How to Combat Anti-Climate Change Fools

[conservativedog]

[quote]csulli wrote:
Seriously nobody is gonna weigh in on this? I can understand if you need some time since this wasn’t one of the 99 things for which that site gave you a convenient little quip.

Won’t anybody play with me?[/quote]

Shows marked decline in atmospheric CO2 concentrations and decline in temperatures.

As I’ve always heard things were much worse before man ever entered the picture. The planet is not in anything other than a normal climate shift. Earth’s climate has always had fluctuations some very significant in the past. But what science doesn’t mention often to the Michael Moore’s & Rachel Maddows is the rapidity with which these changes can occur, with or without mankind.

It is the opposite of what the powers that be (government controlled agencies)continually preach at us. You could say it’s part of their liberal religion. It is something they take on faith. At their altar? Aborted babies, often in horrendous pain as we are just beginning to learn.

But please expound on your point, you obviously have more interesting things to post than what I offer.

[DBCooper]

[quote]drunkpig wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]drunkpig wrote:
DBCooper cites an article from a left-wing propagandist rag, and has the audacity to question the validity of an article cited from Forbes?

No hypocrisy here, folks. Nope. Not even a little.

[/quote]

How fucking stupid are you? It wasn’t a study funded or conducted by that website. That site was just reporting the results of the study. If you search around on Google for, oh, I don’t know, about 5 seconds, you can find literally page after page of links to articles simply reporting the results of the study. The study’s results are being reported in everything from the Wall Street Journal to Rolling Stone and everything in between.[/quote]

You have referenced “that site” more than once. So stop playing the “it was just a site that…” crap. Think Progress is a radical left-wing propagandist organization and you are one of its followers.

You had every opportunity to criticize the Forbes piece on it’s merits. You didn’t. You ridiculed its validity because it was published by a business magazine. Hypocrisy? Double standard? Pick one.

[/quote]

More than once? As in twice, in my entire posting history on this site. Wow. It was literally the first thing that popped up when I did a Google search for a completely unrelated topic and happened to have an article about that study linked to it. Like I said, it’s a study that is being reported in literally every media source out there right now.

I don’t like the Forbes article because I am always suspicious of a study based on surveys when no information about how the survey was conducted is presented. It makes me suspicious that there was more to the gathering of info than what was reported. And I did a little Google search for more info about this study in Forbes. I didn’t find anything about it in a legitimate, peer-reviewed science journal, at least not on the first two pages of results. I did, however, find something about it in the Wall Street Journal.

So, back to the original topic at hand. Are you denying that climate change is occurring and is man-made? Not a crisis, mind you, but simply occurring. I’ve noticed that many studies from the pro-business side, which amount to all of 3% of the studies that take a stance one way or another, simply downplay climate change because many scientists don’t think we are at a crisis stage right now. So they say that scientists deny that there is a climate change crisis.

Well, that doesn’t mean that man-made climate change isn’t occurring right now, nor does it mean that it will not hit some sort of crisis stage in the future. The crisis stage is more likely to occur sooner in large part if we are not prepared for the changes that will come, regardless of the speed at which they occur. The crisis stage WILL occur no matter how slowly or rapidly these climate changes evolve if people are continuously denying the reality of the situation and do nothing as a result.

[DBCooper]

[quote]csulli wrote:
Seriously nobody is gonna weigh in on this? I can understand if you need some time since this wasn’t one of the 99 things for which that site gave you a convenient little quip.

Won’t anybody play with me?[/quote]

Maybe because it’s bullshit?

Here’s what the American Institute of Physics has come up with regarding global temperatures.

[DBCooper]

[quote]csulli wrote:
Seriously nobody is gonna weigh in on this? I can understand if you need some time since this wasn’t one of the 99 things for which that site gave you a convenient little quip.

Won’t anybody play with me?[/quote]

Here’s what NASA has come up with:

[DBCooper]

More NASA

[DBCooper]

Even more from NASA

[DBCooper]

Starting to notice a trend here? NASA, as well as 97% of the science community that has taken a stance one way or the other sure is.

[DBCooper]

I like the colors in this one.

[DBCooper]

Here’s an interesting little chart from the National Climatic Data Center at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

[DBCooper]

Let’s not forget about rising sea levels either.

[DBCooper]

More from the NCDC

[DBCooper]

I used to like snowboarding, so I thought this was relevant. I say used to because Tahoe has seen a significant drop in snow cover the last ten years and I simply don’t have the time to go up there to ride when all I’m going to be doing is cruising down some slushy blown snow. I can barely even ride on any fresh corduroy up there anymore, let alone some real deep pow-pow.

[DBCooper]

Glaciers are a major source of water for many communities. But not for much longer at this rate.

[DBCooper]

This one here doesn’t tell the whole story, so I decided to also include the link from whence it came.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

[DBCooper]

[quote]conservativedog wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:
Seriously nobody is gonna weigh in on this? I can understand if you need some time since this wasn’t one of the 99 things for which that site gave you a convenient little quip.

Won’t anybody play with me?[/quote]

Shows marked decline in atmospheric CO2 concentrations and decline in temperatures.

As I’ve always heard things were much worse before man ever entered the picture. The planet is not in anything other than a normal climate shift. Earth’s climate has always had fluctuations some very significant in the past. But what science doesn’t mention often to the Michael Moore’s & Rachel Maddows is the rapidity with which these changes can occur, with or without mankind.

