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)
 
Old 08-16-2013, 12:00 PM
 
20,411 posts, read 12,321,212 times
Reputation: 10197

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by KUchief25 View Post
Global warming just isn't "hip" anymore. The hipsters have moved on and the liberals are being left behind by those they try to impress.
I think the Warmists overplayed their hands. They have been saying for some years that every weather event was caused by Gobal Warming. but people arent stupid. they remember stormy years before Climate Change.

Then we get facts that show things like, flooding is not happening more than it was 50 years ago. We have NASA and NOAA data that show Tornadoes have shown either a downward trend or a flat trend. that strong storms are static, and that hurricane activity at the global level is at a 30 year low....


People can read and reason. These guys saying this stuff were lying and they knew it. Jim Hansen was saying this stuff as a NASA scientist. At the same time NASAs own data showed clearly he was wrong.

we see news stories that say oceans are rising at this unprecidented pace... only to find out, well the MODELS say that is what is happening, while the fact is, ocean rise is on a consistant pace for the last 150 years.

it isnt that it isnt hip to believe in CAGW. Its just that the preachers of CAGW made some very direct and clear statements that proved false and made some very direct predictions that have proven false.

they have blown themselves out of the water.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-16-2013, 12:32 PM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,921,828 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd View Post
we see news stories that say oceans are rising at this unprecidented pace... only to find out, well the MODELS say that is what is happening, while the fact is, ocean rise is on a consistant pace for the last 150 years.
That is the frustrating thing. Some idiot comes in here, quotes the NOAA, NSIDC, etc... then claims "SEE THEY SAY IT HAS WARMED!!!!", then... you look into it and those same agencies, "quietly" admit that those are the models and they are having issues meshing up with the observed data.

Look at how many morons here quote models and are too frigging uninformed to realize they aren't OBSERVED RECORDS.

Seriously, this garbage has to stop.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2013, 01:21 PM
 
Location: Home, Home on the Front Range
25,826 posts, read 20,633,566 times
Reputation: 14818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
The OP's claim is wrong in their implication, I agree. It was only a subset of scientists from other scientific fields, some directly related, others less so.

By making the bold statement, you miss the entire point of the study and display the problem they specifically attend to concerning the issue.

The point of the study was to show that there is not black/white position on the issue and you can not specifically categorize people/research into a direct side of support or not for CAGW.

It is the very thing people have been trying to explain to those like you from day one. There is no "consensus" to any given set position.

The cook paper fiasco should have showed you that when the scientists who work Cook categorized objected to his categorization.

By the way, science itself is skepticism and a scientists primary responsibility is to be skeptical. A scientist that lacks skepticism is not a scientist.
"People like me?"

Not sure why you felt the need to personalize your response in such a fashion, but, the fact that you did leads me to conclude that your primary position of one of defensiveness and hence not worth exploring further.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2013, 02:32 PM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,921,828 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerLily24 View Post
"People like me?"

Not sure why you felt the need to personalize your response in such a fashion, but, the fact that you did leads me to conclude that your primary position of one of defensiveness and hence not worth exploring further.
People like you who argue the position you do, in the manner you do.

Seriously, grow up and stop acting like a teenager.

You were just looking for an out, you got it... get lost.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2013, 02:57 PM
 
Location: Texas
38,859 posts, read 25,429,153 times
Reputation: 24780
Default Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

hmmmmm...

A "survey" of scientists' opinions conducted by the business school at the University of Alberta. Alberta, where all the Canadian tar sand oil is mined.

Is it possible the study was funded by oil money?

I wonder...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2013, 03:02 PM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,921,828 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Gringo View Post
hmmmmm...

A "survey" of scientists' opinions conducted by the business school at the University of Alberta. Alberta, where all the Canadian tar sand oil is mined.

Is it possible the study was funded by oil money?

I wonder...
As opposed to the 97% study done by a cartoon artist and an activist blogger employed by an oil exploration company that gets subsidy kickbacks for green energy?

At least the methodology of this study was sound and the results simply state the groups that each polled into. Your 97% study was done with a knowledge and skill level of a grade schooler, but hey... its a consensus! /boggle
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2013, 03:24 PM
 
1,676 posts, read 1,527,432 times
Reputation: 2381
17 pages eh? Successful troll is successful.

It's almost comical to me how these sorts of threads play out, but then I think of the ramifications and all I can do is shake my head and sigh.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2013, 03:30 PM
 
14,293 posts, read 9,648,381 times
Reputation: 4254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Gringo View Post
hmmmmm...

A "survey" of scientists' opinions conducted by the business school at the University of Alberta. Alberta, where all the Canadian tar sand oil is mined.

Is it possible the study was funded by oil money?

I wonder...
Would you rather it come from a US university getting grants from the federal government for hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, staffed with professors and administrators who are liberals dems that all voted for obama?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2013, 08:27 AM
 
Location: Texas
38,859 posts, read 25,429,153 times
Reputation: 24780
Default wake up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
As opposed to the 97% study done by a cartoon artist and an activist blogger employed by an oil exploration company that gets subsidy kickbacks for green energy?

At least the methodology of this study was sound and the results simply state the groups that each polled into. Your 97% study was done with a knowledge and skill level of a grade schooler, but hey... its a consensus! /boggle

You're obviously lost in a fog of confusion, as I've made no reference to any study other than the OP's.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2013, 08:31 AM
 
Location: Texas
38,859 posts, read 25,429,153 times
Reputation: 24780
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812 View Post
Would you rather it come from a US university getting grants from the federal government for hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, staffed with professors and administrators who are liberals dems that all voted for obama?
Unlike the pro-oil followers in this thread, I'd like an unbiased study, instead of a "survey" where those chosen to receive it and those who returned it may or may not be cherry-picked by an interested party.

You see, biased "results" aren't results at all. Merely corporate propaganda. That may or may not be true with this one. The sources of funding were not made clear in the published "survey." But I suspect that it quite possibly could be fossil fuel.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


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