Results 1,401 to 1,425 of 3644
-
09-13-2019, 11:37 AM #1401Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
So the point was to post an article that supports my position written by someone who supports fossil fuels? Makes sense.
The funny thing is that you thought the Houston University Energy Fellows is some denier group. It's a group of 8 professors from Houston University. Does this article look like it came from someone with a pro fossil fuel agenda? - https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenerg.../#130b2cad4130
-
09-13-2019, 11:53 AM #1402
Ron?
Forum Cross Pollinator, gratuitously strident
-
09-13-2019, 12:29 PM #1403
OF course none of this is true, but it does lead me to a joke:
2 aliens come down to earth 150 years from now. There is devastation everywhere, only a handful of humans are alive and they are living a Mad Max life. There is no life in oceans, cities are in decay, much of the land surface is under water or burned up.
The first alien says: "What happened here?"
Alien 2: "Climate change. The humans said it would cost too much money to do anything about it."
Alien 1: "What's money?"
-
09-13-2019, 12:48 PM #1404
You have to be completely fucking retarded if you think that our climate is behaving normally (as in, the way it did behave up until about 2000). As skiers, we should have a finger on the pulse of this shit. I do. Some idiots don't. WTF
They think I do not know a buttload of crap about the Gospel, but I do.
-
09-13-2019, 12:50 PM #1405
Does It Matter if the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming Is 97% or 99.99%?
Andrew G. Skuce1,2, John Cook1,5, Mark Richardson1,Bärbel Winkler1, Ken Rice3, Sarah A. Green4, Peter Jacobs5,and Dana Nuccitelli1 Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society May 2017.
Abstract
Cook et al. reported a 97% scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), based on a study of 11,944 abstracts in peer-reviewed science journals. Powell claims that the Cook et al. methodology was flawed and that the true consensus is virtually unanimous at 99.99%. Powell’s method underestimates the level of disagreement because it relies on finding explicit rejection statements as well as the assumption that abstracts without a stated position endorse the consensus. Cook et al.’s survey of the papers’ authors revealed that papers may express disagreement with AGW despite the absence of a rejection statement in the abstract. Surveys reveal a large gap between the public perception of the degree of scientific consensus on AGW and reality. We argue that it is the size of this gap, rather than the small difference between 97% and 99.99%, that matters in communicating the true state of scientific opinion to the public.
...
The scientific understanding of the greenhouse effect and the influence of human emissions emerged more gradually. The pioneering work of John Tyndall in the mid-19th century, the contributions of Svante Arrhenius around the turn of the 20th century and Guy Callendar in the 1930s notwithstanding, the significance of human emissions in enhancing the greenhouse effect was not widely accepted until the secondhalf of the 20th century (Plass, 1956). As new evidence emerged and better models were developed, the consensus among climate experts on AGW quickly expanded (Weart, 2008). By the early 1990s, the AGW consensus was robust and well established (Cook et al., 2013; Oreskes, 2004b;Shwed & Bearman, 2010).
Although there are parallels between the growth of knowledge in climate science and plate tectonics, of the two theories, only AGW has obvious implications for public policy, especially regarding the need to reduce greenhouse-gasemissions to stabilize the climate (Oreskes, 2004a). These policy implications have motivated some corporations, industry lobby groups, conservative think tanks, and individuals to challenge the scientific consensus on AGW, with some dissenters manufacturing doubt to create the impression of widespread controversy within the expert community (Oreskes & Conway, 2011). The few AGW contrarians who are qualified scientists do not have a coherent model that could replace the mainstream view, but instead have proposed scattered, mutually incompatible hypotheses that have been repeatedly refuted by subsequent scientific analysis (e.g., Abraham et al., 2014; Benestad et al., 2015; Lewandowsky, Cook, & Lloyd, 2016). Very rare dissenting
scientific opinions can be found on plate tectonics (e.g.,Ollier, 2006; Scalera, 2003), but, in contrast to the situation in AGW, these views receive little attention in the media and none from politicians.
