- 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: Members of the 97% "concensus" say they are being misrepresented re: AGW
Posted on 4/1/14 at 8:29 am to GoCrazyAuburn
Posted on 4/1/14 at 8:29 am to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
That the earth is warmer than it was a century ago.
Yeah they say 1/2 a degree, OMG!
0
Posted on 4/1/14 at 8:57 am to kingbob
quote:
If you read the introduction, everything is gloom and doom, man is causing global warming and if we don't stop what we're doing, it will kill us all. However, the actual experiments and models contained in the reports often don't support that assertion at all and even contradict it.
This is because usually the basis of preliminary acceptance of an article is the abstract. Many will word it to maximize chances of approval, which is a natural inclination. Then they can present their data fully and be more restrained and scientific within the article itself. So the results of this study of article abstracts are not surprising. They even openly state their bias when they assume that those who did not attribute climate change to human causes in their abstract would certainly agree with the premise. And we have multiple examples of authors whose articles were misrepresented by this study.
In other words, this survey was a great article for a throw-away journal.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 10:01 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:If people want to make a serious dent in their "carbon footprint" they need to start with giving their car, their air conditioning, hot water, shopping at the grocery store, and all items made of plastic.
i still want to know what policy should be enacted to combat AGW, assuming the worst is true. i mean worldwide policy
It's going to be a very hard sell--convincing people to go back to a mid 1800's lifestyle worldwide.
This post was edited on 4/1/14 at 10:02 am
Posted on 4/1/14 at 10:22 am to Jay Quest
quote:
uote:
what specifically do 97% of scientists agree on?
The sun is hot
And accounts for 99.9999% of global warming.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 10:05 pm to kingbob
With your initial questions unanswered, why would you recommend taking so many uncomfortable actions? Would said actions be voluntary or mandated?
Posted on 4/1/14 at 10:18 pm to olgoi khorkhoi
The health of our world, our environment, and the source of our natural resources is important. I am more concerned about making sure that our civilization is ensuring a balance. These initiatives would be, for the most part, non-voluntary. Most of the incentives for this behavior would be voluntary or by either removing disincentives (existing subsidies for environmentally unfriendly products like ethanol), opening up regulations (like those preventing natural gas from being utilized as a primary fuel source, regulations preventing the building of more nuclear power plants, ect), and mandated government action to counter-act existing or past government programs that have been particularly destructive (see Army Corps of Engineers vs Louisiana's coastal wetlands).
Note that when I say protecting our resources to make them sustainable, I do not just mean energy sources. Biodiversity is important. Our terrestrial plant life's capacity to produce oxygen is very important to our ecosystem as well as for filtering out pollution. The rain forest and its plant life is a huge source for pharmaceuticals. These are policies that are not just to benefit the environment. They are sound economic policy, they are the right economic policy, and they are the right course for civilization.
Note that when I say protecting our resources to make them sustainable, I do not just mean energy sources. Biodiversity is important. Our terrestrial plant life's capacity to produce oxygen is very important to our ecosystem as well as for filtering out pollution. The rain forest and its plant life is a huge source for pharmaceuticals. These are policies that are not just to benefit the environment. They are sound economic policy, they are the right economic policy, and they are the right course for civilization.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 11:04 pm to kingbob
as a scientist, I agree with you. Almost all of us do...
But the arguments from the scientific community need to be based in science, and not a "cause".
But the arguments from the scientific community need to be based in science, and not a "cause".
Posted on 4/1/14 at 11:06 pm to CptBengal
Exactly, which is why I said that before we offer solutions, we must thoroughly understand the problem. I was pressed to provide a solution despite the facts and so I gave one and tried my best to justify it. You cannot fix a problem when you cannot prove why that problem is bad, how to fix it, what causes it, or even that it's occurring at all.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 11:11 pm to kingbob
hell, in my field we will argue over fisheries sustainability, and theclimate shite is absurdly more complex.
common sense approaches like you suggested make sense. Taxes on the fourth or fifth strongest greenhouse gas, based on models that have proven to be wrong and incorrectly interpreted scientific papers, is absurd.
common sense approaches like you suggested make sense. Taxes on the fourth or fifth strongest greenhouse gas, based on models that have proven to be wrong and incorrectly interpreted scientific papers, is absurd.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News