Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Why do 97% of scientific studies agree that climate change is manmade?
1. Consipracy 22 41.51%
2. Scientists are not as smart as average Joe 5 9.43%
3. Scientists don't believe in the bible or the rapture 26 49.06%
Voters: 53. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 05-23-2013, 10:23 AM
 
Location: SE Mass
144 posts, read 122,458 times
Reputation: 71

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by T-310 View Post
In order to for scientists keep their jobs, they need funding. Data is manipulated to keep their funding as long as its political expedient to those who hold the purse strings. As soon as it becomes politically wrong, funding is pulled or a new scientific finding is "discovered".
Actually, trashing other people's research is a great way to gain credibility

 
Old 05-23-2013, 10:29 AM
 
Location: Jacksonville, FL
11,054 posts, read 10,611,343 times
Reputation: 9687
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
Haha..... sure.......... Climate change movement is heading down the path of eugenics.....

I hear climate scientist eat babies alive.....
No, they just encourage policies that force impoverished peoples to remain impoverished, thereby raising the infant mortality rate in those cultures.

As for the "heading down the same path" statement, lets take a look:

1. Eugenics was started by questionable science. Environmentalism was started by questionable science.
2. Eugenics was endorsed by celebrities and world leaders. Environmentalism is endorsed by celebrities and world leaders.
3. Dissenters of eugenics were labeled as "anti-progress", "radicals", and "uneducated". Dissenters of the Environmentalist movement are labeled in the same way.
4. Eugenics was an effort to change the world for social good. Environmentalism is an effort to change the world for social good.
5. Eugenics was used as the excuse for violence and atrocious behavior. Environmentalism is used as an excuse for violence (eco-terrorism) and atrocious behavior (causing starvation and disease in impoverished third-world countries).
6. After 30 or so years, there was a backlash against eugenics. The Environmentalist movement is starting to see such a backlash now. More and more people are starting to see the Environmentalist movement as overreaching and overtly political.

Are you still denying the similarities?
 
Old 05-23-2013, 10:36 AM
 
20,393 posts, read 12,284,863 times
Reputation: 10168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Draper View Post
Approximately 0% of the scientific studies disputed the theory of man made global warming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDusr View Post
I assume you mean the study here. Actually the problem with that was already pointed out. Actual scientist stated that the ratings were inaccurate. If you view the study the self-rating as they state it was almost 2%. But it is all meaningless since it is entirely subjective and has been shown to actually be inaccurate in it's own subjective ratings.
We have already established that the study misrepresented the findings of numorous peer reviewed works.


Why should we believe the study found 0% that disputes the theory when we know the study LIES and states that certain works (which clearly challenge the theory) are supportive of the theory?
 
Old 05-23-2013, 10:37 AM
 
20,393 posts, read 12,284,863 times
Reputation: 10168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
Cook is a cartoonist. Nothing more.
Cartoonists the world over are offended by your comment.

Cook is a lying dirtbag.
 
Old 05-23-2013, 10:57 AM
 
20,393 posts, read 12,284,863 times
Reputation: 10168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Back to NE View Post
As if pointed studies proving/disproving man-made climate change is the only evidence available.

If you regularly read books, blogs and magazines from 'people' (some who happen to be scientists) who write about their specialties, everything from: wildlife conservation, birding, oceanography, horticulture, various natural history, sociology, geography, etal., you will find that virtually every one will describe dramatically different developments within just the past 2-3 decades attributable to new phenomena.

The new phenomena is obviously from mankind continuing to burn stuff (gas, coal, wood, etc.), continuing to dump (on purpose and by accident) dangerous chemicals everywhere, continuing to destroy protective natural areas, continuing to scatter domestic animals (methane) and other humans across the landscrape while stripping it of its health.

Who in their right mind could doubt mankind is causing all this?
There are a couple of pretty serious problem with your comments here.

First, you rely on the findings of individuals during their own individual lifetimes.

Second you do not consider the reality of history.

We know that there are natural climate patterns that impact global heat content, that last for decades.

The Pacific Decadal Oscillation would be a prime example. This can last for 70 years or so.
There are other climate drivers that last even longer. Solar Cycles last for 11 years (roughly) however, those cycles are a small part of larger patterns of cycles. Some last for centuries and some for millennia.

The lifetime of an individual making observations of their personal surroundings represents little more than artifacts. They cannot capture the fluctuations of natural cycles.

However, when you take individual observations from people at different points in history, you begin to cobble together a more accurate panorama of what climate is and does.

Yes, we can say that over the course of the last 30 to 40 years, there has been a general warming trend. Yes we can say that this warming has brought about some changes. For instance, where I grew up, just about everyone now has citrus trees. As a kid, it was rare, and those that did have them, spent a lot of time keeping them alive in the winter. (This is a good thing).

Is that unusual? It certainly is if you are 50 years old or younger. They didn’t have this 50 years ago. It was colder then.


But we can look back across the centuries and find very interesting things. Things like wheat being grown in Ice Land a thousand years ago… that is something that cannot be done TODAY.

We find evidence of French feudal lords writing letters complaining about wine being grown in England around YORK. That the wine from northern England was better than their French wine, and this was cutting into their profits.

You cannot grow wine, certainly not GOOD WINE in the area around York England TODAY.

What do you contribute those changes to? This happened 800 years ago. Did humans have such a dramatic impact on climate then? Or when things once again cooled, was that human caused? If we have seen warming and cooling equal to or greater than the current one ( and history says we have) why then is this warming period different? Why all the sudden does changes in nature have to mean humans have done something horrible?
 
Old 05-23-2013, 11:12 AM
 
Location: SE Mass
144 posts, read 122,458 times
Reputation: 71
Ferd, what issues do you take with current models?
 
