Earth Has Its Warmest May on Record Globally

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
So let me get this straight...... The same people who think we should be allowed to carry guns around also believe that we are not affecting the climate?


Sent from my baller ass iPhone 5S...... FAMS!
 
They are probably the same people that believe a man made a boat with his bare hands that could carry 2 of every species on earth.


Sent from my baller ass iPhone 5S...... FAMS!
 
HCP said:
So let me get this straight...... The same people who think we should be allowed to carry guns around also believe that we are not affecting the climate?


Sent from my baller ass iPhone 5S...... FAMS!
Click to expand...

I am pretty damn sure you effect the climate.
 
Last edited:
HCP said:
They are probably the same people that believe a man made a boat with his bare hands that could carry 2 of every species on earth.


Sent from my baller ass iPhone 5S...... FAMS!
Click to expand...

image.php


I predict a rough voyage. The nearest vet is 30 miles away, and those animals better not shit in the water!

barfo
 
HCP said:
They are probably the same people that believe a man made a boat with his bare hands that could carry 2 of every species on earth.


Sent from my baller ass iPhone 5S...... FAMS!
Click to expand...

No, believing that is ridiculous, too.
 
HCP said:
They are probably the same people that believe a man made a boat with his bare hands that could carry 2 of every species on earth.


Sent from my baller ass iPhone 5S...... FAMS!
Click to expand...

Not species. Kind. And it wasnt two of each, try reading instead of making baseless accusations.
 
HCP said:
So let me get this straight...... The same people who think we should be allowed to carry guns around also believe that we are not affecting the climate?


Sent from my baller ass iPhone 5S...... FAMS!
Click to expand...

HCP! Psst!

images
 
If anyone is interested in facts, you know, those oddball things out there, the Royal Society of the United Kingdom and the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S. have made available a free on line pamphlet (you don't even have to register, you can download as guest) summarizing the current scientific knowledge of global warming. The pamphlet is in a very readable Q and A format; after each question, a short answer followed by a more in depth treatment of the question. It covers a lot of the stuff asked here.

Of course, if you are absolutely convinced that 97% of the world's climate scientists are engaged in a massive hoax to make everyone believe nonexistent global warming is real in order to legalize gay marriage (and yes, Shooter did say that once), you probably will skip this pamphlet. Which is a shame because it is very informative. And facts, you know.
 
crandc said:
If anyone is interested in facts, you know, those oddball things out there, the Royal Society of the United Kingdom and the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S. have made available a free on line pamphlet (you don't even have to register, you can download as guest) summarizing the current scientific knowledge of global warming. The pamphlet is in a very readable Q and A format; after each question, a short answer followed by a more in depth treatment of the question. It covers a lot of the stuff asked here.

Of course, if you are absolutely convinced that 97% of the world's climate scientists are engaged in a massive hoax to make everyone believe nonexistent global warming is real in order to legalize gay marriage (and yes, Shooter did say that once), you probably will skip this pamphlet. Which is a shame because it is very informative. And facts, you know.
Click to expand...
"97%," lol...
 
I don't know about the 97% . . . I would hope $560 million of oil money buys you more than 3% or the scientists out there.
 
Treaty_of_Batum said:
I don't know about the 97% . . . I would hope $560 million of oil money buys you more than 3% or the scientists out there.
Click to expand...

The US govt. spends 10x that. It should be 90-10 based on the cash!
 
Not sure what Wookie is laughing about, but it's easier to type LOL than to spend 15 minutes on facts.

You know, like http://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html a peer reviewed study found that of 13,950 peer reviewed cilmate articles in the last decade, all but 24 accept global warming. 24/13950 gives you even less than that 3% (about 1.7% to be exact).

Each paper was rated independently at least twice, with the identity of the other co-rater not known. A dozen team members completed most of the 24,000+ ratings. There was no funding provided for this project; all the work was performed on a purely voluntary basis.

Once we finished the 24,000+ ratings, we went back and checked the abstracts where there were disagreements. If the disagreement about a given paper couldn't be settled by the two initial raters, a third person acted as the tie-breaker.

The volunteers were an internationally diverse group. Team members' home countries included Australia, USA, Canada, UK, New Zealand, Germany, Finland, and Italy.
Click to expand...

LOL indeed.
 
crandc said:
Not sure what Wookie is laughing about, but it's easier to type LOL than to spend 15 minutes on facts.

You know, like http://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html a peer reviewed study found that of 13,950 peer reviewed cilmate articles in the last decade, all but 24 accept global warming. 24/13950 gives you even less than that 3% (about 1.7% to be exact).



LOL indeed.
Click to expand...

Lol indeed. Your link cites this survey:

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

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.

32.6% is a consensus. But only if you use the trick to hide the decline, or otherwise manipulate the data to suit your agenda.

Lol indeed.
 
barfo said:
Absolutely, scientists are lazy bastards who just go for the easy money.

barfo
Click to expand...

Big money, you mean.

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/alaska-polar-bear-researcher-reprimanded-allowed-return-work

A government scientist who drew international attention after publishing a report about drowning polar bears in Alaska's Arctic didn't always do everything by the book, according to the results of a federal investigative report released Friday. And yet on the very day the report was made public, wildlife biologist Dr. Charles Monnett was given the all-clear to return to his job at the Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management.

...

The results of the IG's investigation, published Friday, suggest that Monnett and Gleason were sloppy with their polar bear data and that Monnett was secretly padding the war chest of anti-oil activists with confidential internal government emails pertaining to drilling in the Arctic by Royal Dutch Shell, an oil giant that, after years of delays, now has a ship hovering over a site in the Beaufort, poised to sink its drill.

...

What is known is that Monnett has survived the inquest with the administrative equivalent of a slap on the hand, and although the IG submitted evidence to prosecutors about what it suspected might be federal crimes, the Alaska U.S. Attorneys Office declined to pursue charges against either man.

...

During the investigation, federal agents also found that Monnett, who once oversaw a budget of more than $50 million, mishandled a sole-source contract and did not manage it in a way that complied with federal procurement policy.

...

50 million reasons, barfo.

How does this guy deserve to have his job?
 
Denny Crane said:
How does this guy deserve to have his job?
Click to expand...

Because he manipulated data to stay on the "97%" side. Which is really ~34%, but that doesn't seem to matter.

Again, 97% of scientists who agree with AGW are believers in AGW. I wonder why the number isn't 100%. It's like saying that 97% all NBA fans are fans of the Blazers, but you disregard the results of anyone who isn't a fan of the Blazers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top