Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
May 29, 2013 - 11:37pm PT
|
Just a theory. Just a theory.
Do you even know what a theory is? (Without looking it up.)
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
May 29, 2013 - 11:37pm PT
|
Look.... its really quite simple. Look at the question asked.
think about it.
Then answer it.
You think you can handle that?
I answered you already. It has nothing to do with religion or faith.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 29, 2013 - 11:38pm PT
|
Dr F is always wrong
Along with the dog .......
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
May 30, 2013 - 12:00am PT
|
Bless you Bluey!
OK - Now explain the apparent co-relation between strength of religious conviction and strength of AGW denial conviction?
And puleeze.... don't just say because they are just naturally smarter
This was apparently only "apparent" to you and yours. I see no relation other than maybe political. AGW peeps seem to hate religion and blame their detractors likewise.
Kinda like blaming the AP, IRS, Benghazi scandals on right-wing knee-jerks. No, it's not just them, but they were RIGHT! It WAS a real scandal. You just want to believe it was racism or demagoguery.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
May 30, 2013 - 12:02am PT
|
The consensus amongst "the People" fairs far differently than the supposed "Experts". 58% are not taking the GCC fatalists bait that it is all cus of us humans. Hmmmm. There is where you still fail. Miserably.
So?
I guess Chief Blowhard doesn't know what a theory is. Of course, that won't keep him from opening his stoopid trap about it.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
May 30, 2013 - 12:13am PT
|
I have nothing, Bruce. I'm comfortable with what I've laid out. It all seems pretty clear to me.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
May 30, 2013 - 12:14am PT
|
As I see it, "The People" do not believe the science. "The People" according to you here, are all idiots. Got it. Fact is, they are the majority and they will determine whether your scam flies or not. So far, you are still waiting for permission to leave the terminal and wasting fuel just sitting there. When AR5 is finalized and released in Sept, shet will hit the fan. Them numbers will fall, again, when the AR5 indicates how Solar forcing is indeed playing a stronger part in this GCC issue than what was first theorized. Also, the "smoothed" models will indicate a far different increase as well. Decreased almost 50% if not greater. Along with Sea Level Rise projections. All going down. Down.
The Minority. DRF. Not the Consensus. The People say different. They are what matters. Big Time.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
May 30, 2013 - 01:16am PT
|
Do you trust the IRS? Nancy Pelosi (Inside Trading Thief)? Solyndra? Same same Bruce.
Let's not leave out Feinstein, who's husband just got a sweet gov't deal, I wonder how that happened?
Pelosi is crazy too. She has to go.
Everything liberals whined about with Bush, Obama has doubled-down on and gotten away with far less scrutiny. Hypocrisy it is.
Gitmo, drones, gov't bailouts, oppression of rights. He gets away with it.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
May 30, 2013 - 01:26am PT
|
You paint a picture of black and white. The whole world is black and can't be trusted so you pretend to yourself that you are a rugged individual and nobodies patsy, which of course is a pretty easy out.
Me? IMO gov't is black/white. The have strict duties from the Constitutional. Go back to those and stop all the other bullshit!
It's very clear. Those duties not enumerated here...relegated to the States.
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
|
May 30, 2013 - 01:46am PT
|
The Chief...Who gives a sh#t what you think about climate change...?
|
|
slayton
Trad climber
Here and There
|
|
|
May 30, 2013 - 02:36am PT
|
This article is worthy of being repeated.
97% Global Warming Consensus Meets Resistance from Scientific Denialism
The robust climate consensus faces resistance from conspiracy theories, cherry picking, and misrepresentations
by Dana Nuccitelli
Published on Tuesday, May 28, 2013 by The Guardian
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/05/28-9
Global warming could change our maps, and displace people from cities and tropical islands. (Photograph: National Geographic)The Skeptical Science survey finding 97% expert consensus on human-caused global warming has drawn an incredible amount of media attention. Hundreds of media stories documented our survey and results. Lead author John Cook and I participated in a number of interviews to discuss the paper, including on Al Jazeera, CNN, and ABC. President Obama even Tweeted about our results to his 31 million followers.
The story has been so popular mainly because our results present a simple but critical message. There is a wide gap between the public awareness and the reality of the expert consensus on human-caused global warming.
The consensus gap between public perception and reality
Credit: Dr. F.
Additionally, as John Cook has discussed, research has shown that perception of consensus is linked to support for climate policy. This is true along most of the ideological spectrum – when people are aware of the expert consensus on human-caused global warming, they are more likely to support taking action to solve the problem.
Opponents of climate action have been aware of the powerful influence of the scientific consensus for decades. As far back as 1991, Western Fuels Association launched a $510,000 campaign to "reposition global warming as theory (not fact)" in the public perception. A memo from communications strategist Frank Luntz leaked in 2002 advised Republicans "to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate."
