Fat hurts wrote:
The scientific community overwhelmingly accepts anthropogenic global warming.
Cardinals in the Vatican overwhelmingly accepts the existence of God.
Fat hurts wrote:
The scientific community overwhelmingly accepts anthropogenic global warming.
Cardinals in the Vatican overwhelmingly accepts the existence of God.
I absolutely have disdain for you. The liberal elite at least are still interested in real facts and science rather than made up nonsense. No one cares how hard you work nor does it entitle you to anything. I work hard to. Whoopty doo. You are an adult you are supposed to work hard. It doesn't make you special.
Facts hurt wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:The scientific community overwhelmingly accepts anthropogenic global warming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_changeGiven that fact, there are three possibilities:
1) The scientific community is made up of stupid people.
2) The scientific community is engaged in a global conspiracy.
3) The scientific community is made up of smart people who know how to do their jobs and are therefore very likely to be correct.
Those who think they know better than the scientists are picking #1. For example, you might hear someone say something to the effect of "Don't you know that some of the thermometers are in urban areas? It's hotter there."
Those who are paranoid are picking #2. For example, on talk radio I often hear, "The global warming crowd is out to destroy capitalism. It's all a hoax!"
Those who are well grounded in reality choose #3.
1. The scientific community has been known to lie, especially when it comes to toeing the line on global warming hysteria.
2. Consensus is not science- except when scientists allow politics to dictate their research.
3. Scientists who cherry pick and report misleading data are no longer worthy of being called scientists- they have become scam artists.
So you are picking #2. You believe in a global scientific conspiracy.
All climate scientists, all around the globe, from every political persuasion, from every conceivable background, are all in on it. They are all cherry-picking. They are all failing to do their duty as scientists.
Yea, the global scientific conspiracy is totally believable.
dying green blob wrote:
"William Happer, professor emeritus of physics at Princeton University and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, played his cards close to the vest for years in order survive in a hostile scientific climate.
William Happer, who has no particular expertise in climate science has provided "expert testimony" in congressional hearings on that topic more times than the director of NASA GISS and is on the advisory board of several pro fossil fuel think tanks. I don't know whether it's more surreal that he claims to have "played his cards close to the vest" or that he bitches about a politicized environment having suppressed his views.
I'm not a big fan of Greenpeace tactics, but there's this:
In December 2015 Happer was targeted in a sting operation by the environmental activist group Greenpeace; posing as consultants for a Middle Eastern oil and gas company, they asked Happer to write a report touting the benefits of rising carbon emissions. Concerned that the report might not be trusted if it was known that it was commissioned by an oil company, Happer discussed ways to obscure the funding. Happer asked that the fee be donated to the climate-change skeptic organization CO2 Coalition, who suggested he reach out to the Donors Trust, in order to keep the source of funds secret; hiding funding in this way is lawful under US law. Happer acknowledged that his report would probably not pass peer-review with a scientific journal.
keep religion out of science wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:The scientific community overwhelmingly accepts anthropogenic global warming.
Cardinals in the Vatican overwhelmingly accepts the existence of God.
I assume that you are joking - just pointing out how incredibly stupid the "science is religion" crowd is.
Good job!
Citizen Runner wrote:
dying green blob wrote:"William Happer, professor emeritus of physics at Princeton University and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, played his cards close to the vest for years in order survive in a hostile scientific climate.
William Happer, who has no particular expertise in climate science has provided "expert testimony" in congressional hearings on that topic more times than the director of NASA GISS and is on the advisory board of several pro fossil fuel think tanks. I don't know whether it's more surreal that he claims to have "played his cards close to the vest" or that he bitches about a politicized environment having suppressed his views.
I'm not a big fan of Greenpeace tactics, but there's this:
In December 2015 Happer was targeted in a sting operation by the environmental activist group Greenpeace; posing as consultants for a Middle Eastern oil and gas company, they asked Happer to write a report touting the benefits of rising carbon emissions. Concerned that the report might not be trusted if it was known that it was commissioned by an oil company, Happer discussed ways to obscure the funding. Happer asked that the fee be donated to the climate-change skeptic organization CO2 Coalition, who suggested he reach out to the Donors Trust, in order to keep the source of funds secret; hiding funding in this way is lawful under US law. Happer acknowledged that his report would probably not pass peer-review with a scientific journal.
Dang, there you go inserting information into an ignoramus circle jerk again.
You would really screw up the vibes of this place if anyone actually pulled their head out of their ass for a moment and paid attention. "Fortunately" there is little reason to fear such an event.
Gvgv wrote:
There is not a near complete acceptance. Even if there was, truth is not a democracy. Truth doesn't depend on how many people like it or not. Anyone using consensus as an argument does not understand science or is dishonest.
