Climate policy continues to change

[water505]

It's not a debate, AJ was and is still wrong, so were you. You two fanatics don't like what the evidence says.

If you have evidence to the contrary please present it.

I provided the evidence and the facts. You don't like them so you pretend they don't exist. I'm not going to play your dumb game.


You must be exhausted.

http://www.free-animated-pictures.com/funny_homer_simpson_running_circles.gif

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

I provided the evidence and the facts. You don't like them so you pretend they don't exist. I'm not going to play your dumb game.


You must be exhausted.

http://www.free-animated-pictures.com/funny_homer_simpson_running_circles.gif

As a point of fact you haven't. I would love to see any evidence you can bring.

You're much better at dumb games than anyone else here.

 

[water505]

As a point of fact you haven't. I would love to see any evidence you can bring.

You're much better at dumb games than anyone else here.

Nice try, Spanky. No cigar for you.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I provided the evidence and the facts.

No, you haven't, and at the moment I can't recall a time when you have.

Which posts in this thread are you referring to? They're numbered for a reason.

 

[water505]

Jesus. He's back. Are you guys joined at the hip or handcuffed to each other?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Solyndra Green must be defended at all costs!



It's PEOPLE! people...

 

[Hard_Rom]

I was talking about liberals referring to themselves as progressives.

Maybe were you are. But here a liberal is a liberal. Whether with a capital L or a small l.

Do you know what the opposite of progressive is? Regressive.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Define 'Liberal' and 'liberal.'

 

[phrodeau]

I provided the evidence and the facts. You don't like them so you pretend they don't exist. I'm not going to play your dumb game.


You must be exhausted.

http://www.free-animated-pictures.com/funny_homer_simpson_running_circles.gif

You provided evidence to debunk the 97% consensus claim, which no scientist is making. The claim is a logical fallacy, and you try to pass it off as legitimate so you can disprove it.

 

[Hard_Rom]

Small l is close to the dictionary definition. Capital L very similar but with the Wiki political definition.

liberal: open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values:
"they have more liberal views toward marriage and divorce than some people"

Liberal: espousing a wide array of views , but generally supporting ideas and programmes such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality, and international cooperation.

Also, being Canadian: Liberal refers mainly to the policies and ideas of the Liberal Party of Canada/Parti Libéral du Canada (member LI), the most frequent governing party of Canada for the last century and one of the largest liberal parties in the world. The Liberal Party of Canada has in the past generally supported a welfare state, and is regarded as a centre-left party.

Up here the two ruling parties are the Liberals and the Conservatives. No fucking around as to which way they lean. For many years the Conservatives were known as the Progressive Conservatives. A bit confusing to you Yanks I suppose.

When it comes to freedom of speech, individual freedom and free markets Yanks are far more Liberal than Canadians. When it comes to governance and law and order Canada is far more conservative than the US. Only with the passing of the Patriot Act did US law enforcement come close to the powers that Canadian police possess.

"Liberalism is the philosophy for our time, because it does not try to conserve every tradition of the past, because it does not apply to new problems the old doctrinaire solutions, because it is prepared to experiment and innovate and because it knows that the past is less important than the future." P.E.T.

If you guys had a proper UHC system you would be so far lefty Liberal of us as to be truly the USSA. Only on a few social issues such as capital punishment, abortion and drugs do you lean conservative compared to us. And pot is dragging you guys into hippy land. Be long time before we get recreational pot for sale up here. We won't toss you in jail for a joint. But be damn if we will sell it to you until the cops can test you for being under the influence.

So it all depends on your perspective. I'm sure there are liberal and conservative Muslims in Tehran.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I was talking about liberals referring to themselves as progressives.

In America, "progressive" is a name for something well to the left of liberal and well to the right of socialist -- what in Europe would be called a social democrat.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Jesus. He's back. Are you guys joined at the hip or handcuffed to each other?

Non-responsive. Please restate your answer, with content.

 

[water505]

You provided evidence to debunk the 97% consensus claim, which no scientist is making. The claim is a logical fallacy, and you try to pass it off as legitimate so you can disprove it.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Did I say scientists were saying it? Yes or no?

 

[phrodeau]

What the fuck are you talking about?

Did I say scientists were saying it? Yes or no?

Have you forgotten already? You could go back and read the thread for yourself.

 

[KingOrfeo]

What the fuck are you talking about?

Did I say scientists were saying it? Yes or no?

There is a solid scientific consensus, with very little dissent, that climate change is real, anthropogenic, and likely to lead to consequences we don't want to face.

And for some reason, you keep trying to brush off that fact as . . . false, or irrelevant, it's not entirely clear which.

