T1B

How does this disprove (or prove) global warming?

I think you need another hit. I know I so.

What he should have said was AGW takes a hit.

Those poor fukking wooly mammoths. If they only had carbon credits, they might have stood a chance.

You do need another hit...

...of fresh air.

88 wrote:Funny (not really). Ironic, might be more appropriate considering an opinion poll is the main argument trotted out by those who believe in AGW. They like to say that 97% of scientists [who receive government funding to write articles supporting the theory of AGW] are of the opinion that AGW is real. Or something like that.

88, I think you're confusing global warming with climate change-contrary to popular (and undeucated) belief, they are not one in the same.....

Papa Willie wrote: What you are referring to is the University of Illinois survey in 2009 that found that 97.4% of agree that mankind is responsible for global warming. This is easily debunked when one considers its selection methodology. The University of Illinois study originally included 10,257 respondents. Of that group, the researchers (Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman) concluded 10,180 “weren't qualified to comment on the issue because they were merely solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists, astronomers and the like". Of the remaining 77 scientists whose votes were counted, 75 agreed with the proposition that mankind was causing catastrophic changes in the climate. And, since 75 is 97.4% of 77, ‘overwhelming consensus’ was demonstrated. In reality, the 75 respondents that agreed with AGW is actually only 0.73% of the original sample group.

Furthermore, in 2013 John Cook et al examined 11,944 articles from peer reviewed literature dated 1991-2011. They found that 66.4% (or 7931 of them) expressed no view whatsoever on AGW/ACC. Of the remaining 4013 articles, 97% (or 3893 of them) agreed with AGW/ACC. This again "demonstrates" a 97% consensus in their eyes. However, fundamental math would tell you the actual percentage of peer reviewed literature from this time frame endorsing AGW/ACC is actually only 32.6%. The actual numbers in both these surveys have been ignored by AGW/ACC proponents in favor of being able to cite the "97% Consensus" argument.

I'm not sure where these numbers come from, so if you could link me up to their source, I'd be really thankful.....but why is it that those who don't believe man is a main driver of anthropomorphic climate change trot out those "9,571 scientists that disagree that man is responsible, when it's been proven that less than 10% of them deal in scientific study that is related to climate study in any manner.....physicists are not climate scientists, chemical engineering professors are not climate scientists.....insofar as the "10,180 weren't qualified to comment on the issue" maybe they were asked to review the study to see if proper methodologies were used, were there any conclusions that were not supported by the data. etc. As a scientist, you don't need to be an expert at climatological science to understand whether proper methods of analysis have been utilized in the research.....that's not the case in the "9,000 plus" scientists that unequivocally state that man is not responsible for climate change....by and large the vast majority of them have absolutely no experience in climatological science, yet they offer their uneducated opinion and we're supposed to accept it because they're scientists......

think of it like this.....if I was going in to have a heart operation, I'm sure that almost every doctor knows how to go about doing it....but am I going to go to a pediatrician to perform my heart surgery? I don't think so, I think I'll go with the cardiac specialist, you know, the one that is most up to date with the latest procedures......

It's all such bullshit. I remember back in the late 1960's when "scientists" were predicting that by 1985 there would be mass starvation due to food shortages and some even said the air would be so polluted that we'd need gas masks and have to live underground to escape it. Of course climate changes. Has in the past and will in the future. You see, we have this big ball of hydrogen 93 million miles away that is a big thermonuclear fusion machine. It has cycles of high and low activity, hence affecting our climate. We also have on earth these things called volcanoes that can belch up more pollutants than all of human activity. People are so gullible.

Wolfman wrote:It's all such bullshit. I remember back in the late 1960's when "scientists" were predicting that by 1985 there would be mass starvation due to food shortages and some even said the air would be so polluted that we'd need gas masks and have to live underground to escape it.

Maybe none of that actually happened because:

1. "Scientists" identified the problems and the rest of us did something about it.

2. Plenty of dead babies.


Your ignorant take is like saying we don't need air quality regs anymore because air quality has gotten a lot better. How do you think that happened, moron?

So the 3% of scientists are the ones we should be listening to because they aren't on the take?

Sounds legit.

I'm so glad Van isn't around to see the state this board has degenerated to.
It would break his heart.


