[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Actually, we know EXACTLY why the Earth’s environment changes.[/quote]
I am sorry , I have to call BULLSHIT
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-to-propose-1-billion-to-prepare-for-climate-change/2014/02/14/d18d3712-95a5-11e3-afce-3e7c922ef31e_story.html[/quote]
I see nothing out of line there . If that dought continues you will get a big grasp on how much produce comes out of Cali ,AZ and the South West
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
“There’s a sucker born every minute” and anyone, and I mean anyone who at this juncture buys into the idea that man-made activities are leading to meteorological cataclysm is the very definition of sucker.[/quote]
Why?[/quote]
Oh don’t mind him that is just FAUX news talking
[quote]conservativedog wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I haven’t a clue but NASA says 97% Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
[/quote]
97% of scientist agree.
…always believe everything you hear from your friendly government.
the only time you see 97% and know it is real is when it has to do with blacks voting for liberal democrats.
i could be wrong it might be 98%.
[/quote]
No , I don’t believe much my GOV tell me
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]conservativedog wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I haven’t a clue but NASA says 97% Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
[/quote]
97% of scientist agree.
…always believe everything you hear from your friendly government.
the only time you see 97% and know it is real is when it has to do with blacks voting for liberal democrats.
i could be wrong it might be 98%.
[/quote]
No , I don’t believe much my GOV tell me
[/quote]
What are you saying then?
By the way I have a brother-in-law that worked at NASA and he doesn’t believe in global warming. He hated working for the government.
(Hi Randy if you ever look up NASA in a search and see this, it’s me)
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Actually, we know EXACTLY why the Earth’s environment changes…
[/quote]
You must’ve graduated summa cum laude from the University of Pittttbullll.
[/quote]
There are three overriding factors in changes in the Earth’s temperature, and we know beyond a shadow of a doubt how these three factors work.
-
Changes in the tilt of the Earth’s axis. The angle at which the sun’s energy is directed at the Earth will increase or decrease temperatures, sort of like the way you can burn insects by using a magnifying glass held at certain angles.
-
There are variations in the Earth’s orbit around the sun that lead to temperature changes. Because of the combination of inertia and gravity, we travel around the sun in an elliptical path and are therefore further from the sun and closer to the sun at different points along that path.
-
Precession is the change in the tilt of the axis in relation to the orbit. Basically a combination of the first two.
So, uh, yeah. We’ve known what causes changes in the Earth’s temperature for, oh, I don’t know, 2300 years or so. Any other gold you want to throw my way, Push?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Actually, we know EXACTLY why the Earth’s environment changes.[/quote]
I am sorry , I have to call BULLSHIT
[/quote]
Are you not aware of what a tilted axis is, an elliptical orbit, etc., etc. are?
[quote]conservativedog wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I really do not know how you could calculate the ALL KNOWING FAUX NEWS (absolute denial) of climate change to it’s adversary of the other media outlets of reasonable and trying to see if there is any truth.
[/quote]
how stupid can these people be to say blame Global Warming every summer when it gets hot and then to still say the cold winters are also because of Global Warming?
these are cycles that come and go and always have since before the coal and oil were used as fuel. quit trying to take our money away in carbon footprint dollars and green energy taxes.
[/quote]
This right here invalidates pretty much any other commentary you might have on the issue. You clearly have ZERO understanding of wind patterns, the relationship between two different air masses whose fronts border each other, the relationship between jet streams and the winds directly underneath them, and other very basic factors that can lead to extremely cool temperatures in some areas while others are abnormally hot.
Do a little research into meteorology and then come back and start calling me ignorant. Until then, don’t start ranting and raving about things you obviously don’t know anything about.
[quote]conservativedog wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I really do not know how you could calculate the ALL KNOWING FAUX NEWS (absolute denial) of climate change to it’s adversary of the other media outlets of reasonable and trying to see if there is any truth.
[/quote]
you liberals listen one more time…
no one is denying there is climate change. OKAY?
it is the FACT that climate change is not occurring because you are turning your lights on and off in the bathroom or driving to work everyday that is THE POINT.
greenland was once green and will be again one day but that has no fuckin connection to man.
how stupid can these people be to say blame Global Warming every summer when it gets hot and then to still say the cold winters are also because of Global Warming?
these are cycles that come and go and always have since before the coal and oil were used as fuel. quit trying to take our money away in carbon footprint dollars and green energy taxes.
