Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
NCCommish

The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism

Recommended Posts

Of course I can. You stated there is no consensus on what the impact will be. That's true only to the extent that there is no consensus on how BAD it will be: either really really bad or catastrophic. You diss the computer models as you always do, and then offer reasons for climate change other than our use of fossil fuels which goes against what has become a clear scientific consensus. And your acknowledgment that climate change is happening is in contradiction of many of your earlier posts in which you attempted to claim that the so called "pause" in recent years proved that it was NOT happening. You're all over the map in this; your only consistent theme is skepticism. Your arguments are not reasonable and you're definitely in the denier camp.

Link to the bolded? What exactly will the consequences be? Are there any positive consequences of climate change?

And, no, I don't believe that there is consensus on exactly what portion of climate change is caused by fossil fuels. No one has yet proven whether it's 25%, 65%, or 95%.

just curious, but what would you accept as proof?
Tough to answer, unfortunately.
agree, and it bothers me when the "you can't prove it!" argument is made. if you can't give an example of evidence that would convince you, then you can't be convinced.
Well, the bolded is just silly.
how? If you can be convinced, tell me what would convince you?

Like the definition of porn, I'll know it when I see it. That doesn't mean it won't ever happen, it means I have yet to see anything that looks like proof.

It would be like asking me how long it would take me to build a car from scratch, by myself. I don't have the foggiest idea. If I built one, I could track the amount of time, and give you an answer afterward.

well, the bolded is just silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing we definitely know is true of human psychology is that we're way more likely to accept bad arguments or false statements of fact that support our current beliefs than we are to accept bad arguments or false statements of fact that contradict our current beliefs.

Cute experiment related to this: When an education plan was pitched as "the Democrats' education plan," Democrats supported it 75%-17%, and Republicans opposed it 13%-78%. When the exact same plan was pitched as "the Republicans’ education plan," Democrats opposed it 80%-12% and Republicans supported it 70%-10%.

It's a meaningless experiment. You are given two vague options that are both equally appealing to most people and plausably supported by either party. The only revelatory piece of information is which party supports which. Of course you're going to side with whichever party you're aligned with.

I don't think it's meaningless at all. It's a clear demonstration regarding the failure of our government and our two parties to work together to solve problems, instead tending to discredit anything done by the other party simply because it was the other party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can now all witness how accurate ABC was in their predictions from 2008 for what would happen by June 2015. Glad they're on the case. Spot on, guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can now all witness how accurate ABC was in their predictions from 2008 for what would happen by June 2015. Glad they're on the case. Spot on, guys.

Thankfully the American people elected Obama and He receded the waters and saved the economy from destruction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can now all witness how accurate ABC was in their predictions from 2008 for what would happen by June 2015. Glad they're on the case. Spot on, guys.

Gore's been predicting devastation for what, 15 years? He's been about as accurate as ABC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can now all witness how accurate ABC was in their predictions from 2008 for what would happen by June 2015. Glad they're on the case. Spot on, guys.

FUD sells.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another very interesting article here. I'm glad to see that we're installing pristine weather stations where there are no questions about the vagaries of changing urbanization. What's missing is a direct comparison to the "standard" adulterated data set that NOAA is using for the US over the last decade. I recall that the adulterated set shows warming, but really want to see a one-to-one there to see what the data says. In a vacuum this data set doesn't say a huge amount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another very interesting article here. I'm glad to see that we're installing pristine weather stations where there are no questions about the vagaries of changing urbanization. What's missing is a direct comparison to the "standard" adulterated data set that NOAA is using for the US over the last decade. I recall that the adulterated set shows warming, but really want to see a one-to-one there to see what the data says. In a vacuum this data set doesn't say a huge amount.

It's a good start...it sounds like we need these to be evenly distributed across the globe....just getting an accurate gauge of global temperature is a difficult problem....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NY is not under water yet? :kicksrock:

Damn that settled science is wrong.

You're posting in jest, but it makes me think of something.

If, over the course of a few hundred years, the current low land underneath NYC, MIami, etc. was simply ceded to the sea piece by piece while the cities organically grew towards higher land ... it wouldn't be a singular organized engineering project, of course, but is it broadly feasible?

