COVID-19 RESOURCES
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Climate continues to change.

Status
Not open for further replies.
phrodeau said:
Wow, the concept of stewardship must be completely alien to you. I bet your mother still picks up your room.
Click to expand...


Huh? "Stewardship?" Where did you get that from? You need to stop watching re-runs of Silent Running...

Calling humanity steward of the planet is similar to calling me a steward of my car. Which I'm not - I own my car. This doesn't mean that I'm not treating it well and taking good care of it, but it is mine to use as I see fit.

Like it or not, humanity holds absolute power over the Earth. We're not stewards - we own the place and are free to shape it into whatever we want. To claim otherwise may sound good, but is an illusion.
 
These threads are always good for a laugh. The government says.....:cool:
 
RobDownSouth said:
Show whar the data points on your graph come from.

Let's see you do some science.

We'll wait right here.
Click to expand...

This particular model? From the Vostok Ice core. Which happens to correspond with with hundreds of other core samples around the world. Which happens to also correspond with tree samples around the world.

In other words, ya know.....Science. Which I get is hard for ya when it does not fit your political bias and the story you are programmed to repeat from people that manipulate ya.

#sheep

But here is another group of pretty colors for ya to ignore:

VostokTemp0-420000%20BP.gif
 
VaticanAssassin said:
In other words, ya know.....Science. Which I get is . . .
Click to expand...

. . . a matter for experts; and the world's climatologists, who know a lot more about climatology than you or I, have long since reached a consensus that global warming is (1) now happening and (2) anthropogenic.

The above is an argument from authority or argumentum ad verecundiam, which is or is not a fallacy depending on whether the authority invoked really is expert and trustworthy on the subject under discussion.
 
Last edited:
KingOrfeo said:
. . . a matter for experts; and the world's climatologists, who know a lot more about climatology than you or I, have long since reached a consensus that global warming is (1) now happening and (2) anthropogenic.

The above is an argument from authority or argumentum ad verecundiam, which is or is not a fallacy depending on whether the authority invoked really is expert and trustworthy on the subject under discussion.
Click to expand...

A: No such consensus exists, in regards to man made
B: Billions of dollars in grants, but only for believers, makes the ones that consider themselves a consensus suspect at best.....
C: Did I argue it wasn't happening or that it is a pattern that will happen again and again till the sun goes out?
 
Last edited:
TwoShades said:
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

This retard can read, at least.
Click to expand...

Yeah, no you can't. Here's the author explaining precisely what Liar just told you. There are pretty pictures!! Maybe that will make it easier for you to understand?
 
VaticanAssassin said:
Our ability to over evaluate our importance astounds me.
Click to expand...

What I find astounding is your ability to blindly reject the findings of people with years of experience and expertise that you could never hope to match in favor of a chart you found (with some seriously fucked up axis action going on).

Oh, this thread makes me want to weep.

Pete, yes, global climate patterns are complex. So are genetics and germ theory. Would you reject a 97% consensus in the scientific community because it just didn't seem plausible to you?
 
VaticanAssassin said:
Our ability to over evaluate our importance astounds me.
Click to expand...

Does it? Humans change their environment, you know. It's what we do. The America Columbus found was a very different landscape from the America the Siberian paleo-Indians found, and it was different because of what the Indians did here in the period between.
 
Phelia said:
What I find astounding is your ability to blindly reject the findings of people with years of experience and expertise that you could never hope to match in favor of a chart you found (with some seriously fucked up axis action going on).

Oh, this thread makes me want to weep.

Pete, yes, global climate patterns are complex. So are genetics and germ theory. Would you reject a 97% consensus in the scientific community because it just didn't seem plausible to you?
Click to expand...

Well there are over 100 charts out there showing the same thing if this one bothers you......

You seem to confuse that 97% believe the earth is warming with 97% believe man is at fault and it is a gloom and doom unnatural event that governments and scientist can use to make billions from sheep.

and while I am not a climate scientist I have taken a university class on it, so as far as my knowledge.....well it exceeds the politically biased bullshit you will find on the GB.
 
VaticanAssassin said:
You seem to confuse that 97% believe the earth is warming with 97% believe man is at fault and it is a gloom and doom unnatural event that governments and scientist can use to make billions from sheep.
Click to expand...

I dunno about 97%, but there is indeed a consensus among climatologists as to every part of that, except for the "make billions" part. The money is on the denial side here. The deniers are funded by the petroleum companies, which are making billions now and do not want their money-making process in any way disrupted. Practically no one goes into climate science for the money, but anyone who did would work for the deniers.
 
VaticanAssassin said:
Well there are over 100 charts out there showing the same thing if this one bothers you......

You seem to confuse that 97% believe the earth is warming with 97% believe man is at fault and it is a gloom and doom unnatural event that governments and scientist can use to make billions from sheep.

and while I am not a climate scientist I have taken a university class on it, so as far as my knowledge.....well it exceeds the politically biased bullshit you will find on the GB.
Click to expand...

Oh, for fuck's sake. It has been posted numerous times in this very thread that the 97% figure refers to climate scientists a peer-reviewed articles that AGREE THAT IT IS CAUSED BY HUMANS.

If you paid money for that class, ask for a refund, because it's exceedingly clear that you simply have no idea what you're talking about.
 
KingOrfeo said:
I dunno about 97%, but there is indeed a consensus among climatologists as to every part of that, except for the "make billions" part. The money is on the denial side here. The deniers are funded by the petroleum companies, which are making billions now and do not want their money-making process in any way disrupted. Practically no one goes into climate science for the money, but anyone who did would work for the deniers.
Click to expand...

You do get the it is not 97% of scientists, but 97% of studies published right? Who is being paid to prove global warming by man and who is most likely to publish a paper on it?
 
Phelia said:
Oh, for fuck's sake. It has been posted numerous times in this very thread that the 97% figure refers to climate scientists a peer-reviewed articles that AGREE THAT IT IS CAUSED BY HUMANS.

If you paid money for that class, ask for a refund, because it's exceedingly clear that you simply have no idea what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

VaticanAssassin said:
You do get the it is not 97% of scientists, but 97% of studies published right? Who is being paid to prove global warming by man and who is most likely to publish a paper on it?
Click to expand...


So from bitching about the axis being off, to misrepresenting the study, to a personal attack.

All while never addressing the truth.

Well played.....well, if facts are not you thing.

You taking lessons from Jen, Dan, Fisted, JulyB or Rob?
 
VaticanAssassin said:
You do get the it is not 97% of scientists, but 97% of studies published right? Who is being paid to prove global warming by man and who is most likely to publish a paper on it?
Click to expand...

Yeah! The only people who agree on this are the experts who have had to go through a rigorous peer-review process! Clearly, they are untrustworthy and motivated by greed. We will not see a clear consensus amongst the rank and file of honest scientists.

Wait...

A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures.

Most striking is the divide between expert climate scientists (97.4%) and the general public (58%). The paper concludes:

"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."

Figure 1: Response to the survey question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009) General public data come from a 2008 Gallup poll.

poll_scientists.gif
Click to expand...

Source
 
VaticanAssassin said:
So from bitching about the axis being off, to misrepresenting the study, to a personal attack.

All while never addressing the truth.

Well played.....well, if facts are not you thing.

You taking lessons from Jen, Dan, Fisted, JulyB or Rob?
Click to expand...

Seriously? You had the facts completely wrong. I just pointed it out. Twice. I didn't misrepresent anything.

It's not an attack. It's a statement of truth. You honestly don't seem to know what you're talking about. You're not able to follow basic threads of argument and evidence, here.
 
VaticanAssassin said:
Who is being paid to prove global warming by man . . .
Click to expand...

Nobody, though some are being paid to disprove it. The climatologists simply do climatology and analyze the results, whatever they might be; they have no other agenda. That is the difference between scientists and experts for hire.
 
Last edited:
Phelia said:
Yeah! The only people who agree on this are the experts who have had to go through a rigorous peer-review process! Clearly, they are untrustworthy and motivated by greed. We will not see a clear consensus amongst the rank and file of honest scientists.

Wait...



Source
Click to expand...

Skeptical Science? John Cook??? BWWWHAHHAAAAA.....

You going to continue to regurgitate whatever Google BS you can come up with....

Or would you like to try some critical thinking and explain why 450,000 years of weather and 4 prior warming spikes (all hotter than today) are irrelevant?

I will even help you out. If you want to argue the above fact start, with historical Co2 and how it corresponds with each prior warming period. It is about the only thing you could possibly argue to help prove the point you ignorance has put you in.
 
VatAss said:
Skeptical Science? John Cook??? BWWWHAHHAAAAA.....

You going to continue to regurgitate whatever Google BS you can come up with....

Or would you like to try some critical thinking and explain why 450,000 years of weather and 4 prior warming spikes (all hotter than today) are irrelevant?

I will even help you out. If you want to argue the above fact start, with historical Co2 and how it corresponds with each prior warming period. It is about the only thing you could possibly argue to help prove the point you ignorance has put you in.
Click to expand...

Aw, lookee VatAss "shoot the messenger"!

#DerpDerpDerp
#Truthiness
 
KingOrfeo said:
Nobody, though some are being paid to disprove it. The climatologists simply do climatology and analyze the results, whatever they might be; they have no other agenda. That is the difference between scientists and experts for hire.
Click to expand...

VatAss refuses to recognize inconvenient facts. Only he knows the "trooth".

#DerpDerpDerp
#VatAssLovesHisKidsJustNotEnoughToInsureThem
 
TwoShades said:
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

This retard can read, at least.
Click to expand...
Yes. Climate abstracts. Not anthromorphic global warming reports.

And what's up with "retard"?
 
Last edited:
phrodeau said:
Wow, the concept of stewardship must be completely alien to you. I bet your mother still picks up your room.
Click to expand...

StrangeLife said:
Huh? "Stewardship?" Where did you get that from? You need to stop watching re-runs of Silent Running...

Calling humanity steward of the planet is similar to calling me a steward of my car. Which I'm not - I own my car. This doesn't mean that I'm not treating it well and taking good care of it, but it is mine to use as I see fit.

Like it or not, humanity holds absolute power over the Earth. We're not stewards - we own the place and are free to shape it into whatever we want. To claim otherwise may sound good, but is an illusion.
Click to expand...
I totally nailed it.
 
VaticanAssassin said:
You do get the it is not 97% of scientists, but 97% of studies published right? Who is being paid to prove global warming by man and who is most likely to publish a paper on it?
Click to expand...

Who is being paid to disprove global warming by man and who is most likely to publish a paper on it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

SugarDaddy1
The next big climate scare: Counting climate change deaths
Replies
1
Views
53
Fuzzy1975
F
B
Today’s ‘Climate Crisis’ Is a Fairy Tale
Replies
13
Views
126
Chernosoth
Chernosoth
Rightguide
About Our Current Heat Wave
4 5 6
Replies
149
Views
2K
DeluxAuto
DeluxAuto
Counselor706
Environment Canada airbrushes 100 years of inconvenient climate data out of history
Replies
0
Views
204
Counselor706
Counselor706
Rightguide
96% Of U.S. Climate Data Is Corrupted
5 6 7
Replies
172
Views
2K
schism666
schism666
Back
Top