[/quote]
http://news.yahoo.com/jet-stream-shift-could-prompt-harsher-winters-scientists-132931128.html
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-to-propose-1-billion-to-prepare-for-climate-change/2014/02/14/d18d3712-95a5-11e3-afce-3e7c922ef31e_story.html[/quote]
This is probably one of the only intelligent things he’s done during his tenure. I’ve said it on here time and time again. We have to be prepared for the fallout from climate change, regardless of WHY it is happening. The fact is that it IS happening, and if we are unprepared for its effects, we will be in big trouble. Devoting a billion dollars to this is nothing compared to the country’s budget. It’s an investment well worth it.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I haven’t a clue but NASA says 97% Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
[/quote]
[/quote]
Since articles that support liberal causes that come from liberal news sources are regularly discredited, it’s only fair to immediately deny any legitimacy this article may have because it comes from a decidedly conservative source that clearly has an axe to grind on behalf of the conservative mainstream media.[/quote]
Indeed you are correct, if flippantly of course. However in the past I delved into the stats of the Cook et al. study–and the methodology–and there are some gaping holes here. Not the least of which is they have classified many AGW critic’s scientific papers as category 1 or 2 “support of AGW”, which is indicative of shoddy worksmanship with search and inclusion criteria at least and outright dishonesty at worst. In addition to that they conveniently forgot to include several seminal skeptics papers that nobody working in the field could possibly have been ignorant of (these are all peer reviewed scholarly articles btw).
In addition to that the researchers’ search methodology is hideously shoddy. They used the Web of Science instead of Scopus (the widely accepted standard for this area), which dropped an approximate 35% of papers available for classification as well as changing the disciplinary distribution, both of which are critical to control or justify in a meta-study.
They also picked the search criteria such that it limited and biased the results. Adding the word “global” in front of “climate change” dropped over half of the available studies (closer to 70% actually), as well as further changing distribution of disciplines contained in the search results (the second such distribution change, as noted above).
Further this addition chopped off over half of the 50 most cited research papers in the relevant fields–and 6 of the top 10 cited. It also chopped out quite literally hundreds of peer reviewed research papers (edit: in fact over 1,000 by my estimate) by highly accomplished and cited researchers expressing various degrees of skepticism to the catastrophic viewpoint of the IPCC.
Dr. Richard Tol (who used to work at the IPCC and was lead author on papers they readily published) runs over these methodology errors but you can easily verify the sums yourself (I did). Keep in mind that Dr. Tol worked at the IPCC himself, and had personally approximately 100 peer reviewed published papers excluded (only 10 were included). He refers to the data selection as “a load of crap” although he does mention that “in his defense [Dana] has had limited exposure to statistics at university”.
So bottom line is, this study is a piece of shit.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I haven’t a clue but NASA says 97% Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
[/quote]
[/quote]
Since articles that support liberal causes that come from liberal news sources are regularly discredited, it’s only fair to immediately deny any legitimacy this article may have because it comes from a decidedly conservative source that clearly has an axe to grind on behalf of the conservative mainstream media.[/quote]
Indeed you are correct, if flippantly of course. However in the past I delved into the stats of the Cook et al. study–and the methodology–and there are some gaping holes here. Not the least of which is they have classified many AGW critic’s scientific papers as category 1 or 2 “support of AGW”, which is indicative of shoddy worksmanship with search and inclusion criteria at least and outright dishonesty at worst. In addition to that they conveniently forgot to include several seminal skeptics papers that nobody working in the field could possibly have been ignorant of (these are all peer reviewed scholarly articles btw).
In addition to that the researchers’ search methodology is hideously shoddy. They used the Web of Science instead of Scopus (the widely accepted standard for this area), which dropped an approximate 35% of papers available for classification as well as changing the disciplinary distribution, both of which are critical to control or justify in a meta-study.
They also picked the search criteria such that it limited and biased the results. Adding the word “global” in front of “climate change” dropped over half of the available studies (closer to 70% actually), as well as further changing distribution of disciplines contained in the search results (the second such distribution change, as noted above).