There are a few groups of scientists who are skeptics. They generally fall into a couple camps. 1) Current data models likely hold too many inaccuracies 2) climate change is natural 3) causes of climate change are unknown (similar to 1) and 4) climate change exists but will have few negative consequences.
Many of the scientists in these "skeptic" groups accept that climate change exists--their issues are with inaccuracies in the predictive models (because they deal with too many variables), or disagreements as to the root cause of climate change.
Another section of the climate change skeptics are guys like Happer who aren't climate specialists and just happen to work for fossil fuel companies and other special interests. Expert witnesses can make >$250/hour--if a fossil fuel company is paying you to talk, it pays to talk.
More people accepting XYZ as truth doesn't make it true, I grant you that, but as I do not have a PhD in geophysics (and I'd hesitantly assume you don't either) it is absolutely logical to defer to the experts in the field, who are almost fully in agreement that climate change exists.
Again, if you want to believe in a global scientific conspiracy to push a climate change agenda, go for it, but that places you squarely in the camp of those who claim the Rothschilds were behind 9/11, the moon landing was faked, and Obama's birth certificate was forged.
Trump comes to power. Global warming ends.
Flynt Flossy wrote:
Make America Great Again wrote:Economist endorsed Dems for four straight presidential elections since 2004. They cannot be unbiased.
The Economist is, if anything, right of center (certainly on economic policy). If a coin lands on heads four times in a row, is it necessarily biased?
Do they flip a coin to decide their endorsement? I don't think so.
And if they are "right of center," that shows you how screwed up UK is. After all, they have socialized medicine.
U R Not Smart wrote:
keep religion out of science wrote:Cardinals in the Vatican overwhelmingly accepts the existence of God.
I assume that you are joking - just pointing out how incredibly stupid the "science is religion" crowd is.
Good job!
His point is that people see what they want to see. Especially on topics with great social, political, and personal ramifications. The scientific consensus of global warming does not need to be caused by conspiracy or stupidity on the part of scientist, but is simply a result of their prior worldview and the economic environment that scientist operate under. Just as an atheist is not likely to rise to the rank of cardinal in the catholic church, the scientific community also coerces its own majority opinion on its members. Peer pressure always plays a role in people's opinions. No human institution has ever operated differently.
The global warming consensus opinion is dependent on projected models of climate change. In contrast, there need be no consensus among scientists to believe in the law of gravity, because the law of gravity is experimentally verifiable. The projections of global warming are not experimentally verifiable, so the only thing you can rely on is the consensus opinion of scientist. But you should not believe that consensus opinion with the same certainty that you believe in the law of gravity. It is not unreasonable to take into consideration the affects of peer pressure.
Tribute to Trump wrote:
Trump comes to power. Global warming ends.
When Trumps comes to power, funding for AGW research will be cut drastically. What will happen then?
Will the alarmists become even more hysterical in their forecasts?
Will we see more skeptical papers?
Will we see more papers on the POSITIVE benefits of global warming?
I think the answer to all three questions is yes.
Liberal elite wrote:
I absolutely have disdain for you. The liberal elite at least are still interested in real facts and science rather than made up nonsense. No one cares how hard you work nor does it entitle you to anything. I work hard to. Whoopty doo. You are an adult you are supposed to work hard. It doesn't make you special.
(The liberal elite at least are not the least bit interested in real facts and science but rather in made up nonsense).
there fixed it for you... YW
celery wrote:
U R Not Smart wrote:I assume that you are joking - just pointing out how incredibly stupid the "science is religion" crowd is.
Good job!
His point is that people see what they want to see. Especially on topics with great social, political, and personal ramifications. The scientific consensus of global warming does not need to be caused by conspiracy or stupidity on the part of scientist, but is simply a result of their prior worldview and the economic environment that scientist operate under. Just as an atheist is not likely to rise to the rank of cardinal in the catholic church, the scientific community also coerces its own majority opinion on its members. Peer pressure always plays a role in people's opinions. No human institution has ever operated differently.
The global warming consensus opinion is dependent on projected models of climate change. In contrast, there need be no consensus among scientists to believe in the law of gravity, because the law of gravity is experimentally verifiable. The projections of global warming are not experimentally verifiable, so the only thing you can rely on is the consensus opinion of scientist. But you should not believe that consensus opinion with the same certainty that you believe in the law of gravity. It is not unreasonable to take into consideration the affects of peer pressure.
Your post is FAR more reasonable than the post that it tries to defend.
As a side note (and not taking anything away from your post) - "effects" is the word you were looking for in your last sentence.
