Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
May 15, 2013 - 04:48pm PT
|
"Scientists" deemed the need for old growth habitats yet FAILED to realize how old growth came to be- being managed basically by wildfire. Even now there are "scientists"
Good use of quotes around "scientists"--I think we've got 'em on the run now!
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
May 15, 2013 - 04:50pm PT
|
Assuming that is true, you use one totally unrelated instance where the science was supposedly wrong to haphazardly knock the science in another field.
What do you suggest we use to figure out the world? Star alignments and entrails?
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
May 15, 2013 - 04:56pm PT
|
Assuming that is true, you use one totally unrelated instance where the science was supposedly wrong to haphazardly knock the science in another field.
What do you suggest we use to figure out the world? Star alignments and entrails?
voodoo and personal first hand experiences always trump science, reason and truth
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
May 15, 2013 - 05:15pm PT
|
probably a dumb question, Ron
but how about allen heads
I converted everything on my motorcycles to them and now have no problems with removal
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
|
May 15, 2013 - 06:16pm PT
|
Malemute,stop making sense
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
May 15, 2013 - 08:06pm PT
|
yeah, sounds like the insurance industry is real worried about it.
From the linked article a posts up:
Yet when I asked Mr. Nutter what the American insurance industry was doing to combat global warming, his answer was surprising: nothing much. “The industry has really not been engaged in advocacy related to carbon taxes or proposals addressing carbon,” he said.
Sounds like they're real worried! (And the "surprise" of the answer is a nice illustration of the bias of a NY Times reporter.)
Actually the doom-and-gloomers predictions, if true, will be just dandy for insurance cos. More risk -> more demand for insurance, higher premiums.
As a quick recap worth doing every few thousand posts on this thread, I don't think anyone here is denying climate change or that some component is caused by humans (and some isn't)--we'd rather just deal with it than pay a bunch of fake (or even real) "scientists" to "study" the problem when there ain't much the US is going to do about it one way or the other. Things also degenerate into a bunch of silly details (e.g., some of you jokers denying that "scientists" have obvious financial and professional motives to exaggerate climate change issues and have been repeatedly caught doing that), but that's the big picture. (If you want to fact check me on my statement that alarmists have been caught exaggerating, see the link to the Economist article I posted earlier in this thread.)
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
May 15, 2013 - 08:16pm PT
|
some of you jokers denying that "scientists" have obvious financial and professional motives to exaggerate climate change issues and have been repeatedly caught doing that)
and what about all those, be they "real" scientists or not, who take the opposite position?
lots of them around too
should their motives also be suspect, as in they are being paid to "deny" and try real hard to both rebuke and refute the generally accepted scientific findings on global warming?
or do they get a free pass on this?
can you take some shots at them, blah blah?
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
|
May 15, 2013 - 08:21pm PT
|
Yep ,were all biased over here.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
May 15, 2013 - 08:40pm PT
|
and what about all those, be they "real" scientists or not, who take the opposite position?
lots of them around too
should their motives also be suspect, as in they are being paid to "deny" and try real hard to both rebuke and refute the generally accepted scientific findings on global warming?
or do they get a free pass on this?
can you take some shots at them, blah blah?
That's an easy one Norton--no, I don't want to pay them either. If Koch brothers (or whoever) want to do so, fine, it's their money. Let Soros and the other liberal big money guys fund who they want.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
May 15, 2013 - 08:46pm PT
|
We have a very select National Academy of Sciences in this country. We still lead the world in almost all sciences, although there is great work being done around the world.
The National Academy of Sciences is EXTREMELY selective in who is a member. They have to be extremely prolific and tops in their field.
Regarding Climate Change, the National Academy of Sciences, which has one of the leading journals, the PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences), has issued several statements over the years, and these statements are made by the members collectively.