Further this addition chopped off over half of the 50 most cited research papers in the relevant fields–and 6 of the top 10 cited. It also chopped out quite literally hundreds of peer reviewed research papers (edit: in fact over 1,000 by my estimate) by highly accomplished and cited researchers expressing various degrees of skepticism to the catastrophic viewpoint of the IPCC.
Dr. Richard Tol (who used to work at the IPCC and was lead author on papers they readily published) runs over these methodology errors but you can easily verify the sums yourself (I did). Keep in mind that Dr. Tol worked at the IPCC himself, and had personally approximately 100 peer reviewed published papers excluded (only 10 were included). He refers to the data selection as “a load of crap” although he does mention that “in his defense [Dana] has had limited exposure to statistics at university”.
So bottom line is, this study is a piece of shit.[/quote]
This study has also been floating around this forum for about a year. I didn’t even bother reading the article when I clicked on the link since I’ve already read similar stuff about it in the past. I probably already the Forbes article as well.
I have also done a little digging into that study. It’s statistics and the way they come up with that 97% number is shoddy at best.
It’s also complete sophistry on a massive scale to point to this study’s questionable arrival at the 97% as evidence that global warming is not occurring. I hear a lot of skeptics in these threads simply resort to sophistry and other sophomoric methods to invalidate the climate change crowd. I hear virtually none of them explain why they are right and the climate change crowd is wrong. Every once in awhile there will be an article provided that discusses an equally shoddy study that supports the anti-climate change crowd.
If you simply look at the actual science behind the issue, it is clear that there is simply an overwhelming amount of evidence to support the climate change crowd and not a whole lot at all to support the opposite side.
There is a difference between arguing why someone is wrong and arguing why you are right. The former requires a skeptical person with the personality of a criminal defense lawyer, while the latter requires an analytical mind and actual knowledge of the subject at hand. This site is littered with the former.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I haven’t a clue but NASA says 97% Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
[/quote]
[/quote]
Since articles that support liberal causes that come from liberal news sources are regularly discredited, it’s only fair to immediately deny any legitimacy this article may have because it comes from a decidedly conservative source that clearly has an axe to grind on behalf of the conservative mainstream media.[/quote]
Indeed you are correct, if flippantly of course. However in the past I delved into the stats of the Cook et al. study–and the methodology–and there are some gaping holes here. Not the least of which is they have classified many AGW critic’s scientific papers as category 1 or 2 “support of AGW”, which is indicative of shoddy worksmanship with search and inclusion criteria at least and outright dishonesty at worst. In addition to that they conveniently forgot to include several seminal skeptics papers that nobody working in the field could possibly have been ignorant of (these are all peer reviewed scholarly articles btw).
In addition to that the researchers’ search methodology is hideously shoddy. They used the Web of Science instead of Scopus (the widely accepted standard for this area), which dropped an approximate 35% of papers available for classification as well as changing the disciplinary distribution, both of which are critical to control or justify in a meta-study.
They also picked the search criteria such that it limited and biased the results. Adding the word “global” in front of “climate change” dropped over half of the available studies (closer to 70% actually), as well as further changing distribution of disciplines contained in the search results (the second such distribution change, as noted above).
Further this addition chopped off over half of the 50 most cited research papers in the relevant fields–and 6 of the top 10 cited. It also chopped out quite literally hundreds of peer reviewed research papers (edit: in fact over 1,000 by my estimate) by highly accomplished and cited researchers expressing various degrees of skepticism to the catastrophic viewpoint of the IPCC.
Dr. Richard Tol (who used to work at the IPCC and was lead author on papers they readily published) runs over these methodology errors but you can easily verify the sums yourself (I did). Keep in mind that Dr. Tol worked at the IPCC himself, and had personally approximately 100 peer reviewed published papers excluded (only 10 were included). He refers to the data selection as “a load of crap” although he does mention that “in his defense [Dana] has had limited exposure to statistics at university”.
So bottom line is, this study is a piece of shit.[/quote]
This study has also been floating around this forum for about a year. I didn’t even bother reading the article when I clicked on the link since I’ve already read similar stuff about it in the past. I probably already the Forbes article as well.
