Now that I think about it, I do believe man can affect the climate.  Look at Al Gore... whenever he has a Global Warming meeting, it gets cancelled by a blizzard.  That can't be coincidence.

Ah yes Global warming. It was once all the rage. Like the Macarena and Beverly Hills 90120...

Quote from: taxed on September 09, 2013, 10:05:32 PM
Now that I think about it, I do believe man can affect the climate.  Look at Al Gore... whenever he has a Global Warming meeting, it gets cancelled by a blizzard.  That can't be coincidence.

Proving that either God...or perhaps the Devil, have a sense of Humor.

Quote from: taxed on September 09, 2013, 10:05:32 PM
Now that I think about it, I do believe man can affect the climate.  Look at Al Gore... whenever he has a Global Warming meeting, it gets cancelled by a blizzard.  That can't be coincidence.

Good point, they predicted the earth would warm, it stagnated... so they changed the name to climate change stating the obvious since that's what climate does, it's why we have seasons... then claimed an easy one, hurricanes would be damaging and we'd see an increase, the opposite happened... melting ice caps, instead, they're growing.

They'd have been safer with climate stagnation.
Yes, god does indeed hate the liberal.

God watches out for children and the elderly, but makes a spectacle out of idiots.

They can call it whatever they want.

Nothing will change the fact that it is, by and large, little more than an excuse for more taxation and regulation that includes tons of hypocrisy and numerous politically correct loopholes (not mention cherry picked theoretical data).

The term "Global Taxation by Elitist Hypocrites" would be far more accurate.

Quote from: Telmark on September 10, 2013, 05:33:28 AM
They can call it whatever they want.

Nothing will change the fact that it is, by and large, little more than an excuse for more taxation and regulation that includes tons of hypocrisy and numerous politically correct loopholes (not mention cherry picked theoretical data).

The term "Global Taxation by Elitist Hypocrites" would be far more accurate.

That's all it ever has been, control through taxation and fees, redistribution of wealth.
To not see it for what it is, is simply blind ignorance.

Quote from: Solar on September 10, 2013, 05:52:39 AM
That's all it ever has been, control through taxation and fees, redistribution of wealth.
To not see it for what it is, is simply blind ignorance.

Exactly.

The global warmers post the same, or nearly the same, over-sized charts and graphs that supposedly prove their point. You see this same junk-tax science on forum after forum.

But these same warmers dodge the the fact that our government spends our tax dollars on the promotion and expansion of chronic non and/or counter-productive lifestyles. Nor do these warmers find a problem with the fact that many of the scientists and/or elitist politicians that peddle the G.W. (tax) agenda are jet-setting around while they leave size 50 carbon footprints across the globe.

For once I'd like to see at least a few of these pro-GW scientists and politicians say: "I believe man-made global warming is a real problem and, as such, I'm limiting my carbon footprint by decreasing my energy consumption, reducing the size and/or the number of houses I own, and by traveling less.

Quote from: Telmark on September 10, 2013, 05:33:28 AM
They can call it whatever they want.

They can't call it "Communism."  Because if they could call it that, you can bet your ass they would.

Quote from: mhughes on September 09, 2013, 12:57:28 PM
Do you mean the IPCC?  I'm not talking about the IPCC. You brought that up.  The consensus is far bigger than it.

You mean the OSIM list?

31k sounds like a lot huh?  Well, the criteria they use to decide who a scientist includes would only represent 0.3% of the US scientists. 

The statement they sign only deals with catastrophic heating.  Given my degree, I could even sign onto it and still be making the argument that AGW is real and happening.  So it's not a very good indicator that global warming isn't occurring.

Plus, it's got a few problems...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project-intermediate.htm


I never claimed 97% - I claim a vast scientific consensus.  But regardless...

The survey in that study was just a verification tool used to verify the results of the study.  It gave similar results to the main part of their paper.  What the study was actually about was a reading of of the abstracts of 12,000 papers written on the subject over 20 years.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

There were two other meta-studies on the subject with similar results.  One by James Lawrence Powell in 2012 and one by Naomi Oreskes in 2004.  All three came to similar conclusions.  All three actually published all of their raw data, unlike the OISM list.

So we've got 3 studies, peer reviewed and published with full data all saying similar things.

There's an additional survey being conducted by John Cook at the University of Queensland right now, who's preliminary results are also consistent.

Don't like studies?  Prefer lists?  Then how about a giant list of scientific organizations supporting the theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Concurring


And you have one OISM list saying the opposite.  If I brought data like the OISM list to this thread I'd be laughed out of the board. 


That's an example of the scientific method working.  A mistake was found.  Studies were done to figure out how & why.  And it was corrected in the record.

Science is messy, and self correcting.

One mistake does not invalidate dozens of studies all trying to reconstruct an accurate historical temperature record.  Some use direct measurement, some use proxy measurements (from tree rings to ice cores to the decay rate of certain isotopes), some focus on land temperatures, some focus on sea temperatures.  But all of that data points to the same conclusions.



Again.   I'm only arguing the purely scientific point that AGW is real and is happening.  There are very specific, coherent hypothesis that have been repeatedly validated by experimentation.  When you move away from the scientific literature, and into what people are saying about it, it gets noisy.  When you move away from the theory that AGW is happening, and into the realm of the consequences of it, it gets murky too.

Sorry, I missed this when you posted.
However, what you fail to understand, is all of these people work for Govt in one form or another, and have the funds at their disposal to do research to kill opposing views.
The private industry is left without a voice, they don't have the money to combat the lies and propaganda in support of reality.