The scientific opinion on climate change is the overall judgment among scientists regarding the extent to which global warming is occurring, its causes, and its probable consequences. This scientific opinion is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these respected reports and surveys.[1]

The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans. It is likely that this mainly arises from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as from deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels, partially offset by human caused increases in aerosols; natural changes had little effect.[2][3][4][5]

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report stated that:

* Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[6]
* Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[7]
* Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[8] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[8] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.[8]
* The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.[9]
* The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).[10]

Some scientific bodies have recommended specific policies to governments, and science can play a role in informing an effective response to climate change. Policy decisions, however, may require value judgements and so are not included in the scientific opinion.[11][12]

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[13] which in 2007[14] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[15] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

 

[Conager]

You provided evidence to debunk the 97% consensus claim, which no scientist is making. The claim is a logical fallacy, and you try to pass it off as legitimate so you can disprove it.

Maybe you should explain that to the President. He makes that false claim frequently:

https://www.barackobama.com/climate-change-deniers/#/


https://mobile.twitter.com/BarackObama/status/690603140702285824

While you are at it, let him know that no economist or statistion who has studied esrning disparities is supporting his claim that women are paid 77 cents on the dollar for the same work and experience.

Not sure where he is getting all of the fake news that he parrots.

 

[Conager]

There is a solid scientific consensus, with very little dissent, that climate change is real, anthropogenic, and likely to lead to consequences we don't want to face.

And for some reason, you keep trying to brush off that fact as . . . false, or irrelevant, it's not entirely clear which.

At least for a change you're not citing rational Wiki.

You do realize that Wikipedia is predominantly edited by people with your particular worldview and the crackpots writing the very things that you're citing are quite likely just as qualified as you are having studied it exactly to the non-existant degree that you have?

It's called an echo chamber and it's not a valid citation.

It's a good source to determine what things "everybody (thinks that everybody) knows" but citing Wiki is exactly the same as citing "common knowledge."

At no extra charge I'll let you know that Snopes consists of a couple of people with a couple of laptops and access to Google. That doesn't make them experts at anything.

 

[water505]

Have you forgotten already? You could go back and read the thread for yourself.

You can join your buddies KO and Sgt Spiderpants doing the Curly shuffle and talking it liberalspeak. Have a nice day.

 

[Conager]

This is the study that is the root of that often cited "97% of scientists agree":
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/eost2009EO03/epdf


It's every bit as flawed as the study that has been cited frequently on this board and conflated to reveal that liberals are geniuses because they don't watch Fox News.

Even if they do not use the figure 97% anyone that opens their mouth and says that on the issue of climate change there is consensus among scientists even suggesting that 51 percent of scientists agree with whatever point of view your espousing is based on the above study which is bullshit so when you ever you use the word consensus in a context suggesting that global warming is happening now, it is of significant and measitable at this time, and it is primarily man-made you are hanging your hat on the above.

I am aware of no other studies, surveys or other methodologies that have been undertaken to quantify whether or not there is a quote consensus unquote in the scientific community about any of these issues.

 

[KingOrfeo]

At least for a change you're not citing rational Wiki.

As backhanded compliments go, that one is . . . odd. What's your beef with RatWiki? Sure they're biased, by their own admission, but they're biased in favor of rationality, facts and science, which even you must admit is entirely unobjectionable.

You do realize that Wikipedia is predominantly edited by people with your particular worldview and the crackpots writing the very things that you're citing are quite likely just as qualified as you are having studied it exactly to the non-existant degree that you have?

I do. I also understand it has a neutrality policy and every article has a talk page and all controversial articles are hammered out there. Wiki makes mistakes and often needs editing, but it represents an iterative process tending towards greater and greater accuracy. And, it acknowledges and addresses criticism of Wikipedia, especially with respect to the reliability of Wikipedia.

The reliability of Wikipedia (primarily of the English-language edition), compared to other encyclopedias and more specialized sources, has been assessed in many ways, including statistically, through comparative review, analysis of the historical patterns, and strengths and weaknesses inherent in the editing process unique to Wikipedia.[1] Recent incidents of conflicted editing, and the use of Wikipedia for 'revenge editing' (inserting false, defamatory or biased statements into biographies) have attracted frequent publicity.[2][3]

An early study in the journal Nature said that in 2005, Wikipedia's scientific articles came close to the level of accuracy in Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of "serious errors".[4] The study by Nature was disputed by Encyclopædia Britannica,[5] and later Nature replied to this with both a formal response and a point-by-point rebuttal of Britannica's main objections.[6] Between 2008 and 2012, Wikipedia articles on medical and scientific fields such as pathology,[7] toxicology,[8] oncology,[9] pharmaceuticals,[10] and psychiatry[11] were compared to professional and peer reviewed sources and it was found that Wikipedia's depth and coverage were of a high standard. Concerns regarding readability were raised in a study published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology[12] and a study published in Psychological Medicine (2012),[11] while a study published in the European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology raised concerns about reliability.[13]

Wikipedia is open to anonymous and collaborative editing, so assessments of its reliability usually include examination of how quickly false or misleading information is removed. An early study conducted by IBM researchers in 2003—two years following Wikipedia's establishment—found that "vandalism is usually repaired extremely quickly—so quickly that most users will never see its effects"[15] and concluded that Wikipedia had "surprisingly effective self-healing capabilities".[16]

Several incidents have also been publicized in which false information has lasted for a long time in Wikipedia. In May 2005, an anonymous editor started a controversy when he created an article about John Seigenthaler containing several false and defamatory statements.[17] The inaccurate information remained uncorrected for four months. A biographical article in French Wikipedia portrayed a "Léon-Robert de L'Astran" as an 18th-century anti-slavery ship owner, which led Ségolène Royal, a presidential candidate, to praise him. A student investigation later determined that the article was a hoax and de L'Astran had never existed.[18]

It's called an echo chamber and it's not a valid citation.