R.I.P. Vanster

Makes you want to listen to Stevie Ray Vaughan.

BSmack wrote:Makes you want to listen to Stevie Ray Vaughan.

NOT cool, bro. Please move to the Tasteless Joke thread.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

BSmack wrote:Makes you want to listen to Stevie Ray Vaughan.

NOT cool, bro. Please move to the Tasteless Joke thread.

"Where's that?"

Sincerely, Wags

Wolfman wrote:It's all such bullshit. I remember back in the late 1960's when "scientists" were predicting that by 1985 there would be mass starvation due to food shortages and some even said the air would be so polluted that we'd need gas masks and have to live underground to escape it. Of course climate changes. Has in the past and will in the future. You see, we have this big ball of hydrogen 93 million miles away that is a big thermonuclear fusion machine. It has cycles of high and low activity, hence affecting our climate. We also have on earth these things called volcanoes that can belch up more pollutants than all of human activity. People are so gullible.

which scientists were these? Scientists don't typically make predictions of consequences, they typically predict what they believe what will happen based on extrapolated information, but it's usually uneducated scream merchants that make dire predictions.... people will often times offer predictions because scientists predict a drought in an area (like Ethiopia) then the non-scientists will start predicting death, destruction, mayhem etc......non-scientists are great with stuff like that....

I remember seeing specials on "In Search Of" about a new ice age in the 70s. I think it was after the UFO and Bigfoot sightings.

Papa Willie wrote:https://www.google.com/search?q=failed+ ... 8&oe=utf-8

Millions of failed predictions. They do know, however, that sheep will never review the past, so...

like I said, most of the doom and gloom predictions are predicated by non-scientists.....and seriously, can't you come up with something a little less slanted than "Watts Up With That".....that particular dishrag is Dins favorite source of "information" (rather than reading scientific papers)

Felix wrote:As a scientist, you don't need to be an expert at climatological science to understand whether proper methods of analysis have been utilized in the research...

Actually, you don't need to be a scientist to know when a so called expert says it is ok to lie and manipulate data that anything they say is bullshit.

Honestly, is there one motherfucker here whose stance on climate change doesn't fall in line with their political lean?

BSmack wrote:I remember seeing specials on "In Search Of" about a new ice age in the 70s. I think it was after the UFO and Bigfoot sightings.

I blame Mr. Spock.

88 wrote:

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:So the 3% of scientists are the ones we should be listening to because they aren't on the take?

Sounds legit.

Maybe we ought to ask the scientists the right questions. Like what amount of uncertainty is in their projections, how we can accurately measure their projections (both in terms of what will happen if we do nothing and if we implement their flavor of action of the month) and hold them accountable for spewing bullshit. Is that too extreme a position?

Why do you keep pimping shity, dirty, polluting crap. It's like you are delusional.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:So the 3% of scientists are the ones we should be listening to because they aren't on the take?

Sounds legit.

Consensus is a political construct with absolutely no scientific relevance whatsoever. 99 scientists are not more likely to be correct than 1 scientist. At one point in time, the overwhelming consensus opinion of astronomers was that the sun revolved around the earth. A couple guys disagreed. Guess what?

mvscal wrote:At one point in time, the overwhelming consensus opinion of astronomers was that the sun revolved around the earth. A couple guys disagreed. Guess what?

Sincerely, poptart

Why do you keep pimping shity, dirty, polluting crap.

It's the midwest, how else are they going to charge their electric cars?

schmick wrote:Its hard to get someone to disagree with where their paycheck is coming from. thats why all the scientists, funded my liberal policies, argue on behalf of the liberal policies

Didn't know you had liberal policies.

Felix wrote:those who don't believe man is a main driver of anthropomorphic climate change

The number of people who believe man is the sole driver of anything anthropomorphic is absolutely 100%, among those who know what the word "anthropomorphic" means.

This I state as absolute FACT.

Kind of makes one seriously doubt all of the alleged reading of scientific papers Felix does, since he doesn't actually know what the "big words" mean.

And actually, I don't follow Watts Up With That (Felix' favorite source of ad hominem ire), although I have found a fucking dictionary to be pretty helpful in such debates.

BSmack wrote:

I don't think "fact" means what he thinks it means.