It is the opposite of what the powers that be (government controlled agencies)continually preach at us. You could say it’s part of their liberal religion. It is something they take on faith. At their altar? Aborted babies, often in horrendous pain as we are just beginning to learn.

But please expound on your point, you obviously have more interesting things to post than what I offer.
[/quote]

The powers that be, eh? Going to play that card now? You know, given the sheer size and power of the oil industry lobby, not to mention the business community lobby in general, you’d think that they’d be able to use their powers that be to produce more than a mere 3% of the studies that take a stance on climate change on the side of anti-climate change.

Is the science community lobby or the green technology lobby so much more powerful than the business lobby, or even just the oil industry lobby, that they can get THIS much more information out there supporting their side of the issue?

[DBCooper]

.

[DBCooper]

Last one for now csulli. I know this is going to blow your little head up just hearing it, but I’m on my way now to the starting line of the Bay to Breakers in SF. I’m running extremely late as it is, but I just really, really wanted to play with you. Thanks for inviting me.

[DBCooper]

[quote]conservativedog wrote:
The founder of the The Weather Channel in the US has described the concept of global warming as ‘the greatest scam in history’ and accused global media of colluding with ‘environmental extremists’ to alarm the public. (story link below)

NASA Scientists Predicted a New Ice Age in 1971. (story link below)

Al Gore, the former US vice president, could become the world’s first carbon billionaire after investing heavily in green energy companies. (story link below)

Environment

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/19/nasa-scientists-predicted-new-ice-age-1971

Environment

The founder of the Weather Channel is a business man with a degree in journalism. He isn’t a scientist at all and has no credible authority on which to base his opinion. No education in science, no research background, never conducted research, nothing. He’s a guy who was good at using a teleprompter in front of a TV camera. You couldn’t have picked a worse guy to tout your stance, quite frankly. Sorry, try again.

[csulli]

[quote]conservativedog wrote:
Shows marked decline in atmospheric CO2 concentrations and decline in temperatures.
[/quote]
Well sort of.

This shows the [b]change[/b] in temperature and the [b]change[/b] in CO2 parts per million volume over time.

The CO2 levels of the Cambrian and Precambrian eras were literally over ten times what they are today (good thing the media wasn’t around to freak out back then!). It was several thousand ppm (it’s like 400 today). It’s a wonder Earth wasn’t some scorching lava planet like Mustafar. In fact it was quite lush.

If CO2 goes below 200ppm, plants stop growing… I don’t see how anyone can tell me we’re all gonna burn up from global warming due to man-made CO2 when the dinosaurs were happily prancing about at levels several times those of today. Hell sharks and crocodiles were alive pretty much back then anyhow, let’s ask them how much better they have it now that the CO2 levels aren’t so damn high.

I mean just look at the graph. Does it look like CO2 really has much sway on global temperatures? Does it? Maybe on a relatively microscopic scale, but not in the grand scheme of things. In fact, I love the infamous “hockey stick graph”. I would use that graph to prove my point that man-made global warming is bullshit. Ironic how one side uses it to prove the opposite isn’t it?

The difference between myself and the vast majority of spoon-fed Americans is that I know the most important part of any graph is the scale and not the pretty picture in the middle lol. Look at the scale! The whole entire hockey stick spike represents a whopping .55 degrees Celsius of temperature change. OMG THE SKY IS FALLING!

And the other axis is even worse! It goes back to 1000AD. Sounds like a long time at first. However over the course of history since the emergence of complex lifeforms on this planet, it represents about .00000185% of the total time scale. So… as I often encountered in statistics, sample size is ridiculously too small.

The media loves “educating” people on the importance of the distinction between “weather” and “climate” so that they can push the message of global warming and climate change and why you can’t just look a few years back and talk about weather. But in reality that’s exactly what they’re doing! In the grand scheme of things they’re addressing a ludicrously miniscule amount of time and drawing massive and sweeping conclusions from it.

[CornSprint]

[quote]conservativedog wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]drunkpig wrote:
DBCooper cites an article from a left-wing propagandist rag, and has the audacity to question the validity of an article cited from Forbes?

No hypocrisy here, folks. Nope. Not even a little.

[/quote]

How fucking stupid are you? It wasn’t a study funded or conducted by that website. That site was just reporting the results of the study. If you search around on Google for, oh, I don’t know, about 5 seconds, you can find literally page after page of links to articles simply reporting the results of the study. The study’s results are being reported in everything from the Wall Street Journal to Rolling Stone and everything in between.[/quote]

Ain’t it hilarious when someone in a forum says “How fucking stupid are you?”

Let’s turn that question back on you since you are the original poster of this global warming horse shit. Your study IN REALITY says 66.4% of abstracts expressed NO POSITION on global warming.

It reads… “We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11944 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.” ShieldSquare Captcha

The 97% of the 32.6% that endorsed global warming, is what you should have said. That’s a big difference isn’t it?

You’ve been outed.

P.S. thanks CornSprint for link
[/quote]

Honestly, without actually reading the articles that fall under the no position category, if they are truly just surveys or topics related to global warming in unrelated fields (think “Attitudes Among (population) Concerning Global Climate Change”) I don’t think it significantly detracts from the original point about the general prevalent feeling in scientific papers.

No problem on the article-I find it helps discussion for all parties to be versed in the specific paper being discussed. That way the results can be properly analyzed within the proper scope.