines, the two researchers decided on a quickie survey that would take less than two minutes to complete, and would be done online, saving the respondents the hassle of mailing a reply. Nevertheless, most didn’t consider the quickie survey worthy of response — just 3,146, or 30.7%, answered the two key questions on the survey:
1 When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? 
2 Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
The questions posed to the Earth scientists were actually non-questions. From my discussions with literally hundreds of skeptical scientists over the past few years, I know of none who claims the planet hasn’t warmed since the 1700s, and almost none who think humans haven’t contributed in some way to the recent warming — quite apart from carbon dioxide emissions, few would doubt that the creation of cities and the clearing of forests for agricultural lands have affected the climate. When pressed for a figure, global warming skeptics might say humans are responsible for 10% or 15% of the warming; some skeptics place the upper bound of man’s contribution at 35%. The skeptics only deny that humans played a dominant role in Earth’s warming.
Surprisingly, just 90% of the Earth scientists who responded to the first question believed that temperatures had risen — I would have expected a figure closer to 100%, since Earth was in the Little Ice Age in the centuries immediately preceding 1800. But perhaps some of the responders interpreted the question to include the past 1,000 years, when Earth was in the Medieval Warm Period, generally thought to be warmer than today.
As for the second question, 82% of the Earth scientists replied that human activity had significantly contributed to the warming. Here the vagueness of the question comes into play. Since skeptics believe human activity has been a contributing factor, their answer would have turned on whether they consider a increase of 10% or 15% or 35% to be a significant contributing factor. Some would, some wouldn’t.
In any case, the two researchers must have feared that an 82% figure would fall short of a convincing consensus — almost one in five wasn’t blaming humans for global warming — so they looked for a subset that would yield a higher percentage. They found it — almost — by excluding all the Earth scientists whose recently published peer-reviewed research wasn’t mostly in the field of climate change. This subset reduced the number of remaining scientists from over 3,000 to under 300. But the percentage that now resulted still fell short of the researchers’ ideal, because the subset included such disciplines as meteorology, which Doran considers ill-informed on the subject. “Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon,” he explained, in justifying why he decided to exclude them, among others. The researchers thus decided to tout responses by those Earth scientists who not only published mainly on climate but also identified themselves as climate scientists.
“They’re the ones who study and publish on climate science,” Doran explained. “So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you’re likely to believe in global warming and humankind’s contribution to it.”
Once all these cuts were made, 75 out of 77 scientists of unknown qualifications were left endorsing the global warming orthodoxy. The two researchers, the master’s student and her prof, were then satisfied with <a href="http://probeinternat...nal1.pdf">the findings of her master’s thesis</a>.

Think the blog writer decided to change the meaning of the study?
 
Here is an offical link to the study: <a href="http://tigger.uic.ed...nal.pdf</a>
 
Words directly from the Doran study.
<div>

</div>
<div>
An invitation to participate in the survey
was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists.
The database was built from 
 
 
Keane and
Martinez 
 
 
 
[2007], which lists all geosciences
faculty at reporting academic institutions,
along with researchers at state
geologic surveys associated with local
universities, and researchers at U.S. federal
research facilities (e.g., U.S. Geological
Survey, NASA, and NOAA (U.S.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration) facilities; U.S. Department
of Energy national laboratories; and
so forth). To maximize the response rate,
the survey was designed to take less than
2 minutes to complete, and it was administered
by a professional online survey
site (http://
www
.questionpro
.com)
that
allowed one-time
participation by those
who received the invitation.
This brief report addresses the two primary
questions of the survey, which contained
up to nine questions (the full study
is given by 
 
 
Kendall Zimmerman [2008]):
1. When compared with pre-1800s
levels,
do you think that mean global temperatures
have generally risen, fallen, or
remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant
contributing factor in changing
mean global temperatures?
With 3146 individuals completing the survey,
the participant response rate for the
survey was 30.7%. This is a typical response
rate for Web-based
surveys [
 
 
Cook et al.,
2000; 
 