On the other side of the topic, there are some sincere and good scientists, but the rough outline of this problem has been settled for almost two decades. The questions now are how much, how fast, and how bad?
http://www.nasonline.org/about-nas/leadership/president/statement-climate-change.pdf
Joint Statement:
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
May 15, 2013 - 08:50pm PT
|
Latest study to quantify the scientific consensus reaches pretty much the same conclusion as others (emphasis added):
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
Cook et al. (2013) Environmental Research Letters
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 15, 2013 - 08:51pm PT
|
From the end of the video that Malemute posted just above:
The real question is, "Is there any evidence of stuff going on on a global scale that is contrary to what you would expect as a result of an atmosphere that is warming in response to human emissions and an increase carbon dioxide. And the answer is no."
The gentleman listed many items that show the planet is warming at a steady rate, which is in agreement with the science being conducted on the issue.
So how about it. Can any of you deniers answer the question posed, and point to anything that points to the contrary of a warming planet? That is, other than sticking your head up your a*# and claiming it's cold in there.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
May 15, 2013 - 09:00pm PT
|
This whole event has been playing out in funny ways.
One way to attack the idea of climate change was to attack the data directly. That didn't work. All of the corrections and error margins and geographical corrections necessary for a clean dataset were accomplished.
So the climate is warming. That pill had to be swallowed.
Now the luddites are arguing over what is CAUSING the warming.
I probably know more about paleo climate than anyone here. I work with it going all the way back to the Cambrian, and if there is anything to say about climate, it is that it is always changing.
The difference now is that we can compare it to events in the deep past and compare them to what is occurring now. We can measure it happening in real time. Don't expect any of us to live long enough to see how far this goes, but my guess is that Canada will be prime real estate.
I don't look at any data younger than the Cretaceous, but there have been a couple of pretty wild hothouse events from the past.
Signing off. I'm not here to try to teach Ron or that Sumner guy.
|
|
McHale's Navy
Trad climber
Panorama City, California & living in Seattle
|
|
|
May 15, 2013 - 09:06pm PT
|
I'm not here to try to teach Ron or that Sumner guy.
Their participation here simply brings out the truth of the situation and lots of good information about AGW. They certainly never have anything real to offer that supports the denier side.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 15, 2013 - 09:06pm PT
|
Ive seen first hand that their is ALWAYS agendas behind each and every Scientific study these days .
-- Ron A.
Ron, you must busier than a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest! I can't even imagine how you do it!! I mean, the fact that you have first-hand knowledge of "every Scientific study these days" must make you eligible for some kind of an award. Does the President know of your prowess?
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
|
May 15, 2013 - 09:10pm PT
|
Could not agree more to the above,but look who you are dealing with,the guy who asks,"Do you feel rejected by society?".
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 15, 2013 - 09:15pm PT
|
Ron, I almost hate to be on your tail regarding your tall tales, but the truth is, you have said nothing of the sort. Here or anywhere else.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
May 15, 2013 - 09:20pm PT
|
Ron -Excellent analogy between the forestry science and climate science. No one even tried to refute the fact of the bad science you presented.
Norton you were downright brotherly in your allen head response.
Bruce you seem completely reasonable today-musta got laid
BlahBlah sees the world for what it is
Base, like BlahBla stated upthread-nobody here, or in the scientific establishment, is denying that mankind has had an effect on this world, just how much.As far as i can tell the majority of scientists worldwide think the effect to be minimal compared to variations in natural forcing agents, particularly the undocumented range of the suns effects and its range of variability over longer cycles than the CAGW group are basing their modeling on.
Ron, to add to the still frozen lakes in southcentral Alaska is the "Nenana Ice Classic". This is a 97 year old event that takes bets (winner takes all) on the exact day,hour,minute when a tripod setup on the frozen Nenana River moves a prescribed distance signalling breakup.It had been described by Geophysicist Martin Jeffries, in the warming conditions of the 1990's, as a good proxie of Global warming. Well anyway, still no winner as the tripod has not moved. Tomorrow it will be the second latest ice out in history-still time for bets for those of you who care to wager.
The globe is in a cooling phase folks,within a decade it will be obvious to even the most eggheaded of the CAGW crowd and then they will once again blame man for climate change.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 15, 2013 - 09:21pm PT
|
Perhaps we can chalk it up to reading comprehension.
There are certainly _parts_ of what Base said that align with what you said, Ron. But the jist of what Base was eluding to is vastly different from your trite comment.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!