Archive

Arctic Ice Cap (Global Warming)

  • jmog
    Commander of Awesome;1658531 wrote:I posted the White House scientific advisor pwning dumbass republican climate change deniers. Balls in your court chief.
    Which backs up your claim of "98% of all scientists" in no way.

    Try again.
  • Commander of Awesome
    like_that;1658549 wrote:I thought the debate was whether climate change was a result of humans.
    It was/is. They then used some yahoo scientist that's the laughing stock of the scientific community as evidence that climate change isn't real. So I lold at their source.
  • jmog
    Commander of Awesome;1658553 wrote:It was/is. They then used some yahoo scientist that's the laughing stock of the scientific community as evidence that climate change isn't real. So I lold at their source.
    Your reading comprehension may not be up to par.

    I do not believe anyone here is claiming that climate change is not real.

    I believe they are claiming that the climate change MAY NOT be 100% or even mostly caused by man. That is the point of contention if you actually cared to read before your head started spinning like a possessed girl from The Exorcist on a global warming thread.
  • gut
    Commander of Awesome;1658553 wrote:It was/is. They then used some yahoo scientist that's the laughing stock of the scientific community
    The irony in that statement is that climate change research is kind of the laughing stock of real scientists. Let's face it, the track record and quality of reseach is up there with astrology and herbal healing.
  • Commander of Awesome
    gut;1658557 wrote:The irony in that statement is that climate change research is kind of the laughing stock of real scientists. Let's face it, the track record and quality of reseach is up there with astrology and herbal healing.
    It is? Where are you getting this notion?
  • Commander of Awesome
    jmog;1658556 wrote:Your reading comprehension may not be up to par.

    I do not believe anyone here is claiming that climate change is not real.

    I believe they are claiming that the climate change MAY NOT be 100% or even mostly caused by man. That is the point of contention if you actually cared to read before your head started spinning like a possessed girl from The Exorcist on a global warming thread.
    http://epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html

    [h=3]The Recent Role of the Greenhouse Effect[/h] Since the Industrial Revolution began around 1750, human activities have contributed substantially to climate change by adding CO[SUB]2[/SUB] and other heat-trapping gases to the atmosphere. These greenhouse gas emissions have increased the greenhouse effect and caused Earth’s surface temperature to rise. The primary human activity affecting the amount and rate of climate change is greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.

    Stop being an asshat.
  • fish82
    Commander of Awesome;1658562 wrote:It is? Where are you getting this notion?
    I get it from the fact that they've been busted fudging their data twice.

    I guess I'm funny that way.
  • Commander of Awesome
    fish82;1658571 wrote:I get it from the fact that they've been busted fudging their data twice.

    I guess I'm funny that way.
    Got a link? And please don't link me to some geocities site like before.
  • fish82
    CoA is mad that the <code id="strikethroughResult">g&#822;l&#822;o&#822;b&#822;a&#822;l&#822; &#822;w&#822;a&#822;r&#822;m&#822;i&#822;n&#822;g&#822;</code> <code id="strikethroughResult">g&#822;l&#822;o&#822;b&#822;a&#822;l&#822; &#822;c&#822;o&#822;o&#822;l&#822;i&#822;n&#822;g&#822;</code> climate change meme is failing.
  • fish82
    Commander of Awesome;1658572 wrote:Got a link? And please don't link me to some geocities site like before.
    Dude...it was on the news and stuff. I'm not in the business of hand-holding. :rolleyes:
  • Commander of Awesome
    fish82;1658575 wrote:Dude...it was on the news and stuff. I'm not in the business of hand-holding. :rolleyes:
    Thought so, got nothing. Thanks.

    Next time just say I don't like the results of scientific fact, they're scary and I'm going to ignore them.
  • SportsAndLady
    Commander of Awesome;1658576 wrote:Thought so, got nothing. Thanks.

    Next time just say I don't like the results of scientific fact, they're scary and I'm going to ignore them.
    Hippie libtard environmentalist is obvious
  • gut
    Commander of Awesome;1658562 wrote:It is? Where are you getting this notion?
    Oh, maybe from research I've actually read (as opposed from swallowing from a blogger or reporter with no training in basic stats).

    Or perhaps it's based on the fact that 40 years ago we were entering a new ice age, then 20 years later it's global warming....then it's just climate change. It may just be me, but when someone is THAT wrong THAT often, I struggle to call it "science".

    I think we maybe really should call it climate astrology.
  • jmog
    Commander of Awesome;1658568 wrote:http://epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html

    The Recent Role of the Greenhouse Effect

    Since the Industrial Revolution began around 1750, human activities have contributed substantially to climate change by adding CO[SUB]2[/SUB] and other heat-trapping gases to the atmosphere. These greenhouse gas emissions have increased the greenhouse effect and caused Earth&#8217;s surface temperature to rise. The primary human activity affecting the amount and rate of climate change is greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.

    Stop being an asshat.
    You have still made zero posts or copied and links to back up your "98%" claim but yet I'm the "asshat"?
  • gut
    Commander of Awesome;1658576 wrote: Next time just say I don't like the results of scientific fact, they're scary and I'm going to ignore them.
    One thing climate research definitely isn't is scientific fact. They don't really even follow the scientific method but rather overfit models to describe the past and then use those models to try and predict the future. That's why the confidence intervals are so critical (and 90% or less typically used is absolutey junk science)...and it's why their models and conclusions based on those models have been so laughably awful.

