- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: AGW Deniers - Seems Kind of Hopeless
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:40 am to AUbused
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:40 am to AUbused
quote:
that the general trend is currently toward warming
General trend as in coming out of an ice age, or general trend as in coming out of the 1930s? Because if you tell me 15 years of stable temperatures isn't a trend in a 80 year time scale then I'd say you're purposely ignoring data.
1
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:41 am to AUbused
Once again, if you can explain to me how something that has apparently been around for 4.5 billion years, but yet scientist only have a little over a 100 year sample of record keeping. We already know they fudged the numbers to propagate their theory of warming, so why should I believe them?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:41 am to AUbused
quote:
quote:
..if 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are, in fact, at least partially responsible for climate change
Serious question.
Do these 97% know what % humans are responsible for?
?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:41 am to elprez00
quote:
But thats not true. Of Climate Scientists, 97 out of 100 agree. Thats like saying 97 out of 100 LSU fans hate Bama, so Bama must be awful. You don't think those guys have a vested interest?
No.............no its not like that at all lol. They do have a lot of empirical evidence they're looking at. Although with Updyke, the teabagger, crazy lady in the stands, etc you may be on to something.
As far as vested interest.....I feel that the far greater monetary interest lies with the big oil companies who have an ENORMOUS PR problem with their product.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:42 am to AUbused
quote:
who have an ENORMOUS PR problem with their product
I like gas and oil.
To whom could you be referring to?
This post was edited on 5/19/14 at 9:43 am
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:43 am to AUbused
quote:
I feel that the far greater monetary interest lies with the big oil companies who have an ENORMOUS PR problem with their product.
Ok I think the problem is you've been in a coma for 10+ years. Because Big oil supports tax hikes on carbon. Or is this just another data point you want to ignore.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:44 am to AUbused
quote:
So I assume you believe in creationism? After all, 97% of evangelical preachers believe it to be true.
FIFY
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:44 am to C
As I understand it its not so much the temperature trends by themselves.....its an enormous slew of data trends which correlate to form a bigger picture. Trends gathered from a very broad range of sources and from multiple angles.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:44 am to Layabout
quote:
Who are these 3% that don't agree?
Mostly they're teaching creationism in Louisiana classrooms.
Global warming is made up bullshite, but the divinity of Jesus is no joke! Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:45 am to AUbused
quote:yet they do not use that theory to explain the warming period after the little ice age. The earth went through a warming period hundreds of years ago that was not attributed to man, but warming NOW is?
majority of scientists look at the trendline in the OP and conclude that the general trend is currently toward warming and that evidence leads them to conclude that man's carbon output actively contribute to it. I
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:47 am to AUbused
What really needs to be studied is the amount of climate experts that somehow have all come together on a southern sports message board. It's an astounding rate. We should definitely look into somehow getting some funding to look into this anomaly
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:48 am to AUbused
quote:
Do these 97% know what % humans are responsible for?
Its kind of a important question to have answered don't you think?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:50 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
You're entire post is a logical fallacy. Appeal to authority. Look it up.
Maybe you should have looked it up:
quote:
Description of Appeal to Authority
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.
This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.
This post was edited on 5/19/14 at 9:51 am
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:54 am to AUbused
Ethanol is more harmful towards the environment.
Amazing what humans can do to "HELP" the situation...................... NOT...... Government cares about the envir... earth...anima.... maybe more taxes can fix this..???
Amazing what humans can do to "HELP" the situation...................... NOT...... Government cares about the envir... earth...anima.... maybe more taxes can fix this..???
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:54 am to AUbused
quote:You're an idiot. No doubt, walk far enough "west" and you WILL hit water, if you don't die first. Does that make it the right course?
Your argument seems like being in a desert without water....97 out of 100 scientists are standing there saying that you will find it to the west....but you're like "if you can't tell me precisely how far, I ain't trying".
This post was edited on 5/19/14 at 9:55 am
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:55 am to AUbused
quote:Actually you're right, the 97% of "climate scientists" poll was probably a slightly less scientific survey.
But thats not true. Of Climate Scientists, 97 out of 100 agree. Thats like saying 97 out of 100 LSU fans hate Bama, so Bama must be awful. You don't think those guys have a vested interest?
No.............no its not like that at all lol.
quote:Perhaps in the future you could just say 75 out of 77 scientists?
Consensus momentum regarding action on climate change? Phony, contrived talking points, unscientific propositions, and a scorn for truth wrapped in false threats? Yes, he’s entirely correct on both accounts… but in the exact opposite direction that he, supported by representations in the “mainstream media”, has indicated.
....
This would require a pretty big phone booth, and actually, there really are many of those “global warming skeptics” still remaining. In fact, that number (yes- scientists with solid credentials) has been rapidly multiplying, not diminishing.......
So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.
Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.
LINK
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:56 am to AUbused
Did you notice how there is a consensus that gay is cool now that a person is castigated if they think otherwise?!
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:57 am to AUbused
quote:
AUbused
Another Wall Street pawn.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:58 am to AUbused
quote:Strawman much? You have presented no scientific argument. You've presented a survey of biased evangelists with a lot is self interest.
So, in effect, what you are saying is "There is no scientific proof I could be offered that would change my views"
That's not science. It's a propaganda technique. And it your surety is proof that it works! You've been had...
LINK
quote:
From: Joseph Alcamo
To: m.hulme**uea.ac.uk, Rob.Swart**rivm.nl
Subject: Timing, Distribution of the Statement
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 18:52:33 0100
Reply-to: alcam**usf.uni-kassel.de
Mike, Rob,
Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.
I would like to weigh in on two important questions --
Distribution for Endorsements --
I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is numbers. The media is going to say "1000 scientists signed" or "1500 signed". No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000 without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a different story.
Conclusion -- Forget the screening, forget asking them about their last publication (most will ignore you.) Get those names
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:58 am to AUbused
quote:In other words, you've not considered climate cycles over the prehistoric period, know nothing of their meaning relative to current climate, and do not care. Because THAT is the "bigger picture".
As I understand it its not so much the temperature trends by themselves.....its an enormous slew of data trends which correlate to form a bigger picture
This post was edited on 5/19/14 at 9:59 am
Page 4 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News