Thus although our results were straightforward and consistent with previous research, we were not surprised when they met with resistance from certain groups, and anticipated the critiques with an FAQ. However, in reviewing the various criticisms of our paper, we noticed some common threads amongst them. A 2009 paper published in the European Journal of Public Health by Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKee discussed five characteristics common to scientific denialism:
1) Cherry picking;
2) Fake experts;
3) Misrepresentation and logical fallacies.
4) Impossible expectations of what research can deliver; and
5) Conspiracy theories;
These characteristics were present throughout the criticisms of our paper, and in fact we found examples of each of the five characteristics among them.
For example, the author of one blog post contacted a handful of scientists whose papers were included in our survey and claimed that we had 'falsely classified' their papers. Climate economist Richard Tol echoed the criticism of our paper in this blog post. This particular criticism manages to check off three of the five characteristics of scientific denialism.
Specifically contacting these few scientists is a classic example of cherry picking. Our survey received responses from 1,200 climate researchers; the author of this post carefully selected a few of them who all just happen to be well-known climate 'skeptics'. It's also a variant of the fake expert characteristic, as John Cook explained in his textbook with G. Thomas Farmer, Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis.
"A variation of the Fake Expert strategy is to take the handful of remaining dissenting climate scientists and magnify their voices to give the impression of more significant disagreement then there actually is."
The handful scientists contacted for this blog post are among the less than 3% of climate researchers who dispute human-caused global warming. As a result, the voices of this small minority of 'skeptics' are magnified.
Third, this blog post argument is a misrepresentation of our study. The Skeptical Science team categorized the papers based solely on their abstracts, whereas the scientists were asked about the contents of their full papers. We invited the scientific authors to categorize their own papers, so if they responded, their 'correct' classifications of the full papers are included in our database. As illustrated in the graphic below, we found the same 97% consensus in both the abstracts-only and author self-rating methods.
Another characteristic of movements that deny a consensus involves impossible expectations. The tobacco industry perfected this approach in the 1970s, demanding ever-more stringent levels of proof that smoking caused cancer in order to delay government regulation of their products. This technique of impossible expectations was illustrated in another blog post claiming that only papers which quantify the human contribution to global warming count as endorsing the consensus. Most climate-related research doesn't quantify how much global warming humans are causing, especially in the abstract; there's simply no reason to.
We didn't expect scientists to go into nitty gritty detail about settled science in the valuable real estate of the abstract (the short summary at the start of the paper). However, we did expect to see it more often in the full paper, and that's exactly what we observed. When scientists were asked to rate the level of endorsement of their own papers, in the 237 papers that actually specified the proportion of human-caused global warming, over 96% agreed that humans have caused more than half of the recent global warming.
In yet another blog post, Christopher Monckton, whom my colleague John Abraham exposed as habitually misrepresenting climate scientists' research, has also misrepresented our results. Monckton compared apples to oranges by looking at previous consensus studies in an effort to argue that our results show a 'collapsing' consensus. On the contrary, using a consistent apples-to-apples comparison over a two-decade span, we showed that the consensus on human-caused global warming is growing.
The growth of the scientific consensus on human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2011, from Cook et al. (2013) The growth of the scientific consensus on human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2011, from Cook et al. (2013)
In recent years, fewer papers have taken a position on the cause of global warming in the abstract. This was predicted by Naomi Oreskes in 2007, who noted that scientists will move on to focus on questions that are not settled. Some blogs advanced a related logical fallacy by claiming that this shows 'an increase in uncertainty.' However, if uncertainty over the cause of global warming were increasing, we would expect to see the percentage of papers rejecting or minimizing human-caused global warming increasing. On the contrary, the percentage of rejecting studies is declining as well. That scientists feel the issue is settled science actually suggests there is more certainty about the causes of global warming.
Finally, a conspiracy theory has been proposed, suggesting that the consensus is simply a result of scientific journals refusing to publish papers that reject human-caused global warming. Our analysis included results from 1,980 journals all around the world. For all of these nearly two thousand international scientific journals to block 'skeptic' research would involve a massive conspiracy indeed.
Due to the importance of our results, we fully expect the resistance to continue, and we fully expect those who resist our findings to continue to exhibit the five characteristics of scientific denialism. However, we have used two independent methods and confirmed the same 97% consensus as in previous studies. That overwhelming agreement on human-caused global warming manifests in so many independent ways indicates that the scientific consensus is a robust reality.
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
|
May 30, 2013 - 02:39am PT
|
the chief wrote:
Oooops. 60 something years.
How about LEAD PAINT? Hmmm.
Admit it, you don't actually read people's posts, do you? You just throw sh#t out there and hope it sticks or in some tiny way references a couple of words written in a post you are responding to.
4 years, the right answer is 4 years. It took 4 years for one group of scientists to provide proof that another scientist's work was wrong and harmful.