Old 05-23-2013, 12:15 PM
 
Location: Northern CA
12,770 posts, read 11,515,767 times
Reputation: 4261
maybe it has something to do with this

Watch Nexrad Weather Creation

Chemtrail Evidence - AirCrap.org | AirCrap.org
 
Old 05-24-2013, 12:45 PM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,902,544 times
Reputation: 2618
This is getting amusing.

Check out Nuccitelli desperately trying to defend the paper and resorting to calling an CAGW researcher (who supports the position of it strongly associated to man) a denier because they called them out on their sloppy work.

Dana Nuccitelli’s Twitter war with Richard Tol over that 97% consensus paper


Quote:
1. Richard Tol @RichardTol

The Cook paper comes further apart Popular Technology.net: 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them

7:01 AM – 21 May 13

2. Dana Nuccitelli @dana1981

@RichardTol You might want to actually read our paper before claiming it’s ‘coming apart’ based on ignorant and wrong claims.

10:22 PM – 22 May 13

3. Richard Tol @RichardTol

.@dana1981 Don’t worry. I did read your paper. A silly idea poorly implemented.

10:48 PM – 22 May 13

4. Dana Nuccitelli @dana1981

@RichardTol Have to say I’m disappointed. Didn’t have you pegged as a denier before. Fine to dislike our paper, but don’t lie about it.

11:04 PM – 22 May 13

5. Richard Tol @RichardTol

.@dana1981 I published 4 papers that show that humans are the main cause of global warming. You missed 1, and classified another as lukewarm

11:31 PM – 22 May 13

6. Richard Tol @RichardTol

.@dana1981 I published 118 neutral (in your parlance) papers. You missed 111. Of the 7 you assessed, you misclassified 4.

11:40 PM – 22 May 13

7. Richard Tol @RichardTol

.@dana1981 Most importantly, consensus is not an argument.

11:41 PM – 22 May 13

8. Richard Betts ‏@richardabetts

@dana1981 Not that I approve of “Denier” but @RichardTol isn’t one anyway. We publish together Climate ChangeS: Climate Change Impacts on Global Agriculture … and he’s an IPCC CLA

1:59 AM – 23 May 13

9. Dana Nuccitelli @dana1981

@richardabetts @richardtol is behaving like one, RTing Marc Morano’s Climate Depot and misrepresenting our paper.

6:37 AM – 23 May 13

10. Richard Tol @RichardTol

@dana1981 In what way did I misrepresent your paper?

7:33 AM – 23 May 13

11. Richard Betts ‏@richardabetts

@dana1981 How is Denier defined? What is being denied? Can someone be in the 97% who accept AGW and still be a denier?

8:12 AM – 23 May 13

12. Dana Nuccitelli @dana1981

@richardabetts Broadly speaking, one who encourages Morano, Watts, and Poptech behaves like a denier (not necessarily same as denying AGW)

8:14 AM – 23 May 13

13. Dana Nuccitelli @dana1981

@RichardTol Abstract ratings and author self-ratings based on full papers are two distinct parts of our study, for one.

8:15 AM – 23 May 13

14. Richard Tol @RichardTol

@dana1981 When did I say they are the same?

8:29 AM – 23 May 13

15. Richard Betts ‏@richardabetts

@dana1981 So basically this is politics then.

8:40 AM – 23 May 13

16. Dana Nuccitelli @dana1981

@richardabetts No, it’s half misrepresenting our paper, half encouraging deniers to do the same.

8:47 AM – 23 May 13

17. Dana Nuccitelli @dana1981

@RichardTol You’ve said we misclassified your papers. We didn’t classify them at all, we rated the abstracts, invited you to rate the papers

8:49 AM – 23 May 13

18. Richard Betts ‏@richardabetts

@dana1981 I meant “denier” seems to be a political label – not talking specifically about Richard T’s views on your paper.

8:54 AM – 23 May 13

19. Richard Tol @RichardTol

.@dana1981 Semantics. You misrated my papers. When did I lie, what did I misrepresent?

9:46 AM – 23 May 13

20. Dana Nuccitelli @dana1981

@RichardTol It’s not semantics at all. You’re equating two different things which we evaluated separately.

10:06 AM – 23 May 13

21. Richard Tol @RichardTol

.@dana1981 Not at all. You generated data. The data that I understand are all wrong. The errors are not random. But now tell me about my lie

10:17 AM – 23 May 13

22. Richard Tol @RichardTol

@dana1981 You accused me of lies and misrepresentation. Would you care to elaborate cq withdraw your accusations?

11:05 AM – 23 May 13

23. Dana Nuccitelli @dana1981

@RichardTol I already elaborated twice. On top of the abstract/paper issue you suggested it was a fault our sample only included 10 of yours

12:14 PM – 23 May 13

24. Richard Tol @RichardTol

@dana1981 I think your data are a load of crap. Why is that a lie? I really think so.

12:49 PM – 23 May 13

25. Richard Tol @RichardTol

@dana1981 I think your sampling strategy is a load of nonsense. How is that a misrepresentation? Did I falsely describe your sample?
 
Old 05-24-2013, 12:51 PM
 
27,307 posts, read 16,119,514 times
Reputation: 12100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soldier of FORTRAN View Post
Actually, trashing other people's research is a great way to gain credibility
The East Anglia emails showed they were altering the data for funding.

I trashed nothing.
 
Old 05-24-2013, 12:54 PM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,902,544 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soldier of FORTRAN View Post
Actually, trashing other people's research is a great way to gain credibility
Trashing peoples research (as in analysing it, finding errors, etc...) is called science.

Promoting research with nods of approval because you agree with its conclusions is called politics.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top