 
Kaplowitz et al., 2004]. Of our survey
participants, 90% were from U.S. institutions
and 6% were from Canadian institutions;
the remaining 4% were from institutions
in 21 other nations. More than 90%
of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had
master’s degrees. With survey participants
asked to select a single category, the most
common areas of expertise reported were
geochemistry (15.5%), geophysics (12%),
and oceanography (10.5%). General geology,
hydrology/hydrogeology, and paleontology
each accounted for 5–7% of the
total respondents. Approximately 5% of
the respondents were climate scientists,
and 8.5% of the respondents indicated that
more than 50% of their peer-reviewed
publications
in the past 5 years have been on the
subject of climate change. While respondents’
names are kept private, the authors
noted that the survey included participants
with well-documented
dissenting opinions
on global warming theory.

79/10,257
 
or there is a 97% consensus in 0.77% of the scientific community.
 
To make things ore realistic there is 82% consensus in 30% of the respondents.
 
I am not politically biased when dealing with science. I had AGW skepticism before I even entered the world of politics. I haven't based my skepticism on skeptic documentaries, blogs, scientific reports and even contact with them. Skepticism, for me, has started with inconsitiencies in grade school, and the IPCC reports when I went to highschool. 'The inconvient truth' was the final nail in the coffin.
 
Its not just Al Gore. Do you know that UN delegates get? They get a lavish salary, diplomatic immunity. These benifits go the scientists of the IPCC also. Instead of taking the 'green hotels', hybrids/electric cars for transport, and reduce flying they continue their lavish lifestlye and tell us to fly less, buy 'green housing', and an electric car. I highly doubt even 50% is living 'green'.
 
 
</div>
</div>

#48
Roh234

Posted 11 September 2011 - 10:37 PM

Capitalism is the only way to survive.

Members
1,017 posts

Location11 Dimentional Hyperspace

^ Woa! Glitch!

#49
Innsertnamehere

Posted 12 September 2011 - 01:38 AM

Member

Members
121 posts

In response to wjfox's post: </thread>

#50
Unrequited Lust

Posted 12 September 2011 - 07:35 AM

He Who Would Swallow God

Members
559 posts

Big ol' glitch, but I can't help but feel you're using strawmans. I don't care what policy makers do with their damn house or how they travel. Yeah, they're hypocrites. Yeah, they're not actually the scientists who've discovered this. Yeah, therefore it's a red herring and has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether or not global warming is real.

I have no idea what study you're talking about, but I sure as hell didn't mention it. All I did was point out that there is a scientific consensus about the issue and no debate or objections within the scientific community. This is a fact. If you want to believe that entire scientific community is in one great big conspiracy (keep in mind that it's composed of dozens upon dozens of wholly independent and separate research centers) or the decades of thousands upon thousands of peer reviewed articles are somehow wrong, then go ahead. You can probably convince yourself global warming isn't true if you accept one or both of those explanations about why the entire scientific community is lying and/or wrong.

I can't actually debate the science because I don't know enough about it (unlike evolution, which I know pretty damn well to know the objections to it are full of shit). But I should read RationalWiki and get the jist of it. Speaking of which, why don't we both read up on it: http://rationalwiki..../Global_warming

http://www.yoluca.com/web/

#51
Prolite

Posted 12 September 2011 - 07:39 PM

Member

Members
609 posts

To be honest, I don't care who or what caused global warming. Placing blame doesn't solve the damn problem. I think politicians should just call it a truce on this one and let the scientific community and entrepreneurs come up with a clever solution, and let the government partially fund it. The Earth is clearly warming up. The amount of rain we're getting in NY this year is insane. To deny the Earth is heating up is just stupidity. I mine as well argue with a 1st grader, but hear me this: cutting regulations on environmental issues and de-funding the EPA is a crash course to human extinction, in the fast-mode.

I'm a business man, that's all you need to know about me.

#52
Roh234

Posted 12 September 2011 - 08:14 PM

Capitalism is the only way to survive.

Members
1,017 posts

Location11 Dimentional Hyperspace

Big ol' glitch, but I can't help but feel you're using strawmans. I don't care what policy makers do with their damn house or how they travel. Yeah, they're hypocrites. Yeah, they're not actually the scientists who've discovered this. Yeah, therefore it's a red herring and has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether or not global warming is real.

