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)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 09-19-2017, 11:49 AM
 
Location: Santa Monica
36,853 posts, read 17,368,921 times
Reputation: 14459

Advertisements

Can we tax the 'deniers' some more? Lock them up?

 
Old 09-19-2017, 11:51 AM
 
25,848 posts, read 16,532,741 times
Reputation: 16027
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess View Post
Can we tax the 'deniers' some more? Lock them up?
Make them wear a scarlet letter? Tattoo on the forehead?
 
Old 09-19-2017, 11:52 AM
 
Location: Morrison, CO
34,232 posts, read 18,584,601 times
Reputation: 25806
Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny View Post
Breitbart.....lol
Wow, I knew that would happen, right on que. Third post.

So, what about the article is false? When has Breitbart posted lies like CNN, and then had to retract, like CNN, and fire people, like CNN?

When the fix is more TAXES, FEES, and Surcharges on energy, and energy uses, and more BIG GOVERNMENT solutions, color me skeptical. And where do these "climate scientists" get THEIR FUNDING? What motivates them to get more funding, or increased funding. What are their political leanings? Let me guess. Remember, according to scientists, the Earth was supposed to be frozen over by now, in a MAN MADE ICE AGE. What happened?
 
Old 09-19-2017, 11:56 AM
 
3,564 posts, read 1,923,318 times
Reputation: 3732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1 View Post
So, what about the article is false?

When the fix is more TAXES, FEES, and Surcharges on energy, and energy uses, and more BIG GOVERNMENT solutions, color me skeptical. And where do these "climate scientists" get THEIR FUNDING? What motivates them to get more funding, or increased funding. What are their political leanings? Let me guess. Remember, according to scientists, the Earth was supposed to be frozen over by now, in a MAN MADE ICE AGE. What happened?
Focusing on one detail instead of the actual conclusion of the research (which is NEVER mentioned in the article).
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer View Post
Original article at Nature.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v...tcallback=true

"Hence, limiting warming to 1.5 °C is not yet a geophysical impossibility, but is likely to require delivery on strengthened pledges for 2030 followed by challengingly deep and rapid mitigation. Strengthening near-term emissions reductions would hedge against a high climate response or subsequent reduction rates proving economically, technically or politically unfeasible."
 
Old 09-19-2017, 11:58 AM
 
Location: Flyover Country
26,211 posts, read 19,525,255 times
Reputation: 21679
Quote:
Originally Posted by phma View Post
Nothing advances science more than those who are skeptical of its findings.
Then present a compelling, reality-based counter argument.
 
Old 09-19-2017, 11:59 AM
 
Location: Flyover Country
26,211 posts, read 19,525,255 times
Reputation: 21679
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1 View Post
Wow, I knew that would happen, right on que. Third post.

So, what about the article is false? When has Breitbart posted lies like CNN, and then had to retract, like CNN, and fire people, like CNN?

When the fix is more TAXES, FEES, and Surcharges on energy, and energy uses, and more BIG GOVERNMENT solutions, color me skeptical. And where do these "climate scientists" get THEIR FUNDING? What motivates them to get more funding, or increased funding. What are their political leanings? Let me guess. Remember, according to scientists, the Earth was supposed to be frozen over by now, in a MAN MADE ICE AGE. What happened?
What?
 
Old 09-19-2017, 12:01 PM
 
3,992 posts, read 2,459,347 times
Reputation: 2350
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBeisbol View Post
A link to the paper's abstract
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v...tcallback=true


The Breitbart article, and the OP, shockingly, are quite misleading.


yet they attack Washington Post and NY Times as sources of editorializing or fake news. they littery cant function with their daily dose of confirmation bias.
 
Old 09-19-2017, 12:11 PM
 
34,619 posts, read 21,621,539 times
Reputation: 22232
If you believe in AGW, modify your lifestyle to help.
 
Old 09-19-2017, 12:14 PM
 
26,694 posts, read 14,569,031 times
Reputation: 8094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado Rambler View Post
Breitbart. Enough said.

Climate SCIENTISTS are in almost unanimous agreement (97%) that global warming is a major threat to our planet. A reasonable person does not turn to a highly partisan source for vital scientific information. Same old, same old. Just like CNN's reporting of Hurricane Maria was "fake news."
Fake news. It has been debunked a few million times. You can't even find 97% of scientists unanimously agreeing on gravity.
 
Old 09-19-2017, 12:14 PM
 
1,889 posts, read 1,324,854 times
Reputation: 957
Breitbart is referencing a Times article which is saying pretty much the same thing.

We were wrong — worst effects of climate change can be avoided, say experts | The Times

"Scientists admit that world is warming more slowly than predicted."

Quote:
The worst impacts of climate change can still be avoided, senior scientists have said after revising their previous predictions.

The world has warmed more slowly than had been forecast by computer models, which were “on the hot side” and overstated the impact of emissions, a new study has found.
I'm not allowed to reproduce the text under the paywall, but it cites the authors, including, Myles Allen, a professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford, stating very clearly that climate models were wrong and that we haven't seen the rapid acceleration in warming since the turn of the millennium that they had been predicting.

So no. The Breitbart article is not misrepresenting him, or the study for that matter.

The abstract doesn't state the same thing explicitly, but anyone who knows how to critically appraise scientific journal articles can read the implications from its findings that the IPCC Assessment Report's projections were wildly inaccurate.

Last edited by Hightower72; 09-19-2017 at 01:42 PM.. Reason: Text under paywall edited out.
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. The time now is 12:07 PM.

© 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