To borrow a meme from Eastern philosophy ... could humanity "bend like a reed" in the face of climate change's "gusting wind"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NY is not under water yet? :kicksrock:

Damn that settled science is wrong.

You're posting in jest, but it makes me think of something.

If, over the course of a few hundred years, the current low land underneath NYC, MIami, etc. was simply ceded to the sea piece by piece while the cities organically grew towards higher land ... it wouldn't be a singular organized engineering project, of course, but is it broadly feasible?

To borrow a meme from Eastern philosophy ... could humanity "bend like a reed" in the face of climate change's "gusting wind"?

Yes. Poorer nations might struggle though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NY is not under water yet? :kicksrock:

Damn that settled science is wrong.

You're posting in jest, but it makes me think of something.

If, over the course of a few hundred years, the current low land underneath NYC, MIami, etc. was simply ceded to the sea piece by piece while the cities organically grew towards higher land ... it wouldn't be a singular organized engineering project, of course, but is it broadly feasible?

To borrow a meme from Eastern philosophy ... could humanity "bend like a reed" in the face of climate change's "gusting wind"?

New Orleans provided the model for building a city under sea level. What could possibly go wrong?

Edited by jon_mx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NY is not under water yet? :kicksrock:

Damn that settled science is wrong.

You're posting in jest, but it makes me think of something.

If, over the course of a few hundred years, the current low land underneath NYC, MIami, etc. was simply ceded to the sea piece by piece while the cities organically grew towards higher land ... it wouldn't be a singular organized engineering project, of course, but is it broadly feasible?

To borrow a meme from Eastern philosophy ... could humanity "bend like a reed" in the face of climate change's "gusting wind"?

New Orleans provided the model for building a city under sea level. What could possibly go wrong?

I think the Dutch were actually pioneers in this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands#/media/File:The_Netherlands_compared_to_sealevel.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NY is not under water yet? :kicksrock:

Damn that settled science is wrong.

You're posting in jest, but it makes me think of something.

If, over the course of a few hundred years, the current low land underneath NYC, MIami, etc. was simply ceded to the sea piece by piece while the cities organically grew towards higher land ... it wouldn't be a singular organized engineering project, of course, but is it broadly feasible?

To borrow a meme from Eastern philosophy ... could humanity "bend like a reed" in the face of climate change's "gusting wind"?

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/06/a-town-on-the-move/392078/

But likely not feasible on a grander scale unless it was known that the area would be flooded (no impetus).

Even then it would be economically devastating to the people living there - house values wiped out, never to recover - and the cost of high ground would skyrocket, meaning only the really affluent could move there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course I can. You stated there is no consensus on what the impact will be. That's true only to the extent that there is no consensus on how BAD it will be: either really really bad or catastrophic. You diss the computer models as you always do, and then offer reasons for climate change other than our use of fossil fuels which goes against what has become a clear scientific consensus. And your acknowledgment that climate change is happening is in contradiction of many of your earlier posts in which you attempted to claim that the so called "pause" in recent years proved that it was NOT happening. You're all over the map in this; your only consistent theme is skepticism. Your arguments are not reasonable and you're definitely in the denier camp.

Link to the bolded? What exactly will the consequences be? Are there any positive consequences of climate change?

And, no, I don't believe that there is consensus on exactly what portion of climate change is caused by fossil fuels. No one has yet proven whether it's 25%, 65%, or 95%.

just curious, but what would you accept as proof?
Tough to answer, unfortunately.
agree, and it bothers me when the "you can't prove it!" argument is made. if you can't give an example of evidence that would convince you, then you can't be convinced.
Well, the bolded is just silly.
how? If you can be convinced, tell me what would convince you?

Like the definition of porn, I'll know it when I see it. That doesn't mean it won't ever happen, it means I have yet to see anything that looks like proof.

It would be like asking me how long it would take me to build a car from scratch, by myself. I don't have the foggiest idea. If I built one, I could track the amount of time, and give you an answer afterward.

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

Is it porn yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course I can. You stated there is no consensus on what the impact will be. That's true only to the extent that there is no consensus on how BAD it will be: either really really bad or catastrophic. You diss the computer models as you always do, and then offer reasons for climate change other than our use of fossil fuels which goes against what has become a clear scientific consensus. And your acknowledgment that climate change is happening is in contradiction of many of your earlier posts in which you attempted to claim that the so called "pause" in recent years proved that it was NOT happening. You're all over the map in this; your only consistent theme is skepticism. Your arguments are not reasonable and you're definitely in the denier camp.