I have no idea what study you're talking about, but I sure as hell didn't mention it. All I did was point out that there is a scientific consensus about the issue and no debate or objections within the scientific community. This is a fact. If you want to believe that entire scientific community is in one great big conspiracy (keep in mind that it's composed of dozens upon dozens of wholly independent and separate research centers) or the decades of thousands upon thousands of peer reviewed articles are somehow wrong, then go ahead. You can probably convince yourself global warming isn't true if you accept one or both of those explanations about why the entire scientific community is lying and/or wrong.

I can't actually debate the science because I don't know enough about it (unlike evolution, which I know pretty damn well to know the objections to it are full of shit). But I should read RationalWiki and get the jist of it. Speaking of which, why don't we both read up on it: http://rationalwiki..../Global_warming

Hardly balanced or rational..... even the wikipeadia article isn't as biased. Suddenly Greenpeace, George Soros and environmentalists are 'good supporters'. It doesn't matter what person supports a side. A debate is about facts not 'poisoning the wells'.

Poisoning The Wells:
discrediting the sources used by your opponent. This is a variation of Ad Hominem.

Suddenly just because there is finding by Exxon on some skepticism dosen't mean all of them are funded by the energy industry.

I was talking about the Doran study which is the EXACT study that your side uses for 'the magical 97%' consensus. Just saying for the vocal group there is a bigger non-vocal community. Lets not forget the ones that denied that man plays the role in global warming 'lost their legimacy'.

I am not using a strawman. I'm talking about SCIENTISTS not beaucrats. They do not practice what they preach.

#53
Unrequited Lust

Posted 14 September 2011 - 03:34 AM

He Who Would Swallow God

Members
559 posts

lol I don't care what my "side" uses. What I said was, quoting Wikipedia: "This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries and is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing." Which is a fact. If you want to believe that all of them are either lying or wrong, go ahead. I used to think that there was debate in the scientific community about it only a few weeks ago. It wasn't until I actually looked at the facts that I realized there literally is no debate whatsoever. A few fringe scientists and dissenters, usually backed by corporate interests, similar to the evolution controversy. And RationalWiki admittedly inputs a lot of humor in their articles and are hostile toward anti-science positions like intelligent design and global warming denialism. Wikipedia does essentially the same thing but they're polite about it. Neither wiki takes anti-science positions seriously.

http://www.yoluca.com/web/

#54
Roh234

Posted 14 September 2011 - 09:59 PM

Capitalism is the only way to survive.

Members
1,017 posts

Location11 Dimentional Hyperspace

lol I don't care what my "side" uses. What I said was, quoting Wikipedia: "This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries and is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing." Which is a fact. If you want to believe that all of them are either lying or wrong, go ahead. I used to think that there was debate in the scientific community about it only a few weeks ago. It wasn't until I actually looked at the facts that I realized there literally is no debate whatsoever. A few fringe scientists and dissenters, usually backed by corporate interests, similar to the evolution controversy.

And RationalWiki admittedly inputs a lot of humor in their articles and are hostile toward anti-science positions like intelligent design and global warming denialism. Wikipedia does essentially the same thing but they're polite about it. Neither wiki takes anti-science positions seriously.

Just by saying there is a 'consensus or funded by energy companies doesn't make my point any less vaild'.

The Oil companies are in support of Climate Change.

http://www.marketwat...e-for-co2-curbs

Is it some right wing blog?????

