Global Warming Revisited - Page 12 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-08-2015, 05:58 PM   #166
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: illegitimi non carborundum
Posts: 17,415
Local Time: 04:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Evidence doesn't matter in this discussion. If you notice when science is contrary to his stance than he attacks science in general, if he finds a blogger or an opinion piece that uses "science" and it props up his stance than he's all for science. There is no consistency except his stance, which is dictated by politics not evidence. This IS the Tea Party.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

lol rekt
__________________

__________________
DaveC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2015, 02:42 PM   #167
Blue Crack Distributor
 
bono_212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 81,105
Local Time: 01:15 PM
Ifffff you're Catholic, or practice Lent, this is cool:

http://catholicclimatemovement.global/fast/
__________________

__________________
bono_212 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2015, 05:47 PM   #168
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,252
Local Time: 04:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Evidence doesn't matter in this discussion. If you notice when science is contrary to his stance than he attacks science in general, if he finds a blogger or an opinion piece that uses "science" and it props up his stance than he's all for science. There is no consistency except his stance, which is dictated by politics not evidence. This IS the Tea Party.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

My view on global warming is not driven by politics, but the evidence. So far I have not been convinced.


Here are two questions for all taking part in this discussion:


For several years now we have been warned that ninety-seven percent of the world's scientists agreed that global warming is happening.

Who were these scientists?

What were they agreeing on?
__________________
the iron horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2015, 06:18 PM   #169
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,699
Local Time: 03:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the iron horse View Post
My view on global warming is not driven by politics, but the evidence. So far I have not been convinced.
Years of seeing the links you've posted tells me otherwise.





Quote:
Originally Posted by the iron horse View Post
Here are two questions for all taking part in this discussion:





For several years now we have been warned that ninety-seven percent of the world's scientists agreed that global warming is happening.



Who were these scientists?



What were they agreeing on?

I don't even understand this questioning. These scientists were men and women who got degrees in science. That's the definition of a scientist.

They are agreeing that climate change is happening and changes in the patterns are increasing.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2015, 01:22 AM   #170
Refugee
 
nbelcik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,457
Local Time: 01:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the iron horse View Post
My view on global warming is not driven by politics, but the evidence. So far I have not been convinced.

No they are based on politics, you refuse to accept the conclusions of thousands of climatologists all across the world and instead listen to blogs run by people funded by the fossil fuel industry.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________
nbelcik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2015, 08:17 PM   #171
Blue Crack Supplier
 
elevated_u2_fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: I'm here 'cus I don't want to go home
Posts: 31,694
Local Time: 04:15 PM
So how about that Pope?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/18/world/...gy-encyclical/
__________________
elevated_u2_fan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2015, 03:05 AM   #172
Refugee
 
nbelcik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,457
Local Time: 01:15 PM
Global Warming Revisited

http://www.theonion.com/article/frus...eave-sci-50701

Frustrated Republicans Argue Pope Should Leave Science To Scientists Who Deny Climate Change

Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________
nbelcik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2015, 05:12 AM   #173
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,394
Local Time: 04:15 PM
The funny thing is that that onion article is actually representative of real viewpoints.
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2015, 09:32 PM   #174
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,252
Local Time: 04:15 PM
Who are the 97% ?

Quote from link posted:

Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "Ninety-seven percent of the world's scientists," he added, "tell us this is urgent."

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."

We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.


Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer: The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' - WSJ
__________________
the iron horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2015, 09:53 PM   #175
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,394
Local Time: 04:15 PM
PEW has that number wavering between 87 and 88.

http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/2...e-and-society/

Something tells me that 97 is a poll on climate-related sciences.

Anyways. This isn't a political thread, and it doesn't fucking matter what the number is. Unless you can speak the language in science, you citing articles "debunking" global warming are just as valuable as articles cofirming it to you. i.e. it means nothing.
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2015, 10:12 PM   #176
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,252
Local Time: 04:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
PEW has that number wavering between 87 and 88.

Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society | Pew Research Center

Something tells me that 97 is a poll on climate-related sciences.

Anyways. This isn't a political thread, and it doesn't fucking matter what the number is. Unless you can speak the language in science, you citing articles "debunking" global warming are just as valuable as articles cofirming it to you. i.e. it means nothing.

Would you agree the truth on this issue matters?