Link to the bolded? What exactly will the consequences be? Are there any positive consequences of climate change?

And, no, I don't believe that there is consensus on exactly what portion of climate change is caused by fossil fuels. No one has yet proven whether it's 25%, 65%, or 95%.

just curious, but what would you accept as proof?
Tough to answer, unfortunately.
agree, and it bothers me when the "you can't prove it!" argument is made. if you can't give an example of evidence that would convince you, then you can't be convinced.
Well, the bolded is just silly.
how? If you can be convinced, tell me what would convince you?

Like the definition of porn, I'll know it when I see it. That doesn't mean it won't ever happen, it means I have yet to see anything that looks like proof.

It would be like asking me how long it would take me to build a car from scratch, by myself. I don't have the foggiest idea. If I built one, I could track the amount of time, and give you an answer afterward.

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

Is it porn yet?

Butttttt PAUSE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course I can. You stated there is no consensus on what the impact will be. That's true only to the extent that there is no consensus on how BAD it will be: either really really bad or catastrophic. You diss the computer models as you always do, and then offer reasons for climate change other than our use of fossil fuels which goes against what has become a clear scientific consensus. And your acknowledgment that climate change is happening is in contradiction of many of your earlier posts in which you attempted to claim that the so called "pause" in recent years proved that it was NOT happening. You're all over the map in this; your only consistent theme is skepticism. Your arguments are not reasonable and you're definitely in the denier camp.

Link to the bolded? What exactly will the consequences be? Are there any positive consequences of climate change?

And, no, I don't believe that there is consensus on exactly what portion of climate change is caused by fossil fuels. No one has yet proven whether it's 25%, 65%, or 95%.

just curious, but what would you accept as proof?
Tough to answer, unfortunately.
agree, and it bothers me when the "you can't prove it!" argument is made. if you can't give an example of evidence that would convince you, then you can't be convinced.
Well, the bolded is just silly.
how? If you can be convinced, tell me what would convince you?
Like the definition of porn, I'll know it when I see it. That doesn't mean it won't ever happen, it means I have yet to see anything that looks like proof.

It would be like asking me how long it would take me to build a car from scratch, by myself. I don't have the foggiest idea. If I built one, I could track the amount of time, and give you an answer afterward.

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

Is it porn yet?

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NY is not under water yet? :kicksrock:

Damn that settled science is wrong.

You're posting in jest, but it makes me think of something.

If, over the course of a few hundred years, the current low land underneath NYC, MIami, etc. was simply ceded to the sea piece by piece while the cities organically grew towards higher land ... it wouldn't be a singular organized engineering project, of course, but is it broadly feasible?

To borrow a meme from Eastern philosophy ... could humanity "bend like a reed" in the face of climate change's "gusting wind"?

Yes. Poorer nations might struggle though.

On the contrary, I would think this would be much easier in poorer areas where the builkdings are cheap/worn out/easy to replace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article you linked certainly doesn't make it porn yet. The article itself doesn't explain how they isolated the effects of the sun versus the effects of carbon-based fuels versus other effects, so no, by itself, the article offers no proof whatsoever, just assertions.

Obviously, those assertions are based on some study, but I had a difficult time getting to the actual science behind it. Doesn't make the article's claims untrue, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The researchers think that the worst results are unlikely to happen, because people won't tolerate it. Instead, the group of 10 European academics predicts that the difficult decision to build expensive dike systems will grow easier in the future as the price of floods increase.

"I mean humans will do something. We're talking about massive damages if we didn't do anything," said Jochen Hinkel, a senior researcher at the Global Climate Forum and a co-author of the paper.

"Think about [superstorm] Sandy," he added. "If that would happen every second year, that would trigger responses. It's clear we're going to see adaptation. But it's not clear how quick it will be, how successful it will be. Also we're looking at many poor countries that can't afford investments in coastal adaptation. They need financial support."

