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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-15-2013, 12:21 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,001 posts, read 35,052,752 times
Reputation: 7875

Advertisements

People are getting their "facts" from blogs that have no way of backing up any of the claims that are made? People will believe anything they read on the internet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-15-2013, 12:23 AM
 
29,409 posts, read 21,946,920 times
Reputation: 5455
You are proof of that
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2013, 05:55 AM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,919,403 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
People are getting their "facts" from blogs that have no way of backing up any of the claims that are made? People will believe anything they read on the internet.
This is a blog: Skeptical Science

It is ran by the John Cook, a cartoonist turned political activist and frequented with commentary by Dana Nuccitelli an environmental scientists at Tetra Tech (an oil exploration technology company that has been awarded numerous subsides by the government for "green" technology) and an environmental columnist for the Guardian who both recently published the "97% consensus" paper that was shown to have hokum based methodologies. The scientists to which the paper claimed as being in consensus of such a classification strongly objected to it for its false conclusions it made in categorizing the papers, not to mention the fact that out of the whole of papers they used, their 97% claim is actually of only a small subset of papers which they chose as supporting the claim. It would be like me taking a 100 people, then finding 10 people of those 100, selecting 9 of those 10 and claiming 90% of ALL scientists agree with a given conclusions. Basically, their paper is a joke.

Question is, if informing ones self from blogs is so bad, then why do these environmental activists keep using them as support?

Last edited by Nomander; 08-15-2013 at 06:11 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2013, 06:00 AM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,919,403 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by KUchief25 View Post
You are proof of that
They get confused. They appeal to authority, so naturally the idea that someone can refute a given claim through evidential evaluation is unacceptable. Though it is acceptable in their eyes to refer to blogs that support their agenda (hence the use of the skeptical science blog). I notice that they don't use Real Climate a whole lot anymore. I think it is because Gavin, while a shrill for the CAGW position, isn't stupid enough to make and support the claims that Cook/Nuccetelli do and has actually shut down some of the absurdity made by them in the past. So now they all rush to Cook's site because he will dish out the activism without any concern to how silly they look.

They know they are being pushed aside for the loons they are. They hate Watt's site with a passion, and it is understandable. For instance, look at the traffic to Watts compared to Skeptical Science and Real Climate.



Also, notice the awards:












Skeptical Science used to apply for the contests, but... well... going up against "Watts up with that?" and losing every year didn't appeal to them, so now they don't enter citing claims that the process is biased. *chuckle*

Anyway, these loons know they are the wild card removed from the deck and they are throwing tantrums. Give it time, government will drop them entirely as well when they find that they are the only ones pushing the agenda of a radical fringe group.

Last edited by Nomander; 08-15-2013 at 06:10 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2013, 06:13 AM
 
24,364 posts, read 22,950,229 times
Reputation: 14940
Crawl out of your global warming cave or out from under your global warming rock and that painfully bright and warm thing you'll see is the SUN. That's the biggest influence on climate change on Earth. man has some impact but only slightly.
But kudos to the poster bringing up the point that REAL environmental problems go ignored when there isn't any money to be made being alarmist. Monsanto is wiping out the honey bees with genetically modified crops and pesticides but that gets ignored or those that express concern get labeled" tinfoil hat wearers". Ditto the actual damage the Japanese nuclear power plant melt down has done. The government won't tell you anything if its bad enough.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2013, 06:15 AM
 
Location: North America
19,784 posts, read 15,063,038 times
Reputation: 8527
Oh lookie, another "I don't believe in global warming" thread by Roadking.

How original and rare.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2013, 06:17 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,899,393 times
Reputation: 5661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest View Post
Better find a way to cap volcanos, one eruption can put out more greenhouse gases than mankind has emitted in all its years on earth.
False.
Quote:
When sulfur dioxide emitted by a volcano rises up to the stratospheric aerosol layer of the atmosphere, it undergoes chemical reactions, forming particles that reflect sunlight back into space instead of letting it get to the surface of the planet. This has a cooling effect on Earth that can help mitigate the impacts of heat-trapping greenhouse gasses.
Even Modest Volcanoes May Mask Global Warming Effects | LiveScience
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2013, 07:24 AM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,919,403 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by carterstamp View Post
Oh lookie, another "I don't believe in global warming" thread by Roadking.

How original and rare.
Actually, I think it is a thread pointing out that since the evidential support for CAGW has backfired on the advocates, they now are going back to the appeal to authority position and false claims of "consensus".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2013, 07:48 AM
 
17,842 posts, read 14,339,058 times
Reputation: 4113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
They get confused. They appeal to authority, so naturally the idea that someone can refute a given claim through evidential evaluation is unacceptable. Though it is acceptable in their eyes to refer to blogs that support their agenda (hence the use of the skeptical science blog). I notice that they don't use Real Climate a whole lot anymore. I think it is because Gavin, while a shrill for the CAGW position, isn't stupid enough to make and support the claims that Cook/Nuccetelli do and has actually shut down some of the absurdity made by them in the past. So now they all rush to Cook's site because he will dish out the activism without any concern to how silly they look.

They know they are being pushed aside for the loons they are. They hate Watt's site with a passion, and it is understandable. For instance, look at the traffic to Watts compared to Skeptical Science and Real Climate.



Also, notice the awards:












Skeptical Science used to apply for the contests, but... well... going up against "Watts up with that?" and losing every year didn't appeal to them, so now they don't enter citing claims that the process is biased. *chuckle*

Anyway, these loons know they are the wild card removed from the deck and they are throwing tantrums. Give it time, government will drop them entirely as well when they find that they are the only ones pushing the agenda of a radical fringe group.
Well thanks for showing us the conspiracy blog where you get all the propaganda you blindly regurgitate.

Last edited by Ceist; 08-15-2013 at 07:56 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2013, 07:54 AM
 
Location: North America
19,784 posts, read 15,063,038 times
Reputation: 8527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
Actually, I think it is a thread pointing out that since the evidential support for CAGW has backfired on the advocates, they now are going back to the appeal to authority position and false claims of "consensus".

I really don't give a rats patoot. Seriously. It's not going to convince the believers and the non-believers that their theories are wrong.

Yes, the climate is changing. I don't need some scientist to tell me that. Instead of arguing about the cause, I think these "scientists" on both sides need to come up with a way to continue growing food and feeding people in spite of the change.
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