    How can they be taken seriously? In what world do you live where a guy does work for you, and then a short time later those results prove to be absolute garbage. BUT WAIT!!!!! I have a new, improved and refined model so this time he has it right.....Wash, rinse and repeat. How many times do you go to this process before you stop listening to the guy? Or at least how many times does he have to fail miserably before you become skeptical of any new or additional claims?
  • Classyposter58
    The Earth is definitely warming folks, however it should since we are coming out of an ice age. Still seasons have barely changed since coming out of the Little Ice Age and I expect little change in our lifetimes. The whole storms will be worse thing is totally incorrect though, nature just will have a new balance but because the Earth is warming doesn't mean that everything will be insanely out of whack. I mean that's why you get stronger storms in the transitional seasons and in the winter when the Gulf of Mexico moisture hits that cold air north of the Mason/Dixon, because of the major imbalance which creates major storms
  • QuakerOats
    Commander of Awesome;1658546 wrote:First google link search on the author of that site: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Bob_Carter_arg.htm

    Lolfail.

    Seriously climate change deniers are biggest idiots out there. Might as well tell me earth is flat.

    The climate has been changing for millions of years, always has. The biggest idiots out there are those who believe humans are the cause of the change. That is completely preposterous, and when you look at the actual statistics being used by the radical left, it is easy to figure out. But you have to do the reading.
  • Commander of Awesome
    gut;1658581 wrote:Oh, maybe from research I've actually read (as opposed from swallowing from a blogger or reporter with no training in basic stats).

    Or perhaps it's based on the fact that 40 years ago we were entering a new ice age, then 20 years later it's global warming....then it's just climate change. It may just be me, but when someone is THAT wrong THAT often, I struggle to call it "science".

    I think we maybe really should call it climate astrology.
    What research gut?
  • Commander of Awesome
    jmog;1658583 wrote:You have still made zero posts or copied and links to back up your "98%" claim but yet I'm the "asshat"?
    http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/01/14/climate_change_another_study_shows_they_don_t_publish_actual_papers.html

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2012/12/11/climate_change_denial_why_don_t_they_publish_scientific_papers.html




    Another PEER REVIEWED study:

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-0704-9

    lolfail

    DO SOME FUCKING RESEARCH. Thanks.
  • fish82
    Commander of Awesome;1658576 wrote:Thought so, got nothing. Thanks.

    Next time just say I don't like the results of scientific fact, they're scary and I'm going to ignore them.


    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=forged+climate+data
  • QuakerOats
    Commander of Awesome;1658568 wrote:http://epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html

    The Recent Role of the Greenhouse Effect

    Since the Industrial Revolution began around 1750, human activities have contributed substantially to climate change by adding CO[SUB]2[/SUB] and other heat-trapping gases to the atmosphere. These greenhouse gas emissions have increased the greenhouse effect and caused Earth&#8217;s surface temperature to rise. The primary human activity affecting the amount and rate of climate change is greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.

    Stop being an asshat.

    Nice. What fossil fuels were being burned in 1750, and on what scale? Why are we now in a cooling period?

    And, it was just in the last 2 weeks that scientists determined that wind was the cause of warmer temps, not anything human-related.

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_PACIFIC_WARMING_STUDY?SITE=AP

    Climate and the environment remain the weapon of choice among marxists in their war on capitalism.
  • gut
    Commander of Awesome;1658627 wrote:What research gut?
    How about how the 97% number you quoted was actually calculated? I suspect you lack the training/education to realize how misrepresented the "24 reject global warming" number is above. That's working the old "statistics lie" magic. It takes only minimal knowledge to know what a load of fraudulent horseshit "24 reject" is....because the relevant stat is how many show a statistically significant impact of man on global warming. The vast majority of those studies, I guarantee, are not designed to reject man's impact, much less global warming in general.

    Sorry, I don't typically keep a running catalog of studies that are junk science. But go ahead and link an article if you like and I'll bet money I can tell you in under 5 minutes just from reading the extract why it's junk.

    Here's a hint: anything with less than 95% confidence interval is junk. And, um, that CI should be a statistically based calculation (since I know what are going to link in response).

    So, there ya go. Find me a study - an actual study and not a metanalysis - with a 95% CI and then we'll start having a discussion about the science. That's gonna be a short discussion, if you even bring anything to the table worth discussing.
  • jmog
    I knew that was the EXACT article you would quote eventually...

    So, here is the one I bookmarked this morning just waiting for you to post this...

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CCwQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fheartland.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2F10-2012_myth_of_the_98_percent.pdf&ei=Xm8pVOLUGoSRyQTY7oHgAw&usg=AFQjCNGW6CG2rLf7Lc8TDMKp_RzwMDKiKQ&sig2=nt7Q5uzckBB78yj-mBF7gg&bvm=bv.76247554,d.aWw&cad=rja
  • fish82
    LOL @ CoA.

  • gut
    jmog;1658642 wrote:I knew that was the EXACT article you would quote eventually...
    This whole debate reminds me A LOT of all the second hand smoke junk science. Towards the end of that debate, I was shocked to see some proponents flat out admit the science was misrepresented to push the agenda. I guess if the media has your back and you have enough money you can tell the voters to their face you duped them and still count on their vote.