If humans build dikes, the annual cost of flooding could drop from as high as $100 trillion, in an unprotected world, to about $80 billion, Hinkel said.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sea-walls-may-be-cheaper-than-rising-waters/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://time.com/3945630/lindau-nobel-laureates-meetings/

At the 65th annual edition of the Lindau Nobel Laureates Meetings, held from June 28-July 3 in Lindau, Germany, on the shores of Lake Constance, 65 laureates gathered with 650 young scientists from 88 countries for a week of lectures and discussion that included several calls to action.

----------

But most prominent—and formal—was raised on the final day of the conference, held on nearby Mainau Island: a call to address climate change. 2011 Physics laureate Brian Schmidt introduced the Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change, signed by 36 Nobel laureates

so, only 36 out of 65 attendees signed the declaration....That doesn't seem like an overwhelming consensus...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://time.com/3945630/lindau-nobel-laureates-meetings/

At the 65th annual edition of the Lindau Nobel Laureates Meetings, held from June 28-July 3 in Lindau, Germany, on the shores of Lake Constance, 65 laureates gathered with 650 young scientists from 88 countries for a week of lectures and discussion that included several calls to action.

----------

But most prominent—and formal—was raised on the final day of the conference, held on nearby Mainau Island: a call to address climate change. 2011 Physics laureate Brian Schmidt introduced the Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change, signed by 36 Nobel laureates

so, only 36 out of 65 attendees signed the declaration....That doesn't seem like an overwhelming consensus...

The other 29 are apparently racists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Giaever was a professor at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institutes School of Engineering and School of Science and received the Nobel Prize for physics for his work on quantum tunneling.

Hmmmm. Sounds like one of them anti-science Tea Party types.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://m.snopes.com/2015/07/08/nobel-ivar-giaever-obama-climate-change/

Shortly after Dr. Giaever delivered his speech, his comments about President Obama began appearing on conservative web sites, cited as proof that global warming is a “hoax” and a “conspiracy.” However, Dr. Giaever (a physicist, not a climatologist) has given the same type of global warming speech in the same setting before, and by his own admission he doesn’t know much about the subject:

I am not really terribly interested in global warming.
Like most physicists I don’t think much about it.
But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so — half a day maybe on Google, and I was horrified by what I learned. And I’m going to try to explain to you why that was the case.

Skeptical Science noted of Dr. Giaever back in 2012 that:

While Giaever is certainly a highly accomplished physicist, that does not automatically make him a climate expert as well. As Giaever himself has admitted, he has spent very little time researching the subject, and it shows.
He simply bounces from one climate myth to the next, demonstrating a lack of understanding of Climate Science 101,
and then insults the entire scientific field by comparing it to a religion.

Giaever has used his position of scientific authority as a Nobel Laureate to misinform people about a subject on which h
e has not even done the most basic research
. That is not how a good scientist should behave, and that is why Giaever has rightfully and deservedly been criticized.

Climate change conspiracy buffs focused solely on Dr. Giaever while ignoring others who also addressed the issue of global warming at the 65th Nobel Laureate Meeting. On the final day of the meeting, 36 Nobel laureates signed the Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change, an emphatic appeal for climate protection, stating that “that the nations of the world must take the opportunity at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in December 2015 to take decisive action to limit future global emissions”:

We undersigned scientists, who have been awarded Nobel Prizes, have come to the shores of Lake Constance in southern Germany, to share insights with promising young researchers, who like us come from around the world. Nearly 60 years ago, here on Mainau, a similar gathering of Nobel Laureates in science issued a declaration of the dangers inherent in the newly found technology of nuclear weapons — a technology derived from advances in basic science. So far we have avoided nuclear war though the threat remains. We believe that our world today faces another threat of comparable magnitude.

Successive generations of scientists have helped create a more and more prosperous world. This prosperity has come at the cost of a rapid rise in the consumption of the world’s resources. If left unchecked, our ever-increasing demand for food, water, and energy will eventually overwhelm the Earth’s ability to satisfy humanity’s needs, and will lead to wholesale human tragedy. Already, scientists who study Earth’s climate are observing the impact of human activity.

In response to the possibility of human-induced climate change, the United Nations established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to provide the world’s leaders a summary of the current state of relevant scientific knowledge. While by no means perfect, we believe that the efforts that have led to the current IPCC Fifth Assessment Report represent the best source of information regarding the present state of knowledge on climate change. We say this not as experts in the field of climate change, but rather as a diverse group of scientists who have a deep respect for and understanding of the integrity of the scientific process.