I have also done a little digging into that study. It’s statistics and the way they come up with that 97% number is shoddy at best.
It’s also complete sophistry on a massive scale to point to this study’s questionable arrival at the 97% as evidence that global warming is not occurring. [/quote]
Where did I say that? I didn’t. I’ve called out people on both sides in this very thread thank you.
[quote]I hear a lot of skeptics in these threads simply resort to sophistry and other sophomoric methods to invalidate the climate change crowd. I hear virtually none of them explain why they are right and the climate change crowd is wrong. Every once in awhile there will be an article provided that discusses an equally shoddy study that supports the anti-climate change crowd.
If you simply look at the actual science behind the issue, it is clear that there is simply an overwhelming amount of evidence to support the climate change crowd and not a whole lot at all to support the opposite side.
There is a difference between arguing why someone is wrong and arguing why you are right. The former requires a skeptical person with the personality of a criminal defense lawyer, while the latter requires an analytical mind and actual knowledge of the subject at hand. This site is littered with the former.[/quote]
I think you should look deeper. I’m not arguing that the climate is not changing. The climate is always changing. I am arguing against the catastrophism viewpoint and shitty ass political work masquerading as legitimate science. Understanding what man’s impact on the system is is essential and must be done without politics. Your response indicates that while very intelligent you are not as well read on the hard research pertaining to the subject as you would like to appear.
To say that there is no evidence that the anti-anthropogenic GW people have a point is to illuminate your ignorance of the science. There are thousands (plural) of peer reviewed papers published that are critical of the current politicized model and alarmist position in various degrees. Many of these are critical of anthropogenic global warming, though by no means all of them. Some are physics papers showing that a very veeery large chunk of warming can be attributed to differences in cosmic radiation levels and in fact shows that climate sensitivity may be low as opposed to high as claimed by AGW alarmists (See Shaviv et al. “On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget” for example)
There are thousands of peer reviewed articles published, and in any world remotely associated with real science, thousands of papers equates to a very substantial chunk of current research.
This is why I am skeptical, because of bullshit like this.
Some of these have begun to spring up around a few places in So Cal.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I haven’t a clue but NASA says 97% Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
[/quote]
[/quote]
Since articles that support liberal causes that come from liberal news sources are regularly discredited, it’s only fair to immediately deny any legitimacy this article may have because it comes from a decidedly conservative source that clearly has an axe to grind on behalf of the conservative mainstream media.[/quote]
Indeed you are correct, if flippantly of course. However in the past I delved into the stats of the Cook et al. study–and the methodology–and there are some gaping holes here. Not the least of which is they have classified many AGW critic’s scientific papers as category 1 or 2 “support of AGW”, which is indicative of shoddy worksmanship with search and inclusion criteria at least and outright dishonesty at worst. In addition to that they conveniently forgot to include several seminal skeptics papers that nobody working in the field could possibly have been ignorant of (these are all peer reviewed scholarly articles btw).
In addition to that the researchers’ search methodology is hideously shoddy. They used the Web of Science instead of Scopus (the widely accepted standard for this area), which dropped an approximate 35% of papers available for classification as well as changing the disciplinary distribution, both of which are critical to control or justify in a meta-study.
They also picked the search criteria such that it limited and biased the results. Adding the word “global” in front of “climate change” dropped over half of the available studies (closer to 70% actually), as well as further changing distribution of disciplines contained in the search results (the second such distribution change, as noted above).
Further this addition chopped off over half of the 50 most cited research papers in the relevant fields–and 6 of the top 10 cited. It also chopped out quite literally hundreds of peer reviewed research papers (edit: in fact over 1,000 by my estimate) by highly accomplished and cited researchers expressing various degrees of skepticism to the catastrophic viewpoint of the IPCC.
Dr. Richard Tol (who used to work at the IPCC and was lead author on papers they readily published) runs over these methodology errors but you can easily verify the sums yourself (I did). Keep in mind that Dr. Tol worked at the IPCC himself, and had personally approximately 100 peer reviewed published papers excluded (only 10 were included). He refers to the data selection as “a load of crap” although he does mention that “in his defense [Dana] has had limited exposure to statistics at university”.