Two things - the scientific community is an agreement that the use of carbon fuels is causing our temperature to rise and it has accelerated in the past 25 years. This is fact. There is EXTREME disagreement on the actual effect this will have on the planet has since the rise has been very very subtle and if it will have an effect at all long term. Does even a 10% rise on the average surface across all the oceans really truly kill marine life or even put the whole state of Florida under water? I'm sorry but getting reliable power / transportation to me is more important than polar bears. Humans have killed saber tooth tigers, buffaloes and wooly mammoths so this isn't anything new.
The facebook post makes some decent points but the California energy market is not great by any stretch of the imagination in fact I would argue the PJM market (Pennsylvania, Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, Ohio) does a way better job of dispatching power with far worse weather than California.
Second point - no one has been able to explain the worst case scenario if we use all the carbon fuel we have. The scientific community does NOT think all the ice caps melt and we are flooded in fact we are far more likely to die in nuclear war. Does it mean the Philippines / New Orleans goes underwater by the time we have great grandkids? It would seem pretty unfair today to deny billions of people in India and Africa the ability to build a coal plant where they would be able to get heat / power than theoretically saving Florida in 150 years.
Also good source against climate change
Fat hurts wrote:
The scientific community overwhelmingly accepts anthropogenic global warming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_changeGiven that fact, there are three possibilities:
1) The scientific community is made up of stupid people.
2) The scientific community is engaged in a global conspiracy.
3) The scientific community is made up of smart people who know how to do their jobs and are therefore very likely to be correct.
Those who think they know better than the scientists are picking #1. For example, you might hear someone say something to the effect of "Don't you know that some of the thermometers are in urban areas? It's hotter there."
Those who are paranoid are picking #2. For example, on talk radio I often hear, "The global warming crowd is out to destroy capitalism. It's all a hoax!"
Those who are well grounded in reality choose #3.
Well said.
Except in a way, and this is what the left is hesitant to admit, is that widespread belief in climate change would completely uproot capitalism. Restricting emissions can only be done via massive government intervention in the economy, which conservatives always fight. I think that conservatives are uncomfortable that their beliefs aren't in line with reality, that more government intervention is needed to preserve a decent chance for organized human life to survive, so they have no choice but to deny reality.
Facts hurt wrote:
1. The scientific community has been known to lie, especially when it comes to toeing the line on global warming hysteria.
2. Consensus is not science- except when scientists allow politics to dictate their research.
3. Scientists who cherry pick and report misleading data are no longer worthy of being called scientists- they have become scam artists.
1. Citation needed
2. Would you take life saving medicine from your doctor if 97% of doctors thought the medicine would save your life? Or would you quote some wingnut doctor who was on Dr. Oz. who thought Acai Berries would save you? Go ahead and believe the fringe minority of scientists, but then you'd better hold all other beliefs in your life to the same standard.
3. Redundant, same as point 1, citation needed.
utilities wrote:
There is EXTREME disagreement on the actual effect this will have on the planet has since the rise has been very very subtle and if it will have an effect at all long term. Does even a 10% rise on the average surface across all the oceans really truly kill marine life or even put the whole state of Florida under water?
From paleontology we believe the Permian extinction event (about 250 million years ago) saw about a +14 F global average temperature rise and wiped out about 90% of life forms on the planet.
We're currently on pace to get to about +3 F by the end of the century and we have enough coal reserves to keep going for another few centuries at that pace.
CO2 is persistent in the system over hundreds of years, so we're pretty much stuck with the effect of what we've emitted so far and going forward for a long time.
Citizen Runner wrote:
utilities wrote:There is EXTREME disagreement on the actual effect this will have on the planet has since the rise has been very very subtle and if it will have an effect at all long term. Does even a 10% rise on the average surface across all the oceans really truly kill marine life or even put the whole state of Florida under water?
From paleontology we believe the Permian extinction event (about 250 million years ago) saw about a +14 F global average temperature rise and wiped out about 90% of life forms on the planet.
We're currently on pace to get to about +3 F by the end of the century and we have enough coal reserves to keep going for another few centuries at that pace.
CO2 is persistent in the system over hundreds of years, so we're pretty much stuck with the effect of what we've emitted so far and going forward for a long time.
I was kind of being extreme before but is the +3F number you are pointing to about the same degree we have moved in the last 200 years? Not to sound like a troll but a .2 move (last 30 years) in Celsiuis doesn't seem like it adds up to the +3F.
utilities wrote:
I was kind of being extreme before but is the +3F number you are pointing to about the same degree we have moved in the last 200 years? Not to sound like a troll but a .2 move (last 30 years) in Celsiuis doesn't seem like it adds up to the +3F.
Using HADCRUT4 data we're currently about 0.8 C (1.4 F) above pre-industrial (~the last 150).
The observed trend over the past four decades is 1.8 C (3.2 F) per century.