Although there remains uncertainty as to the precise extent of climate change, the conclusions of the scientific community contained in the latest IPCC report are alarming, especially in the context of the identified risks of maintaining human prosperity in the face of greater than a 2°C rise in average global temperature. The report concludes that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the likely cause of the current global warming of the Earth. Predictions from the range of climate models indicate that this warming will very likely increase the Earth’s temperature over the coming century by more than 2°C above its pre-industrial level unless dramatic reductions are made in anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases over the coming decades.

Based on the IPCC assessment, the world must make rapid progress towards lowering current and future greenhouse gas emissions to minimize the substantial risks of climate change. We believe that the nations of the world must take the opportunity at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in December 2015 to take decisive action to limit future global emissions. This endeavor will require the cooperation of all nations, whether developed or developing, and must be sustained into the future in accord with updated scientific assessment.

Read more at http://m.snopes.com/2015/07/08/nobel-ivar-giaever-obama-climate-change/#PXvUb7OyQpXFYy2o.99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Giaever was a professor at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institutes School of Engineering and School of Science and received the Nobel Prize for physics for his work on quantum tunneling.

Hmmmm. Sounds like one of them anti-science Tea Party types.

quantum tunneling / climate science....same thing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet, only 36 out of 65 of those attendees signed off on that declaration...

You use numbers, so you must be a scientist too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Giaever was a professor at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institutes School of Engineering and School of Science and received the Nobel Prize for physics for his work on quantum tunneling.

Hmmmm. Sounds like one of them anti-science Tea Party types.

quantum tunneling / climate science....same thing

His criticism was more directed at the scientific method used in this debate, which he is more than qualified on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on the IPCC assessment, the world must make rapid progress towards lowering current and future greenhouse gas emissions to minimize the substantial risks of climate change.

Like most scientists, I'm fully on board with alternative energy. If accepting the IPCC's outlandish predictions is what it takes to get political support for alternative energy, then so be it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on the IPCC assessment, the world must make rapid progress towards lowering current and future greenhouse gas emissions to minimize the substantial risks of climate change.

Like most scientists, I'm fully on board with alternative energy. If accepting the IPCC's outlandish predictions is what it takes to get political support for alternative energy, then so be it.

Saying you are for alternative energy is like saying you are against rape. Everybody is for it. Renewable sustainable energy is most people's dream. I'm confident we will get there in before 2100. The outlandish predictions are doing serious damage to the credibility of the institution of science. Edited by Sam Quentin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on the IPCC assessment, the world must make rapid progress towards lowering current and future greenhouse gas emissions to minimize the substantial risks of climate change.

Like most scientists, I'm fully on board with alternative energy. If accepting the IPCC's outlandish predictions is what it takes to get political support for alternative energy, then so be it.

Saying you are for alternative energy is like saying you are against rape. Everybody is for it. Renewable sustainable energy is most people's dream. I'm confident we will get there in before 2100. The outlandish predictions are doing serious damage to the credibility of the institution of science.
snoopes, some poster names dana1981 on SlepticalScience and Tim do not think it is outlandish.

ETA: Tim attacks the credibility of a source by cutting and pasting from some kookie website.

Edited by jon_mx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on the IPCC assessment, the world must make rapid progress towards lowering current and future greenhouse gas emissions to minimize the substantial risks of climate change.

Like most scientists, I'm fully on board with alternative energy. If accepting the IPCC's outlandish predictions is what it takes to get political support for alternative energy, then so be it.

Saying you are for alternative energy is like saying you are against rape. Everybody is for it. Renewable sustainable energy is most people's dream. I'm confident we will get there in before 2100. The outlandish predictions are doing serious damage to the credibility of the institution of science.
snoopes, some poster names dana1981 on SlepticalScience and Tim do not think it is outlandish.

ETA: Tim attacks the credibility of a source by cutting and pasting from some kookie website.

Snopes.com /ˈsnps/, also known as the Urban Legends Reference Pages, is a website covering urban legends, Internet rumors, e-mail forwards, and other stories of unknown or questionable origin.[2] It is a well-known resource for validating and debunking such stories in American popular culture,[3] receiving 300,000 visits a day.[4]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on the IPCC assessment, the world must make rapid progress towards lowering current and future greenhouse gas emissions to minimize the substantial risks of climate change.