Doubt about mainstream climate science that involves attacks on individual scientists or the entire field has an epistemically detrimental effect, impeding knowledge production (Biddle & Leuschner, 2016). We propose that this negative influence is best confronted not by insisting that objections do not exist but by exposing the dissenting science as incoherent, false, and motivated by politics (Cook, Lewandowsky, & Ecker, in press; van der Linden, Leiserowitz, Rosenthal, & Maibach, 2017).Move upside and let the man go through...
-
09-13-2019, 12:57 PM #1406Significantly increasing the price of energy will have a profound impact on society.
That pack of Rabid Chimps done fucking you in the ass yet?I have been in this State for 30 years and I am willing to admit that I am part of the problem.
"Happiest years of my life were earning < $8.00 and hour, collecting unemployment every spring and fall, no car, no debt and no responsibilities. 1984-1990 Park City UT"
-
09-13-2019, 02:16 PM #1407
I got a kick out of being in Mexico with my BIL who’s a Trump guy and has many hard right views. We went to Tulum. On the flight he was telling me it’s his favorite, he can’t wait, and thinks it’s his forever happy place.. We get there and the climate change has given them this awful seaweed problem over the time period since he had been there last. He started bitching and moaning, asking the locals what the deal was. The consistent response was the warming there is real and a direct correlation.
Flight home “I’m never going back to that place again the beach is ruined” [puts on his maga hat]
The other thing that was interesting is how much it was an accepted fact there. No political spinny bullshit. When your village life depends on tourism you get real - real quick.
-
09-13-2019, 02:35 PM #1408
-
09-13-2019, 04:50 PM #1409Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
-
09-13-2019, 04:57 PM #1410
-
09-13-2019, 04:58 PM #1411
-
09-13-2019, 05:06 PM #1412
-
09-13-2019, 05:06 PM #1413
-
09-13-2019, 05:18 PM #1414Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
-
09-13-2019, 05:19 PM #1415
-
09-13-2019, 05:20 PM #1416Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
-
09-13-2019, 05:21 PM #1417Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
-
09-13-2019, 05:22 PM #1418
Change for a nickel, duh
Forum Cross Pollinator, gratuitously strident
-
09-13-2019, 05:24 PM #1419
FWIW--80%, or 97%,, or 99.9% doesn't fucking matter. Why are you arguing % of scientists when the issue is % CO2 and other greenhouse gasses. You're like someone from the Titanic. The ship is down, the lifeboats are gone, the Carpathia is gone, and you're desperately grasping a tiny, inadequate piece of flotsam in the vain hope of staying alive. And in the not too distant future it won't be a metaphor.
-
09-13-2019, 05:29 PM #1420Forum Cross Pollinator, gratuitously strident
-
09-13-2019, 05:34 PM #1421Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
It matters because everyone proclaims there is a 97% percent consensus that humans are causing climate change and its dangerous. Therefore, I am a moron for questioning the consensus. The only consensus is that 80-90% of scientist agree humans are causing warming. There is no consensus on how much warming and how dangerous it is.
-
09-13-2019, 05:37 PM #1422
-
09-13-2019, 05:38 PM #1423
Maybe ‘any caused by us is probably too much’ Is the right answer here.
Forum Cross Pollinator, gratuitously strident
-
09-13-2019, 05:41 PM #1424click here
- Join Date
- Oct 2008
- Location
- valley of the heart's delight
- Posts
- 2,481
Earth has been much warmer too.
Neither end of that estimate range sounds promising. Especially with no end to the increasing level and rate of pollution.
With current CO2 levels at 0.042%, When is this "logarithmic diminutive effect" expected to start kicking in? millennia? eons? How many doublings? (Some math to help - 5 doublings get us to almost 1%). How strongly does it kick in? Seems to be basic atmospheric physics you're proposing. If its meaningful, the models are surely accounting for it already.
Again, why are you proposing this geoengineering experiment? Do you not find it reckless?
Methinks you're trolling now.10/01/2012 Site was upgraded to 300 baud.
-
09-13-2019, 05:54 PM #1425Registered User
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- Posts
- 2,742
RJ strikes me as the kind of pedant who will tell you "only 80% of climate scientists think anthropogenic climate change is hazardous for our society!" as he drowns in a flood. I guess if you're gonna troll, you might as well troll hard. Probably a super-fun guy to ride a chair with.
Bookmarks