So bottom line is, this study is a piece of shit.[/quote]
This study has also been floating around this forum for about a year. I didn’t even bother reading the article when I clicked on the link since I’ve already read similar stuff about it in the past. I probably already the Forbes article as well.
I have also done a little digging into that study. It’s statistics and the way they come up with that 97% number is shoddy at best.
It’s also complete sophistry on a massive scale to point to this study’s questionable arrival at the 97% as evidence that global warming is not occurring. [/quote]
Where did I say that? I didn’t. I’ve called out people on both sides in this very thread thank you.
[quote]I hear a lot of skeptics in these threads simply resort to sophistry and other sophomoric methods to invalidate the climate change crowd. I hear virtually none of them explain why they are right and the climate change crowd is wrong. Every once in awhile there will be an article provided that discusses an equally shoddy study that supports the anti-climate change crowd.
If you simply look at the actual science behind the issue, it is clear that there is simply an overwhelming amount of evidence to support the climate change crowd and not a whole lot at all to support the opposite side.
There is a difference between arguing why someone is wrong and arguing why you are right. The former requires a skeptical person with the personality of a criminal defense lawyer, while the latter requires an analytical mind and actual knowledge of the subject at hand. This site is littered with the former.[/quote]
I think you should look deeper. I’m not arguing that the climate is not changing. The climate is always changing. I am arguing against the catastrophism viewpoint and shitty ass political work masquerading as legitimate science. Understanding what man’s impact on the system is is essential and must be done without politics. Your response indicates that while very intelligent you are not as well read on the hard research pertaining to the subject as you would like to appear.
To say that there is no evidence that the anti-anthropogenic GW people have a point is to illuminate your ignorance of the science. There are thousands (plural) of peer reviewed papers published that are critical of the current politicized model and alarmist position in various degrees. Many of these are critical of anthropogenic global warming, though by no means all of them. Some are physics papers showing that a very veeery large chunk of warming can be attributed to differences in cosmic radiation levels and in fact shows that climate sensitivity may be low as opposed to high as claimed by AGW alarmists (See Shaviv et al. “On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget” for example)
There are thousands of peer reviewed articles published, and in any world remotely associated with real science, thousands of papers equates to a very substantial chunk of current research.[/quote]
The facts of the issue and the politics of the issue are two totally different things. Is this whole issue a political football? Sure. But the politicizing of the issue on both sides of the aisle does nothing to negate the fact that global warming is occurring and that there are myriad steps that people can take to prepare for this.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
This right here invalidates pretty much any other commentary you might have on the issue. You clearly have ZERO understanding of wind patterns, the relationship between two different air masses whose fronts border each other, the relationship between jet streams and the winds directly underneath them, and other very basic factors that can lead to extremely cool temperatures in some areas while others are abnormally hot.
Do a little research into meteorology and then come back and start calling me ignorant. Until then, don’t start ranting and raving about things you obviously don’t know anything about.[/quote]
I don’t believe I said DBcooper you are ignorant.
Also show me a meteorologist that can get a winter forecast correct all the time.
I don’t have to know shit about warm air pushing the Jet Stream to know my carbon footprint being taxed by the government is not going to do anything but make me all the poorer.
Glaciers come and go with or without man is all I alluded to.
And science is not perfect.
P.S.
…Anyway, if you took this fossil and showed it to any University professor who believes in evolution, and said, “Sir, how old is this rock?” He’d say, "Ah, this is an easy one. This contains an index fossil. That index fossil is in graptolite, and the graptolites lived 410 million years ago.
It’s the New York State fossil. That’s what they said until 1993 when they found that graptolites are still alive in the South Pacific. Oops. Well, now, think about it. If they are still alive, maybe they lived between 400 million years ago and today. Maybe they could be found in any rock layer. Maybe all of the dating we’ve done by geologic positioning is bologna, and it is by the way.
http://www.wiseoldgoat.com/papers-creation/old/hovind-seminar_part4a_1999.html
For the true believers in the audience:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Actually, we know EXACTLY why the Earth’s environment changes.[/quote]
I am sorry , I have to call BULLSHIT
[/quote]
Are you not aware of what a tilted axis is, an elliptical orbit, etc., etc. are?[/quote]
Got me 
but we have not grasped the way it is changing