Like most scientists, I'm fully on board with alternative energy. If accepting the IPCC's outlandish predictions is what it takes to get political support for alternative energy, then so be it.

Saying you are for alternative energy is like saying you are against rape. Everybody is for it. Renewable sustainable energy is most people's dream. I'm confident we will get there in before 2100. The outlandish predictions are doing serious damage to the credibility of the institution of science.

If it was most people's dream they'd be more willing to put money into it. When Obama did and some things didn't work out it was 'Solyndra this, Solyndra that".

when the Solyndra case emerged, Republicans on Capitol Hill had pointed criticism for the Obama administration. Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., called the Solyndra case "disgusting," and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, labeled it "a colossal failure." The conservative group Americans for Prosperity produced a television ad accusing President Obama of paying back campaign contributors.

Been pretty quiet though since the program started making a profit.

Now that the loan program is turning a profit, those critics are silent. They either declined or ignored NPR's requests for comment. And with that, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz wants to change people's perception of his agency's loan program.

"It literally kick-started the whole utility-scale photovoltaic industry," Moniz says. The program funded the first of five huge solar projects in the West. Moniz says before that, developers couldn't get money from private lenders. But now, with proven business models, they can.

Edited by cstu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on the IPCC assessment, the world must make rapid progress towards lowering current and future greenhouse gas emissions to minimize the substantial risks of climate change.

Like most scientists, I'm fully on board with alternative energy. If accepting the IPCC's outlandish predictions is what it takes to get political support for alternative energy, then so be it.

Saying you are for alternative energy is like saying you are against rape. Everybody is for it. Renewable sustainable energy is most people's dream. I'm confident we will get there in before 2100. The outlandish predictions are doing serious damage to the credibility of the institution of science.
snoopes, some poster names dana1981 on SlepticalScience and Tim do not think it is outlandish.

ETA: Tim attacks the credibility of a source by cutting and pasting from some kookie website.

Snopes.com /ˈsnoʊps/, also known as the Urban Legends Reference Pages, is a website covering urban legends, Internet rumors, e-mail forwards, and other stories of unknown or questionable origin.[2] It is a well-known resource for validating and debunking such stories in American popular culture,[3] receiving 300,000 visits a day.[4]

I was referring to Skeptical science who uses annonamous posters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on the IPCC assessment, the world must make rapid progress towards lowering current and future greenhouse gas emissions to minimize the substantial risks of climate change.

Like most scientists, I'm fully on board with alternative energy. If accepting the IPCC's outlandish predictions is what it takes to get political support for alternative energy, then so be it.

Saying you are for alternative energy is like saying you are against rape. Everybody is for it. Renewable sustainable energy is most people's dream. I'm confident we will get there in before 2100. The outlandish predictions are doing serious damage to the credibility of the institution of science.
snoopes, some poster names dana1981 on SlepticalScience and Tim do not think it is outlandish.

ETA: Tim attacks the credibility of a source by cutting and pasting from some kookie website.

Snopes.com /ˈsnoʊps/, also known as the Urban Legends Reference Pages, is a website covering urban legends, Internet rumors, e-mail forwards, and other stories of unknown or questionable origin.[2] It is a well-known resource for validating and debunking such stories in American popular culture,[3] receiving 300,000 visits a day.[4]
So you readily admit Snopes is far less qualified to comment on the science than a well respected scientist? they have zero expertise in science. Edited by jon_mx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on the IPCC assessment, the world must make rapid progress towards lowering current and future greenhouse gas emissions to minimize the substantial risks of climate change.

Like most scientists, I'm fully on board with alternative energy. If accepting the IPCC's outlandish predictions is what it takes to get political support for alternative energy, then so be it.

Saying you are for alternative energy is like saying you are against rape. Everybody is for it. Renewable sustainable energy is most people's dream. I'm confident we will get there in before 2100. The outlandish predictions are doing serious damage to the credibility of the institution of science.

If it was most people's dream they'd be more willing to put money into it. When Obama did and some things didn't work out it was 'Solyndra this, Solyndra that".

when the Solyndra case emerged, Republicans on Capitol Hill had pointed criticism for the Obama administration. Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., called the Solyndra case "disgusting," and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, labeled it "a colossal failure." The conservative group Americans for Prosperity produced a television ad accusing President Obama of paying back campaign contributors.