http://www.exxonmobi...091001_rwt.aspx

Principles of Policymaking
Climate change policy is one example where such an approach is needed.
As Congress debates important legislation for addressing the risks of climate change, we must remember the fundamental realities governing the energy system, the need for and pace of technological change, and the role of stable policies to help encourage innovation, investment, and collaboration.
When it comes to managing the risks of climate change, in my view, the most effective policy approaches must be guided by several key principles.
First, a successful carbon-reduction policy needs to establish a uniform and predictable cost for emissions for use in all economic decisions. This will ensure government is not put in the position of arbitrarily picking winners and losers.
Second, the best way to ensure that carbon costs are minimized is to allow for markets to select the best methods to reduce emissions through new investments and technology.
Third, we should seek to minimize administrative complexity. Our shared goal is to reduce emissions at the lowest cost to society.
To do that we must keep administrative costs low so that market participants can invest in technologies that actually reduce emissions — not become bogged down in bureaucratic demands or incur the costs of financially burdensome regulatory systems.
Fourth, we should seek to maximize cost transparency. By providing this transparency, companies and consumers can assess costs for themselves within the context of different public policy options, as well as assess those costs in light of their own needs and resources, allowing them to make the best decisions possible.
Fifth, our national policy approach should encourage global participation. Energy is critical to progress and economic opportunity in both developed and developing countries. Thus, for long-term emissions reductions to succeed, every nation must be involved. Developed nations cannot do it alone. Developing nations cannot be expected to forgo economic growth and advancement. Thus, any carbon-reduction policy must take these realities into account and encourage every nation to participate in the most appropriate way to meet our shared goals for reducing emissions globally.
And of course, there will need to be periodic reviews and assessments to ensure that we can adapt to any changes in climate science that might emerge or to respond to any adverse impact these policies might be having on economic performance.

#55
jjf3

Posted 19 September 2011 - 04:51 PM

Not a Member of the Tea Party! Just a Concerned Conservative

Members
2,046 posts

LocationHolmdel NJ/Tampa Fl

Great points ROH nobody on here seems to recall that BIG OIL companies ARE the ones pushing for this "Change"

GE, BP, Sunoco, Shell are reportedly some of the nations biggest green companies. Green Companies and OIL companies are the same thing!!!!!!

Who has the money to fund all of these green projects? Big Oil! And maybe a few tech companies. Who is keeping these green projects from being mass produced? Big Oil!

Truth is, if we find a way to convert the whole world into electric cars global warming alarmists will figure out some way that this affects the environment badly, then we'll move onto hydrogen and the cycle will continue.

I'm all for advancements in MPG on cars, electric cars, and solar panels, but even the majority of people here claim that humans already have done irreversible damage to the environment. With that type of contradictory thinking what's the point of arguing if its happening or not? If we indeed disrupted our climate so much in the past 100 years whereas the damage is irreversible how could we change it back in 50? Stopping the problem is not fixing the problem, and most of the ideas to fix the problem are more crazy than our little conspiracy theory! So that is why I know Global Warming is a tax scam!!!!!! And the left finally figured out a way to make a profit off of their hippie ancestral ideals!

I guess all these scientists are anti-science and religious flat-earthers too huh?

I'll just leave this here:http://www.oism.org/...ct/s33p1845.htm

"Did you really expect some utopian fantasy to rise from the ashes?" Thomas Zarek-- Battlestar Galactica.

#56
Zachemc2

Posted 20 September 2011 - 11:12 AM

Member

Members
507 posts

Truth is, if we find a way to convert the whole world into electric cars global warming alarmists will figure out some way that this affects the environment badly, then we'll move onto hydrogen and the cycle will continue.

You said what I was just about to post.

#57
Unrequited Lust

Posted 20 September 2011 - 10:52 PM

He Who Would Swallow God

Members
559 posts

Truth is, if we find a way to convert the whole world into electric cars global warming alarmists will figure out some way that this affects the environment badly, then we'll move onto hydrogen and the cycle will continue.
You said what I was just about to post.

You two need to stop saying things that have no basis in reality whatsoever. People oppose using oil for cars because it releases greenhouse gases. Those greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere. When sunlight comes in and reflects back out, it's trapped by the greenhouse gases, like a greenhouse. This is the exact reason why temperatures on Mercury are a few hundred degrees.

Electric cars wouldn't release greenhouse gases. The factories producing the electricity would, but it would be much less than all the oil using cars today. This would lessen the severity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Stop saying "alarmists." I'll repeat this again: "Global warming is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries and is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing whatsoever." Quit this anti-science bullshit. You're as bad as creationists.

http://www.yoluca.com/web/

#58
Zachemc2

Posted 20 September 2011 - 10:56 PM

Member

Members
507 posts

Science can be wrong, as no one is always right. The flat Earth theory was an example.