I'm just not buying the popular chant that the science is settled.
__________________
the iron horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2015, 10:57 PM   #177
Refugee
 
nbelcik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,457
Local Time: 01:15 PM
https://www.skepticalscience.com/glo...termediate.htm

"A Skeptical Science peer-reviewed survey of all (over 12,000) peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' and 'global warming' published between 1991 and 2011 (Cook et al. 2013) found that over 97% of the papers taking a position on the subject agreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of the project, the scientist authors were emailed and rated over 2,000 of their own papers. Once again, over 97% of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agreed that humans are causing it."




Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________
nbelcik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2015, 11:14 PM   #178
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,252
Local Time: 04:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nbelcik View Post
https://www.skepticalscience.com/glo...termediate.htm

"A Skeptical Science peer-reviewed survey of all (over 12,000) peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' and 'global warming' published between 1991 and 2011 (Cook et al. 2013) found that over 97% of the papers taking a position on the subject agreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of the project, the scientist authors were emailed and rated over 2,000 of their own papers. Once again, over 97% of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agreed that humans are causing it."




Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

I read the link you posted. I hope you read the one I posted.

The comments on the one you posted is running 14 pages and more to come I guess.

I have only read two pages, but here's part of one comment:

"Maybe we should stop pretending numbers and NGOs are scientists and that consensus is science. It's that claim that raises huge red flags for me."
__________________
the iron horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2015, 11:21 PM   #179
Refugee
 
nbelcik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,457
Local Time: 01:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the iron horse View Post
I read the link you posted. I hope you read the one I posted.



The comments on the one you posted is running 14 pages and more to come I guess.



I have only read two pages, but here's part of one comment:



"Maybe we should stop pretending numbers and NGOs are scientists and that consensus is science. It's that claim that raises huge red flags for me."

I can't read that one because I don't have a WSJ subscription. Also, that article is confirmed by other studies. One study showed that 77% of scientists who were non climatologists and didn't study climate change agreed that climate change was real and caused by humans. But 97.5% of climatologists who actively study climate change agree with the conclusion that climate change is caused by humans. As knowledge in the field goes up, agreement goes up.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________
nbelcik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2015, 12:36 AM   #180
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,394
Local Time: 04:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the iron horse View Post
Would you agree the truth on this issue matters?

I'm just not buying the popular chant that the science is settled.
Do I think truth on the issue matters? I don't think that properly or improperly cited statistics would make a difference.

Having more people agree on something doesn't make it right. Your silly articles don't make you right.

What's the difference between 87, 88, 97, and hearsay? I'll stop blabbering about my own "biases" after I keep blabbering about them like 15 more times. I work in research very closely related to the field. From everything that I can see, and from those around me, I can think of one person in my small sample size that doesn't believe that global warming is real. That's probably comfortably somewhere between 87 and 97.

But, I'll stop there. Why does this number matter? Answer: it fucking doesn't. How many billion people believe in Christianity? Islam? Well? Who's right? Obviously there's a fair share of "wrong." Science doesn't think either of them are right. Unless you want to bend science. Ah, that's right. Bending science...

This issue has become such a politically intertwined issue. Tell me, WHY do Democrats always believe that global warming impacts the environment, while Republicans always disagree with it? Could it be, that maybe, just maybe... people choose their viewpoints based upon their party they identify with? I THINK SO.

I'm so done listening to the opposite side. Why? I'm done listening to POLITICS. This isn't a political discussion where he-said she-said matters. It's not. It's a scientific matter. And there's nothing more irritating than when people who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about... do.

I'm not here to convince you of anything. The one thing you share in common with a liberal is your ability to suck up whatever viewpoint you're supposed to. I'm not a higher power. I don't *know* anything anymore than the next person. But I know about planetary geophysics. I'm familiar with atmospheric sciences. I don't give a rats ass about 97 or 95 or 91 or 21 or 2 or any of that. Between my peers and myself, we talk in data. We talk in studies. We point things out. More than just adding the "amount of papers" we can cite for our support. Bottom line, from my own experiences: only ever experienced one scientific researcher in my field refute the claim. And his claim was that cycles are natural and "we just don't know" because historical data pre-recent history is weak and inaccurate. Which is a weak argument in itself.


Raaaawwrrrrr midnight rant.
__________________

__________________
LuckyNumber7 is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com