Quote from: Telmark on September 10, 2013, 08:04:51 AM
Exactly.

The global warmers post the same, or nearly the same, over-sized charts and graphs that supposedly prove their point. You see this same junk-tax science on forum after forum.

But these same warmers dodge the the fact that our government spends our tax dollars on the promotion and expansion of chronic non and/or counter-productive lifestyles. Nor do these warmers find a problem with the fact that many of the scientists and/or elitist politicians that peddle the G.W. (tax) agenda are jet-setting around while they leave size 50 carbon footprints across the globe.

For once I'd like to see at least a few of these pro-GW scientists and politicians say: "I believe man-made global warming is a real problem and, as such, I'm limiting my carbon footprint by decreasing my energy consumption, reducing the size and/or the number of houses I own, and by traveling less.

And there you have it!
ALL the studies produced have been Govt subsidized leaving no voice for the opposition.

Quote from: Solar on September 10, 2013, 09:00:02 AM
ALL the studies produced have been Govt subsidized leaving no voice for the opposition.

Liberals throw out the word "scientist" like it actually means something.  Basically it's somebody who never left college or held a private-sector job.  To liberals, of course, that's like being a living God.  They can't for the life of them imagine why normal people don't fall down on our knees in worship at the mere sound of that word.

I used to design spacecraft for a living, and in all that time I never actually met anyone who introduced himself as a "scientist."  I suppose some of the guys at JPL might have qualified, but nobody ever mentioned it.  And if anyone ever tried to use that self-description to bolster his opinion, he'd have been laughed out of any room he was in.

One of a great many things that people incapable of rational thought (i.e., liberals) will never understand is that any "scientific" "proof" that relies on a description of how smart its proponents are and how dumb its detractors are is ALWAYS a giant pile of bullshit.

Quote from: kopema on September 10, 2013, 09:30:30 AM
Liberals throw out the word "scientist" like it actually means something.  Basically it's somebody who never left college or held a private-sector job.  To liberals, of course, that's like being a living God.  They can't for the life of them imagine why normal people don't fall down on our knees in worship at the mere sound of that word.

I used to design spacecraft for a living, and in all that time I never actually met anyone who introduced himself as a "scientist."  I suppose some of the guys at JPL might have qualified, but nobody ever mentioned it.  And if anyone ever tried to use that self-description to bolster his opinion, he'd have been laughed out of any room he was in.

One of a great many things that people incapable of rational thought (i.e., liberals) will never understand is that any "scientific" "proof" that relies on a description of how smart its proponents are and how dumb its detractors are is ALWAYS a giant pile of bullshit.

That's the problem, the Govt has spent millions of our tax dollars trying to build a case based on consensus (which is not science, rather agenda), and the only ones allowed into this little group, were subsidized by the very people trying to kill our economy (Green Energy).
You're right, anyone that claims to be a scientist is either an egotist or govt researcher.

Quote from: Solar on September 10, 2013, 09:39:03 AM
You're right, anyone that claims to be a scientist is either an egotist or govt researcher.

A while back I saw an article in the New York Times that gave some huge percentage of "scientists" who believe in Global Warming.  Just for laughs I looked up the airhead definition of that word.  It turns out it was a poll from some magazine with the word "Scientist" in the title.  OK, so I looked that up and it turned out the vast majority of its "subscribers" were K-12 teachers. 

(BTW, I put the word "subscribers" in quotation marks, because I'm pretty sure nobody ever actually paid for that rag out of his own pocket.)

In all seriousness though, this is what liberals have always done - even before they started calling themselves "liberals."  They've screwed up Liberal Arts so much that no normal person can possibly take that seriously anymore.  So do they fix it?  Of course not.  As always, they just take a word they haven't trashed yet, and paste it on themselves.

As the old saying goes:  "Most 'scientists' are bottle washers and button sorters."  These guys don't even qualify as that.

Quote from: kopema on September 10, 2013, 10:08:21 AM
A while back I saw an article in the New York Times that gave some huge percentage of "scientists" who believe in Global Warming.  Just for laughs I looked up the airhead definition of that word.  It turns out it was a poll from some magazine with the word "Scientist" in the title.  OK, so I looked that up and it turned out the vast majority of its "subscribers" were K-12 teachers. 

(BTW, I put the word "subscribers" in quotation marks, because I'm pretty sure nobody ever actually paid for that rag out of his own pocket.)

In all seriousness though, this is what liberals have always done - even before they started calling themselves "liberals."  They've screwed up Liberal Arts so much that no normal person can possibly take that seriously anymore.  So do they fix it?  Of course not.  As always, they just take a word they haven't trashed yet, and paste it on themselves.

As the old saying goes:  "Most 'scientists' are bottle washers and button sorters."  These guys don't even qualify as that.

I worked in wildlife research for the USFS back in the early 90s for a summer, and guess what my classification was?
Scientist Tech.

Quote from: Solar on September 10, 2013, 10:16:26 AM
I worked in wildlife research for the USFS back in the early 90s for a summer, and guess what my classification was?
Scientist Tech.

So did you believe in Global Warming then, or had they not officially implemented that requirement yet?

Liberalism is form over substance.  You know the penultimate scene in The Wizard Of Oz, where the guy gave a diploma to a moron, a locket to a cad and a medal to a coward... and that magically transformed them into a genius, a philanthropist and a hero?

It's hard to believe that was originally written as a JOKE for CHILDREN.  It's how millions of physically full-grown liberals today actually think the world works:  upside down.