- 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 11:00 am to AUbused
Posted on 5/19/14 at 11:00 am to AUbused
quote:That will never happen.
if every single fricking scientist on the face of the earth was saying there is no doubt that humans are contributing negatively to climate change you'd just continue to stick your weak-arse head in the sand.
1
Posted on 5/19/14 at 11:01 am to AUbused
quote:
at least partially responsible for climate change
This statement is severely lacking.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 11:02 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
It establishes CO2 as a temperature correlate rather than cause.
Well, I do know that CO2's heat trapping affect is absolutely scientifically undeniable. As I understand the science I believe that you are correct regarding correlation. I think the whole thing is based on an enormous amount of correlate's that seem to point in the same direction.... and that when tied to carbons physical heat trapping properties along with the carbon trending post industrial revolution it paints a picture that seems to have convinced 97%(or more if you believe the peer reviewed lit chart) that we have something to be concerned about.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 11:02 am to AUbused
Government wants us to believe in GW so they can tax and control us more.
Scientist work for the Government or get their funding from the government.
Nah they wouldn't toe the company line Nah.
If you believe Science cant be bought, all you have to do is see what happened after the oil spill when BP put every scientist on retainer.
Scientist work for the Government or get their funding from the government.
Nah they wouldn't toe the company line Nah.
If you believe Science cant be bought, all you have to do is see what happened after the oil spill when BP put every scientist on retainer.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 11:03 am to ironsides
quote:
Answer the question. Of your 97% statistic that you cite, what was the population?
You dont like the pie chart now either?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 11:05 am to AUbused
quote:
and you choose to trust in Hannity, Jesus, or both.
Thanks for proving my point.
See what happens when you have a wealth of information (16,000-plus posts) but are too stupid, lazy or both to think for yourself or do any research. You trust in the propaganda, which in this case says that if you don't agree with a liberal idea you must be a supporter of "Hannity, Jesus, or both."
Congratulations on being part of the problem.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 11:06 am to AUbused
This entire argument is very difficult for many to grasp because the huge amount of misinformation available AND because the perceived source of much of the information is the government. Most people dont trust the government.
So, between misinformation and distrust its hard to get many people to agree. Hell, we have the media fact checking presidential debates and the fact checking is even criticized.
I am a cynic and I really have a hard time trusting much of the data because much of it is tainted with conflicts of interest.
I am not saying I dont think AGW is real. I am saying that nothing has been produced to me for me to be convinced. I would love to have a study that puts this to bed one way or the other.
At the end of the day, I think there are a number of reasons to move towards some of the proposed solutions and not necessarily because of concerns created by AGW.
So, between misinformation and distrust its hard to get many people to agree. Hell, we have the media fact checking presidential debates and the fact checking is even criticized.
I am a cynic and I really have a hard time trusting much of the data because much of it is tainted with conflicts of interest.
I am not saying I dont think AGW is real. I am saying that nothing has been produced to me for me to be convinced. I would love to have a study that puts this to bed one way or the other.
At the end of the day, I think there are a number of reasons to move towards some of the proposed solutions and not necessarily because of concerns created by AGW.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 11:07 am to AUbused
quote:
I do know that CO2's heat trapping affect is absolutely scientifically undeniable
sure it is....as is its heat radiation. Let me put in terms you would understand, input/output.
quote:
I think the whole thing is based on an enormous amount of correlate's that seem to point in the same direction.... and that when tied to carbons physical heat trapping properties along with the carbon trending post industrial revolution it paints a picture that seems to have convinced 97%
However, if the hypothesis on these "correlations" was true...then the ACTUAL temperature would still be within the 95% CI for their models.
All of the Models have so vastly overestimated the temperature, that none of them can account for the current, actual temperature within their 95% CIs.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 11:11 am to AUbused
quote:
You dont like the pie chart now either?
I'll answer the question, because you're clearly wasting everyone's time. The number is 77.
77 is not ALL of the scientific community, nor is it the 10,000+ that received the survey.
Would you release code into production when you had only tested 77 out of 10,000 requirements, and 2 of the requirements failed?
You're a hack dude
Posted on 5/19/14 at 11:11 am to Mindenfan
quote:
That will never happen.
When it does I look forward to seeing your post as to how the entirety of the scientific community is bought and paid for.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 11:16 am to AUbused
A question for AGW believers to answer, what was the cause of every ice age ending as man kind was was not the cause? An increase in numbers that is measuring data less two centuries old is so much bull shite when it at looked at with 20/20 vision The little ice age lasted longer than what they fear and had far greater effect across the planet than what they say will happen in the next 70 years.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 11:17 am to AUbused
quote:.
Think about it seriously for a moment.....if 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are, in fact, at least partially responsible for climate change......what could possibly change their mind? 99% of scientists? 100%? I think thats doubtful.
It seems that what we have is a situation where literally no scientific evidence can be presented to them which can affect change on their opinion
Simply the election of a conservative president and full conservative Senate and House. Then opinions will change quickly. Sad, but true. And the same would happen the other way. Opinions are based more on the political attachment many perceive than facts. Much like what side being a rascist party or another being an anti-religious party. That's the basis public opinion in this country. Political attachment.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 11:17 am to saltybulldog
quote:
At the end of the day, I think there are a number of reasons to move towards some of the proposed solutions and not necessarily because of concerns created by AGW.
Very reasonable post and I agree on your conclusion.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 11:20 am to ironsides
quote:
77 is not ALL of the scientific community, nor is it the 10,000+ that received the survey.
And the 10k peer reviewed publications? I'll wait to hear your response on talk radio.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 11:23 am to AUbused
It's all a conspiracy braaah. All the scientist from around the world conspired together to write those 10,000+ entries just to get more funding
Posted on 5/19/14 at 11:24 am to saltybulldog
quote:
At the end of the day, I think there are a number of reasons to move towards some of the proposed solutions and not necessarily because of concerns created by AGW.
I think you'll find that most rational people would agree with you. There is no logical reason not to want innovation to improve energy efficiency.
Taxes=/= Innovation.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 11:25 am to AUbused
quote:
And the 10k peer reviewed publications? I'll wait to hear your response on talk radio.
If Les Miles writes a dissertation entitled "Tommy Tuberville is an a-hole" and its' distributed to season ticket holders in Tiger Stadium, how many positive reviews is he going to get?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 11:26 am to MJM
quote:
All the scientist from around the world conspired together to write those 10,000+ entries just to get more funding
Liberal Scientific Media duh
Posted on 5/19/14 at 11:27 am to AUbused
quote:
and that when tied to carbons physical heat trapping properties along with the carbon trending post industrial revolution it paints a picture that seems to have convinced 97%
From page 1:
quote:
the source for the 97% quote is an article written by William R. L. Anderegg. He graduated from undergrad in 2008. His job title since getting his PHD is Climate & Global Change Post-doctoral fellow.
Not saying this challenges the validity of his assertion....but I would love to see the studies and questions asked that he relied upon to make that assertion.
From Page 2:
quote:
"Reducing carbon output" is a method to get to a desired result, right? The desired result being cessation of man made global warming? Is that correct?
If so, then simply stating "reducing carbon output" isn't nearly sufficient. What is the output range we must get to to achieve the desired result? Surely, the consensus of scientists have identified the problem and the desired levels that would provide a solution. What is that number (or what are the levels)? Once we have that lets see a plan to get to those levels.
Do we have this information? If not...what is the point?
Page 8 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News