It took sixty years to force industry to let go of a cash cow. Like I wrote, the scientific method is not the problem, it's industry, money, political interests, and the inherent fallibility of human beings that is the root of using what we know for harm.
|
|
slayton
Trad climber
Here and There
|
|
|
May 30, 2013 - 03:18am PT
|
The Chief:
The Minority. DRF. Not the Consensus. The People say different. They are what matters. Big Time.
They might matter in terms of policy and who is elected to pursue that policy but the science moves forward. For whatever reason your ideology stands against what that science is saying, which is that the overall temperature of the Earth is rising due to elevated CO2 levels caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
You fear the policies that might be implemented as a result of what science is telling us is happening. Try to separate the two. Be honest, stop lambasting the science, which you don't understand, in an attempt to further your agenda.
The 97% consensus spoken of above is a consensus of scientists working in the field at hand. Should it be surprising that "The People" don't share this consensus? NO. Science can be difficult to understand. Science is an understanding built from the work of other scientists, block by block. If you're not immersed in the subject it shouldn't be surprising that you don't understand all of the nuances.
And on top of that, we now have varied interests with an agenda against the science being done scrambling to drown the media and blogs to somehow "prove" the science is wrong, all pandered to the non-scientific minds. No. It's not surprising that much of the public are not fully aware of the science being done or are able to comprehend what is being done and are therefore behind the curve of the consensus of the scientists doing the work.
So what. Time will tell. Get back to me in ten or fifteen years when the sh#t really starts to hit the fan. The Chief will gladly accept it and shrug it off as part of the natural cycle of things when his kids are being shot stealing a loaf of bread because the world wide growing cycle is out of whack and prices are through the roof and Ron A will be mounting a Brown Bear with a nice little plaque calling it a Polar Bear that "evolved".
|
|
mountainlion
Trad climber
California
|
|
|
May 30, 2013 - 07:31am PT
|
Chief here is a list of the things I believe:
Earth is 4.6 billion years old based on the science
Evolution
The Scientific Method (ie scientists have a hypothesis and test that hypothesis wich lead to a theory--that may change or evolve as other scientists or different testing methods emerge--leading to different theories that also get tested and evolve).
The Chief has worked with Delta (an elite military group) performing Combat rescue operations (I assume they need elite personnel), his daughter is a clinical psychologist (you must have elite grades and education to attain in addition to a strong scientific background).
The chief lives in a backwoods commune, uses solar power, bikes and hikes more than the average human, loves animals, leaves no trace, loves history, cares about people, recycles, etc etc.
The Chief uses countless products daily that he TRUSTS that were developed by scientists, built by engineers (who are scientists themselves), tested by different scientists who allow the product to be sold (for example Underwriter Labratories for electrical products).
The Chief is a hypocrit based on the above observations that I have gleaned from his posts. I am also as is every person on earth at one time or another...
Oh almost forgot I also know the climate is changing on earth due to many different factors wich include solar radiation, human pollution, human use of fossil fuels, and HUMAN GREED.
That about covers it back to you Chief
|
|
mountainlion
Trad climber
California
|
|
|
May 30, 2013 - 07:37am PT
|
Chief I gotta feeling your going to come back (after death) until you learn to admit that humans impact our climate!!
but you will also come back because the energy, atoms, and even smaller things not yet discovered make you up and they exist everywhere in the universe...
I smoke weed and do other things that are bad examples but I don't have kids... I leave the parenting up to the ones that do...I take care not to do it in front of children...
How about you Chief did you teach your children to have a closed mind or an open one...to think for themselves, study hard, exercise, eat healthy??
Answer YOU TAUGHT YOUR KIDS ALL OF THE ABOVE including having an OPEN MIND!! and YOU are a HYPOCRIT, ECO WARRIOR, BLEEDING HEART, NATURE LOVER who used to drink to boot!
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
May 30, 2013 - 08:54am PT
|
The Chief has worked with Delta (an elite military group) performing Combat rescue operations (I assume they need elite personnel),
Really? You believe that?
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
May 30, 2013 - 10:09am PT
|
Gotta love it when someone who is openly, and proudly ignorant--like Chief Running Mouth--opines on something about which he knows little.
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
May 30, 2013 - 11:01am PT
|
Gary is living proof of your agenda's self serving BS. He is a staunch Eco Pro AGW fighting save the planet from Exxon, Koch Bros etc type of Socialist guy. BUT! Here is the BIG BUT. When an area that he is fond of gets tagged and bagged (closed off and returned to it's original natural state/Wilderness Protection clause etc) by the same Gov't you and he all cry to in order to save the planet, well that is a whole different enchilada. That Gov't is then deemed "the Tool". Assholes to say the least.
LOL!
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
May 30, 2013 - 11:32am PT
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Knotty, Knotty Chief^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!