Page 58 of 94 FirstFirst ... 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 ... LastLast
Results 1,426 to 1,450 of 2336
  1. #1426
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by SumJongGuy View Post
    Fixed it for you troll The point of posting it was to bold the sponsor of the material. I guess you AI bots haven't figured out bold font yet..
    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

  2. #1427
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    25,131
    Ron?

    StokePimpin' ain't easy

  3. #1428
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,190
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    I'm all for less pollution, but it's not as simple as you make it sound. Significantly increasing the price of energy will have a profound impact on society. Proponents of 100% non carbon renewable plans seem to have no understanding of economics. Increased energy prices will lead to more poverty, wealth inequality, civil unrest, etc. Look at France's yellow vests movement. It's motivated by rising fuel prices and a high cost of living, and those prices are nothing compared to what will happen under GND type plans. I think these government mandated energy plans are very dangerous for a county already crippled in debt.

    If you, your family, or your friends are unemployed and struggling to feed themselves the last thing you are going to care about is pollution and CO2 levels.

    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?"

  4. #1429
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Posts
    5,720
    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.

  5. #1430
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Alpental
    Posts
    5,390
    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...

  6. #1431
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    11,979
    Significantly increasing the price of energy will have a profound impact on society.
    If you were worth the 0s and 1s I would bother to rebut that Captain Obvious statement but you are not.

    That pack of Rabid Chimps done fucking you in the ass yet?
    Mister Man! Mister Man! Mister Man. They left this card.

  7. #1432
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    1,115
    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.

  8. #1433
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    here and there
    Posts
    14,816
    Quote Originally Posted by rideit View Post
    "what's the velocity of an unladen swallow?"
    What? An African or European swallow?
    watch out for snakes

  9. #1434
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by Grape_Ape View Post
    You have to be completely fucking retarded if you think that our climate isn't 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
    Fixed you post.

    I hate to start this up again, but please find me one thing that is unusual about our current climate in the context of the last 2,000 years.

  10. #1435
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    cow hampshire
    Posts
    4,312
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Fixed you post.

    I hate to start this up again, but please find me one thing that is unusual about our current climate in the context of the last 2,000 years.
    Keep fightin' the good fight Ron!

  11. #1436
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    4,278
    Quote Originally Posted by SB View Post
    What? An African or European swallow?
    Huh? I don't KNOOoooooowwwwww........
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  12. #1437
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    25,131
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Fixed you post.

    I hate to start this up again, but please find me one thing that is unusual about our current climate in the context of the last 2,000 years.
    THE RATE OF CHANGE, you fucking Dimwit.
    StokePimpin' ain't easy

  13. #1438
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    4,278
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Fixed you post.

    I hate to start this up again, but please find me one thing that is unusual about our current climate in the context of the last 2,000 years.
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  14. #1439
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by Mofro261 View Post
    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).
    Why are we still doing this?

    This might be the stupidest study I have ever seen. They take the discredited Cook study, and compare its results to the results of plate tectonics studies and find a 99.9% consensus on climate change.

  15. #1440
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    10,811
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Fixed you post.

    I hate to start this up again, but please find me one thing that is unusual about our current climate in the context of the last 2,000 years.
    You, for starters.

    Boy, that didn't last long. Didn't think you could stay away. It's like a drug for you, isn't it?

  16. #1441
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by rideit View Post
    THE RATE OF CHANGE, you fucking Dimwit.
    Change of what?

  17. #1442
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by old goat View Post
    You, for starters.

    Boy, that didn't last long. Didn't think you could stay away. It's like a drug for you, isn't it?
    Like I said, if you guys don't post stupid BS I will not post. It appears that is very difficult for you guys.

  18. #1443
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    25,131
    Change for a nickel, duh
    StokePimpin' ain't easy

  19. #1444
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    10,811
    Quote Originally Posted by old goat View Post
    You, for starters.

    Boy, that didn't last long. Didn't think you could stay away. It's like a drug for you, isn't it?
    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.

  20. #1445
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    25,131

  21. #1446
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by old goat View Post
    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.
    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.

  22. #1447
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    16,592
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    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.
    amazing

  23. #1448
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    25,131
    Maybe ‘any caused by us is probably too much’ Is the right answer here.
    StokePimpin' ain't easy

  24. #1449
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    valley of the heart's delight
    Posts
    625
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    CO2 levels have been naturally much higher than today's levels.
    Earth has been much warmer too.

    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. Beyond that there is much uncertainty.

    For example, the climate sensitivity of CO2 - the average temperature increase of a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels - is unknown. Estimates are between 1'C and 4.5'C. That is quite a bit of uncertainty for "settled science."
    Neither end of that estimate range sounds promising. Especially with no end to the increasing level and rate of pollution.

    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Beyond that, CO2 has a logarithmic diminutive effect on warming. This means that as you keep adding CO2 to the atmosphere, you get a less of a warming response. To visualize, put temperature in the y axis and CO2 levels in the x axis:

    Because of this, CO2 alone cannot cause run away catastrophic warming. The entire theory of catastrophic human caused warming is dependent on positive feedbacks amplifying the original warming from CO2 such as methane release from melting permafrost, increased atmospheric water vapor, etc.
    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.

  25. #1450
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    323
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •