Yossarian wrote:Just to recap, on the one hand we have 97% of 12,000 peer reviewed articles on climate change, on the other, 5 academics who feel that their articles were misrepresented in that study, a geologist, a biogeologist who doesn't dispute the fact he has no climate credentials, an economist and the Deceiver of the Year 1995 who believes that dowsing can be scientifically proven, but who refuses to do so under controlled conditions despite being offered a million dollars to do so. Tit for tat my arse.
Roujin wrote:THIS. THIS MULTIPLIED BY INFINITY MULTIPLIED BY THE KELVIN INVREASE IN GRIFFS HOT SPACE.equinox_code wrote:Even if it's all made up, even if all these scientific experts are covering their backs and fishing for grants with their doomsday hypothes, even if all that is possibly true, what is the worst that could happen? We waste a lot of time/money cutting back on mindless consumption and pollution for the sake of nothing? I'd certainly take that over total population collapse and the end of a habitable planet.
Lord_Griff wrote:Erm: We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. Yoss isn't it 32.63% of the 11,944 endorsed the consensus position?Yossarian wrote:Just to recap, on the one hand we have 97% of 12,000 peer reviewed articles on climate change, on the other, 5 academics who feel that their articles were misrepresented in that study, a geologist, a biogeologist who doesn't dispute the fact he has no climate credentials, an economist and the Deceiver of the Year 1995 who believes that dowsing can be scientifically proven, but who refuses to do so under controlled conditions despite being offered a million dollars to do so. Tit for tat my arse.
cockbeard wrote:Don't eat a hamburger patty then, also where do these 18000 gallons of water go, because surely given that McDonalds alone have sold an estimated 300 billion burgers, we'd see some reduction in sea level. I'm talking about eating locally, seasonally, and within your budget.
Roujin wrote:THIS. THIS MULTIPLIED BY INFINITY MULTIPLIED BY THE KELVIN INVREASE IN GRIFFS HOT SPACE.equinox_code wrote:Even if it's all made up, even if all these scientific experts are covering their backs and fishing for grants with their doomsday hypothes, even if all that is possibly true, what is the worst that could happen? We waste a lot of time/money cutting back on mindless consumption and pollution for the sake of nothing? I'd certainly take that over total population collapse and the end of a habitable planet.
Lord_Griff wrote:Erm: We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. Yoss isn't it 32.63% of the 11,944 endorsed the consensus position?Yossarian wrote:Just to recap, on the one hand we have 97% of 12,000 peer reviewed articles on climate change, on the other, 5 academics who feel that their articles were misrepresented in that study, a geologist, a biogeologist who doesn't dispute the fact he has no climate credentials, an economist and the Deceiver of the Year 1995 who believes that dowsing can be scientifically proven, but who refuses to do so under controlled conditions despite being offered a million dollars to do so. Tit for tat my arse.
Lord_Griff wrote:Erm: We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. Yoss isn't it 32.63% of the 11,944 endorsed the consensus position?Yossarian wrote:Just to recap, on the one hand we have 97% of 12,000 peer reviewed articles on climate change, on the other, 5 academics who feel that their articles were misrepresented in that study, a geologist, a biogeologist who doesn't dispute the fact he has no climate credentials, an economist and the Deceiver of the Year 1995 who believes that dowsing can be scientifically proven, but who refuses to do so under controlled conditions despite being offered a million dollars to do so. Tit for tat my arse.
cockbeard wrote:Wow, when the conservatives were voted with a similar percentage of publicly expressed support, lots of people complained and called it a fraud, however when AGW get's 30% approval rating it's fact
What I'm most disappointed by is that only 0.3% of these people are actually scientists, why the hell did 66% say "I'm not telling you" rather than "I don't know"
cockbeard wrote:Exactly the water cycle, so why say it 'costs' 18000 gallons of water to make a burger patty
Lord_Griff wrote:But stating 97% of 12,000 is exceptionally misleading.
Outlaw wrote:This is how I feel too. If climate scientists are right and we ignore them we're all dead and the planet is destroyed. If climate change deniers are right and we ignore them then we...just have different industries and business to before (ie renewable vs fossil fuel or whatever), but otherwise stuff mostly carries on as normal. Doesn't seem like such a hard choice.Roujin wrote:THIS. THIS MULTIPLIED BY INFINITY MULTIPLIED BY THE KELVIN INVREASE IN GRIFFS HOT SPACE.equinox_code wrote:Even if it's all made up, even if all these scientific experts are covering their backs and fishing for grants with their doomsday hypothes, even if all that is possibly true, what is the worst that could happen? We waste a lot of time/money cutting back on mindless consumption and pollution for the sake of nothing? I'd certainly take that over total population collapse and the end of a habitable planet.
dynamiteReady wrote:And my question was, and still is, what is the correlate? Co2s? That's disputable, the chart makes that an easy challenge.
The birth rate is a strong one, but we haven't examined that yet.
Agriculture is also a major one...
And how do we set up 'controls' for lab work in an experiment performed on a living system? How do we know if this pattern of climate change has anything to do with us, and not an unknown cosmic phenomenon? And how do we explain ice ages of the past? Do you think we may see another ice age in the future? There's still a great deal of dispute about the cause of the ice age, and that's in the benefit of hindsight...
What's wrong with asking questions aout the subject? I'm trying to say that it's impossible to be certain about this, and that the intelligent thing to do, is to learn more...
Roujin wrote:dafuq on this 97% issue and pissing about over semantics and a handful of dissenting voices being some kind of evidence or reason for having a discussion or being able to refute that climate change is a thing that man is having an effect over when 40% of Americans believe that creationism is how man came to walk upon the earth
cockbeard wrote:Pascal hedged his bets, less thicko, more pussy who should have had a little conviction A large problem is that we only started taking measurements at almost the exact same time we started rapidly increasing the amount of CO2 we place in the atmosphere. Is this situation reversible? How long before we see any benefits? Do we really give a fuck about future generations?
Roujin wrote:dafuq on this 97% issue and pissing about over semantics and a handful of dissenting voices being some kind of evidence or reason for having a discussion or being able to refute that climate change is a thing that man is having an effect over when 40% of Americans believe that creationism is how man came to walk upon the earth
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!