Less than 1/2 of published scientists...
0
-
Meteorologists can't even predict tomorrow's weather accurately. What do they know. 0 -
If you ask me, the sun is just burning more intensely over time as it expands and contracts just as earth does. It's a known cycle. 0 -
Posted this early today, but didn't get much response.
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2617280 -
But Algore and the Bongwater Brigade are constantly telling me it's my fault that the earth will soon be an uninhabitable inferno. . . 0 -
Its a cycle. It just so happens that the surface temperatures of the other planets in our neighborhood are going up at exactly the same rate we are and there are no humans up there running around with their SUVs and letting the cattle pass gas on a regular basis. Now next topic. 0 -
And all the while Al is using energy like nobody else.
When the whole story about how much energy his house uses broke in the media I was chuckling about it in the lunchroom. I work with some flaming liberals, and I thought that once, just once, one of them would admit that yeah, it does look a little bad when Mr. Global Warming himself uses more energy that Las Vegas. Not a one of them did so.0 -
The sun is definitely getting hotter; the energy output is increasing about 0.5%/century. This has been going on for about 200 years now. 0 -
Well your stats as stated are somewhat misleading. It is actually less than have of papers published on the environment explicitly endorsed human mediated casues of global warming. Most, in fact, took no stand:
Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis.
The way you phrase it makes it look like less than have of all published scientists support the idea of global warming. But, that is what statistics are for, to say whatevr you want to believe from whatever political viewpoint you like best. I am betting on human mediated global warming, my self, driven mostly by mines burning in Asia.0 -
Could humans use more oxygen than Earth is creating?
If half the planet is in winter......but the whole planet is using oxygen.....could photosynthesis keep up to supply the demand?0 -
Most of the oxygen is produced in tropical rain forest where there is no winter. 0 -
Congratulations....you've posted a link to a blog
How about a link to the article published by Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte?0 -
The output of the sun has remained constant, Mars is warming up, but not at the same rate as earth, nor did its warming start at the same time, nor is its cause the same. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
Congratulations....you've posted a link to a blog
How about a link to the article published by Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte?
Sorry, no can do. Keeping that energy-use down here.[:p]0 -
Wait for the carbon tax. That's what they are prepping us for. You'll have to pay a tax to breathe lol... or use your car. 0 -
Which part of gasoline tax do you not understand as a tax on using your car? Registration? Operators licence? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Ramtinxxl
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
Congratulations....you've posted a link to a blog
How about a link to the article published by Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte?
Sorry, no can do. Keeping that energy-use down here.[:p]
At least you're doing your part.....0 -
Doesn't matter if it is humans causing the planet to warm up or not. What is important is to get away from a 100 plus year old technology that is limited by the ability of a few huge corporations to suck a finite resource from the ground. Nature can only support so many of us for so long until the earth shakes us off like so many fleas on a dog. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by LKB3rd
Wait for the carbon tax. That's what they are prepping us for. You'll have to pay a tax to breathe lol... or use your car.
The whole "human-caused global warming" thing is about taxes--and the removal of personal freedoms. It's a left-wing, UN-loving sorta thing from the git-go.[V][:(!][xx(]0 -
GOD states in the bible that the world will be destroyed by fire, maybe this is the beginning[:(] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Ramtinxxl
The whole "human-caused global warming" thing is about taxes--and the removal of personal freedoms. It's a left-wing, UN-loving sorta thing from the git-go.[V][:(!][xx(]
Anytime you want to post a link to that study.......0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
quote:Originally posted by Ramtinxxl
The whole "human-caused global warming" thing is about taxes--and the removal of personal freedoms. It's a left-wing, UN-loving sorta thing from the git-go.[V][:(!][xx(]
Anytime you want to post a link to that study.......
quote:Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.
You must be part pit-bull. [;)] The "blog" stated that the findings were obtained from a "pre-publication copy" (http://tinyurl.com/2f8qxr) of the article you're so desperate to rip. I don't have the power to force it into publication nor do I have the passion to pursue it. Okay?