It's an aggregator of valid citations; that's what the footnotes are for.

It's a good source to determine what things "everybody (thinks that everybody) knows" but citing Wiki is exactly the same as citing "common knowledge."

Nothing of the kind; see above.

At no extra charge I'll let you know that Snopes consists of a couple of people with a couple of laptops and access to Google. That doesn't make them experts at anything.

Spending a lot of time researching and debunking ULs is what makes them experts at it.

As RatWiki sez:

Anyone who insists that their personal myth is fact, whether that be moonhoaxers, 9/11 truthers, or bigfooters, will insist that Snopes is wrong because everyone but themselves is biased against the "truth". FactCheck.org, a nonprofit website dedicated to, umm, checking facts, reported that Snopes was completely unbiased.[2] This of course proves that FactCheck is also part of the conspiracy.[citation NOT needed]

FactCheck on Snopes.

 

[phrodeau]

Maybe you should explain that to the President. He makes that false claim frequently:

https://www.barackobama.com/climate-change-deniers/#/


https://mobile.twitter.com/BarackObama/status/690603140702285824

While you are at it, let him know that no economist or statistion who has studied esrning disparities is supporting his claim that women are paid 77 cents on the dollar for the same work and experience.

Not sure where he is getting all of the fake news that he parrots.

President Obama is not a scientist.

The idea that consensus means proof is not a scientific one.

 

[KingOrfeo]

While you are at it, let him know that no economist or statistion who has studied esrning disparities is supporting his claim that women are paid 77 cents on the dollar for the same work and experience.

RatWiki again:

The gender pay gap is the average difference between men's and women's earnings.

The gender pay gap can be looked at locally, nationally and internationally. There are different ways of measuring the pay gap and different ways of expressing it. For example, the European Union defines the gender pay gap as the average difference between men's and women's hourly earnings, while the United States defines it as the ratio of women's to men's median yearly earnings among full-time, year-round workers.

What is important is that all ways of measuring or expressing the gender pay gap show that in every country men outearn women, leaving women more at risk of poverty for no reason other than their gender.[1]

The gender pay gap is often divided into the ‘unadjusted’ and ‘adjusted’ pay gaps. The ‘unadjusted pay gap’ does not take into account all of the factors that impact on the gap’s existence such as differences in education, number of hours worked, job sector, position etc.[2] When adjusted for these factors, leaving only what is unexplained or is a result of workplace discrimination, the pay gap does diminish considerably. This has led many conservatives and libertarians to denounce the gap as a myth — because when you correct for the discrimination, the discrimination vanishes!

However, this ignores that the origins of the adjusted factors are usually discriminatory in themselves, being almost entirely the result of society’s expectations of men and women.[3] As one commentator puts it:

"If high school girls are discouraged from taking the math and science classes that lead to high-paying STEM jobs, shouldn't we in some way count that as a lost equal earnings opportunity?"[4]

 

[water505]

This is the study that is the root of that often cited "97% of scientists agree":
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/eost2009EO03/epdf


It's every bit as flawed as the study that has been cited frequently on this board and conflated to reveal that liberals are geniuses because they don't watch Fox News.

Even if they do not use the figure 97% anyone that opens their mouth and says that on the issue of climate change there is consensus among scientists even suggesting that 51 percent of scientists agree with whatever point of view your espousing is based on the above study which is bullshit so when you ever you use the word consensus in a context suggesting that global warming is happening now, it is of significant and measitable at this time, and it is primarily man-made you are hanging your hat on the above.

I am aware of no other studies, surveys or other methodologies that have been undertaken to quantify whether or not there is a quote consensus unquote in the scientific community about any of these issues.

Discussing this with them is a complete waste of time and energy.

Facts are pure kryptonite to liberals. They deny their existence and avoid them at all cost, all the while claiming to be inclusive and open minded.

 

[phrodeau]

Discussing this with them is a complete waste of time and energy.

Facts are pure kryptonite to liberals. They deny their existence and avoid them at all cost, all the while claiming to be inclusive and open minded.

The only thing you've offered here are facts and figures about people's opinions.

Let's see your facts about climate.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Discussing this with them is a complete waste of time and energy.

It is on our part, apparently, but not on yours, if you only were capable of understanding . . . well, anything.

Facts are pure kryptonite to liberals. They deny their existence and avoid them at all cost, all the while claiming to be inclusive and open minded.

I've posted the facts in this thread; but they seem to be kryptonite to you. The facts are that there is a solid scientific consensus, with very little dissent, on global warming. The science is not in doubt.