Been pretty quiet though since the program started making a profit.

Now that the loan program is turning a profit, those critics are silent. They either declined or ignored NPR's requests for comment. And with that, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz wants to change people's perception of his agency's loan program.

"It literally kick-started the whole utility-scale photovoltaic industry," Moniz says. The program funded the first of five huge solar projects in the West. Moniz says before that, developers couldn't get money from private lenders. But now, with proven business models, they can.

The problem with Solyndra wasn't the program, it was the appearance of favoritism towards a company with an investor that was an Obama fundraiser and had visited the White House a number of times. In issuing the loan, the ignored misgivings from outside rating agencies, the office of management and budget and the U.S. treasury, amongst others. They fast tracked the loan without legal or marketing review, for which they got dinged by the GAO...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read an interesting comment on reddit yesterday. He said that global warming deniers were the most dangerous group of people in the history of the world because their beliefs actually put the entire human race at risk of extinction.

A bit dramatic for me, but interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read an interesting comment on reddit yesterday. He said that global warming deniers were the most dangerous group of people in the history of the world because their beliefs actually put the entire human race at risk of extinction.

A bit dramatic for me, but interesting.

A bit dramatic? Good lord, that is ####in lunacy. .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read an interesting comment on reddit yesterday. He said that global warming deniers were the most dangerous group of people in the history of the world because their beliefs actually put the entire human race at risk of extinction.

A bit dramatic for me, but interesting.

It not quite that drastic. The reason that we don't take enough action on this is not the deniers, but that nobody wants to do anything that's going to cause pain to our economy in the short term. Is the same reason we don't do anything about the debt. Politicians are terrified to take any action that causes short term pain for fear of being thrown out of office. It's a key problem with are democratic system, always has been, but it's getting worse.

That being said the skeptics are both wrong and annoying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read an interesting comment on reddit yesterday. He said that global warming deniers were the most dangerous group of people in the history of the world because their beliefs actually put the entire human race at risk of extinction.

A bit dramatic for me, but interesting.

It not quite that drastic. The reason that we don't take enough action on this is not the deniers, but that nobody wants to do anything that's going to cause pain to our economy in the short term. Is the same reason we don't do anything about the debt. Politicians are terrified to take any action that causes short term pain for fear of being thrown out of office. It's a key problem with are democratic system, always has been, but it's getting worse.

That being said the skeptics are both wrong and annoying.

"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

Stephen Schneider (leading advocate of the global warming theory) (in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read an interesting comment on reddit yesterday. He said that global warming deniers were the most dangerous group of people in the history of the world because their beliefs actually put the entire human race at risk of extinction.

A bit dramatic for me, but interesting.

It not quite that drastic. The reason that we don't take enough action on this is not the deniers, but that nobody wants to do anything that's going to cause pain to our economy in the short term. Is the same reason we don't do anything about the debt. Politicians are terrified to take any action that causes short term pain for fear of being thrown out of office. It's a key problem with are democratic system, always has been, but it's getting worse.

That being said the skeptics are both wrong and annoying.

"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

Stephen Schneider (leading advocate of the global warming theory) (in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989)

And when you make the choice to be dishonest, you lose credibility for yourself and the institution of science. You are no longer a scientist, but an advocate. That's the dangerous path we are on. We already destroyed journalism, and that has had horrible consequences....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read an interesting comment on reddit yesterday. He said that global warming deniers were the most dangerous group of people in the history of the world because their beliefs actually put the entire human race at risk of extinction.

A bit dramatic for me, but interesting.

It not quite that drastic. The reason that we don't take enough action on this is not the deniers, but that nobody wants to do anything that's going to cause pain to our economy in the short term. Is the same reason we don't do anything about the debt. Politicians are terrified to take any action that causes short term pain for fear of being thrown out of office. It's a key problem with are democratic system, always has been, but it's getting worse.

That being said the skeptics are both wrong and annoying.

"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

Stephen Schneider (leading advocate of the global warming theory) (in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989)

And when you make the choice to be dishonest, you lose credibility for yourself and the institution of science. You are no longer a scientist, but an advocate. That's the dangerous path we are on. We already destroyed journalism, and that has had horrible consequences....
Nancy Grace?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.