#59
Unrequited Lust

Posted 20 September 2011 - 10:59 PM

He Who Would Swallow God

Members
559 posts

lol I don't care what my "side" uses. What I said was, quoting Wikipedia: "This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries and is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing." Which is a fact. If you want to believe that all of them are either lying or wrong, go ahead. I used to think that there was debate in the scientific community about it only a few weeks ago. It wasn't until I actually looked at the facts that I realized there literally is no debate whatsoever. A few fringe scientists and dissenters, usually backed by corporate interests, similar to the evolution controversy.

And RationalWiki admittedly inputs a lot of humor in their articles and are hostile toward anti-science positions like intelligent design and global warming denialism. Wikipedia does essentially the same thing but they're polite about it. Neither wiki takes anti-science positions seriously.

Just by saying there is a 'consensus or funded by energy companies doesn't make my point any less vaild'.

The Oil companies are in support of Climate Change.

http://www.marketwat...e-for-co2-curbs

Is it some right wing blog?????

http://www.exxonmobi...091001_rwt.aspx

Principles of Policymaking
Climate change policy is one example where such an approach is needed.
As Congress debates important legislation for addressing the risks of climate change, we must remember the fundamental realities governing the energy system, the need for and pace of technological change, and the role of stable policies to help encourage innovation, investment, and collaboration.
When it comes to managing the risks of climate change, in my view, the most effective policy approaches must be guided by several key principles.
First, a successful carbon-reduction policy needs to establish a uniform and predictable cost for emissions for use in all economic decisions. This will ensure government is not put in the position of arbitrarily picking winners and losers.
Second, the best way to ensure that carbon costs are minimized is to allow for markets to select the best methods to reduce emissions through new investments and technology.
Third, we should seek to minimize administrative complexity. Our shared goal is to reduce emissions at the lowest cost to society.
To do that we must keep administrative costs low so that market participants can invest in technologies that actually reduce emissions — not become bogged down in bureaucratic demands or incur the costs of financially burdensome regulatory systems.
Fourth, we should seek to maximize cost transparency. By providing this transparency, companies and consumers can assess costs for themselves within the context of different public policy options, as well as assess those costs in light of their own needs and resources, allowing them to make the best decisions possible.
Fifth, our national policy approach should encourage global participation. Energy is critical to progress and economic opportunity in both developed and developing countries. Thus, for long-term emissions reductions to succeed, every nation must be involved. Developed nations cannot do it alone. Developing nations cannot be expected to forgo economic growth and advancement. Thus, any carbon-reduction policy must take these realities into account and encourage every nation to participate in the most appropriate way to meet our shared goals for reducing emissions globally.
And of course, there will need to be periodic reviews and assessments to ensure that we can adapt to any changes in climate science that might emerge or to respond to any adverse impact these policies might be having on economic performance.

Good for the nobility of some oil companies.

Even your example is shitty. Mother Jones says that 40 Exxon Mobile-funded organization have "either have sought to undermine mainstream scientific findings on global climate change or have maintained affiliations with a small group of "skeptic" scientists who continue to do so."

http://motherjones.c.../05/some-it-hot

You can find similar actions by BP and Koch Industries.

I really like debating creationism more. Their position doesn't threaten to kill millions of people so their pseudoscientific, logically fallacious, and not even wrong claims can be seen in a funny light. Not so with this.

http://en.wikipedia...._climate_change

http://www.yoluca.com/web/

#60
Unrequited Lust

Posted 20 September 2011 - 11:01 PM

He Who Would Swallow God

Members
559 posts

Science can be wrong, as no one is always right. The flat Earth theory was an example.

The last time people believed the Earth was flat was a few thousand years ago, incidentally a few thousand years before the invention of science.

Dumbass. You're talking about innumerable people infinitely more intelligent than you spanning across decades of numerous peer review research. Stop being so insolent.

http://www.yoluca.com/web/