BTW, which do YOU enjoy--the giving up of personal freedoms or the paying of higher taxes for NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Ramtinxxl
The "blog" stated that the findings were obtained from a "pre-publication copy" (http://tinyurl.com/2f8qxr) of the article you're so desperate to rip. I don't have the power to force it into publication nor do I have the passion to pursue it. Okay?
In other words, you don't have a clue as to what your talking about. Your only source is an article that hasn't been published and most likely will never be published
All you've shown is an ability to cherry-pick articles out of the blogoshere that agree with your point of view......
When it is exposed as a hoax, as almost all of these "studies" are, you'll simply move on to the next one as if this never even happened....0 -
And in the event it turns out to not be a hoax, are you going to step up and say maybe you were wrong? Just wondering.[:D] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by He Dog
Well your stats as stated are somewhat misleading. It is actually less than have of papers published on the environment explicitly endorsed human mediated casues of global warming. Most, in fact, took no stand:
Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis.
The way you phrase it makes it look like less than have of all published scientists support the idea of global warming. But, that is what statistics are for, to say whatevr you want to believe from whatever political viewpoint you like best. I am betting on human mediated global warming, my self, driven mostly by mines burning in Asia.
I have to agree with you on most points, except one: statistics, like fire-arms are just a tool. They can be used properly, or improperly. Much of the time they're used improperly.
I think statisticians are bound by an ethical code to reveal truth rather than lies. Therefore a 'bad' statistician is one who makes the numbers fit the argument, and a 'good' statistician is one who tries to make the numbers to reflect reality.0 -
quote:Originally posted by CA sucks
The output of the sun has remained constant, Mars is warming up, but not at the same rate as earth, nor did its warming start at the same time, nor is its cause the same.
Got a link for that?0 -
quote:Originally posted by swamp_thing
And in the event it turns out to not be a hoax, are you going to step up and say maybe you were wrong? Just wondering.[:D]
If it is a legitimate journal article, I'll acknowledge it as such. Until then, as far as I'm concerned, its nothing more than the figment of some blogger's imagination0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
quote:Originally posted by Ramtinxxl
The "blog" stated that the findings were obtained from a "pre-publication copy" (http://tinyurl.com/2f8qxr) of the article you're so desperate to rip. I don't have the power to force it into publication nor do I have the passion to pursue it. Okay?
In other words, you don't have a clue as to what your talking about. Your only source is an article that hasn't been published and most likely will never be published
All you've shown is an ability to cherry-pick articles out of the blogoshere that agree with your point of view......
When it is exposed as a hoax, as almost all of these "studies" are, you'll simply move on to the next one as if this never even happened....
Rack-Ops--I don't remember peeing in your cheerios, but you seem to really have a problem. You don't have a clue about what I have a clue about since you don't know me.
Perhaps you have your own personal agenda--let me guess, you heard a lecture by Al Gore on Hysterical Meteorology when he stopped by your junior college and you've been bitten by the bug.
If you choose to SWALLOW the whole load, go for it. If you choose to tilt at "pre-publication" articles, go for it. Unless you have a crystal ball, how can YOU possibly know what will or won't be published?
Let's see YOUR magnificent credentials. In which journals are all your scholarly works published?
Otherwise, take issue with someone else's posts. I don't have time for your juvenile rants. Now run along. Your mother needs you to take out the trash.0 -
In the 1970's they were equally adamant of the pending deep freeze. Hell, I just don't give a damn. It is what it is, I'm only here for about 100 years and half of them are gone.
Let it freeze, let it roast. Nothing I can or will do can alter the outcome anyway.
Lets talk guns and broads.0 -
That's fair enough and I agree that it may well be just so much bull. I also think that most of what Gore and several others are feeding is the same. It suits their agenda, and we all know that any politician will say anything if it betters them. That being directly, or by gaining the support of their special interest groups, whom in turn make the politician rich.
I really think it is a natural cycle and that things will again reverse. If we had records dating back thousands of years we would have a much clearer insight of this issue. Just my thoughts. swamp_thing0 -
I have $50 that says that article is a hoax. Feel like making a bet, Ram?
If you're disinclined to betting, I'll agree to pledge that money to a charity of your choice.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
51 comments