Less than 1/2 of published scientists...
0
-
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....
A quick bit of looking suggested to me that 'Energy and Environment' probably is a reputable, peer-reviewed journal. On the other hand, I couldn't find a reference to it in the ISI database (that's the organization they make such a big deal about in the blog) which suggests that it is a 'third tier' journal at best. Correct me if I'm wrong.
And a 'pre-publication copy' means that it will be published, assuming nobody's lying.
But none of that means that the blogger to whom this thread refers has given the article a fair read. The article might state the situation as HeDog did above, and the blogger might have massaged the numbers to fit his agenda.
just my $0.02.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops 
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.
Just go ahead and send me the cash--you seem to be gullible enough. Besides, how do I know YOU are not a hoax? [:p]0 -
Money talks.....Ramtin walks
Imagine that.0 -
quote:Originally posted by bigdaddyjunior
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.
so said Thomas Malthus centuries ago. So said Paul Ehrlich for decades. Both have been proven wrong time and again.0 -
quote:Originally posted by nemesisenforcer
quote:Originally posted by bigdaddyjunior
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.
so said Thomas Malthus centuries ago. So said Paul Ehrlich for decades. Both have been proven wrong time and again.
And IMHO, those two drama-queen catastrophists are to blame for most of the skepticism that reasonable ecologists face from the public and policy makers. Ecologists tend to be conservationists, and this presents a problem for them--I should say 'us,' because I'm an ecologist. We seem to have a hard time just presenting objective scientific opinions without getting our panties in a bundle over how horrible the outcome could be. So folks like Ehrlich overstate the potentially disastrous outcome (he's done so at least three times that I'm aware of, and always had an excuse when he was wrong) and when he's found to be wrong--repeatedly!--no wonder nobody takes the ecologists seriously.
Nevertheless BDJ must ultimately be right: whatever the area of the earth, there is a finite number of human beings that can be packed in, shoulder to shoulder, before we simply run out of space. How much sooner than that we run out of essential resources is open to debate, but you can't argue with the fact that you can only literally fit a finite number of people on the planet.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
Money talks.....Ramtin walks
(spoken as a professional 8th grader)
Imagine that.
Okay, Dim-wit, my point of the whole thing is that the Gorite whiners WANT your money through illegetimate, baseless taxation. If YOU want to get rid of your MONEY, give it to me. Unlike you, I'm not stupid enough to give up my money to you or anyone else over this ridiculous matter.
You can keep up your juvenile, snippy jabs all you want (maybe that's the best you've got)--you still haven't said anything of substance. As for HOAXES, it is FAR MORE LIKELY and PROVABLE that the "human-caused global warming" scare is a HOAX than the article I referenced in my original post.
BTW, here's some more "hoaxsters" to chew on--if you can actually read: http://tinyurl.com/2dc9ea
Now, will you please crawl back up your butt and give it a rest?0 -
quote:Originally posted by nemesisenforcer
quote:Originally posted by bigdaddyjunior
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.
so said Thomas Malthus centuries ago. So said Paul Ehrlich for decades. Both have been proven wrong time and again.
I don't know either of those fellas. They sound like sci-fi writers. I am making a mathematical statement of fact. When you rely on a diminishing resource or even a replenishable resource with an expanding population, eventually you will exceed the ability of the resource to support the population and you will have a massive die off within the population until an equalibrium is achieved again. It has occurred time and again in many species. The first signs of overpopulation in a species are increased homosexuality, increased violence or homicide and an increase in neglect or abuse of the young.If this doesn't stabilize the population it leads to a break down in the established social order which causes increased stress on each individual within the population which in turn leads to susceptibility to illness and disease which in turn leads to a massive die off of all but the best suited for the new environment.
I don't remember all of the footnotes I should include to give credit for the reseach these findings were based on, but even without the raw data it seems to be logical. Anyone with a fish tank could tell you the same thing.0 -
quote:What is important is to get away from a 100 plus year old technology
Jeez, you mean no more Harlys?[:0]0 -
Can I ask a dumb question?
If earth and all it's gases are contained in a giant bubble, What is the heat source that makes the gases expand and makes it hot?
or
on the flip side of the coin-
When you fill compressed gas Cylinder (for example) just like a bubble it also gets hot when compressed?
Physics 101 in my book-[:)]0 -
The world of science is in or near 100% agreement that "Global Warming" is a fact. There's dicussion over Mans part in this phenomenon, but it's hard to take the position that what we "emit" into the atmosphere has NO contributing effect at all.
Stats are many times unreliable as they can be, and often are, manipulated to reflect the desired point(s) of the composers.0 -
quote:Originally posted by swamp_thing
Posted this early today, but didn't get much response.
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=261728
Just wait till everyone gets a few cold ones down.[:D]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Captplaid
Meteorologists can't even predict tomorrow's weather accurately. What do they know.
Captplaid,
Not much about the Global Warming situation is in the area of expertise of the common meteorologists. Meteorologists focus primarily on the study and prediction of short term weather patterns, not very long term variances in average Global temperature. The Global Warming situation is in the areas covered by Physicists of various disciplines, including those that have come to be known as Cosmologists. Meteorologists would be involved in the study of weather patterns produced by Global Warming, but wouldn't have much to do with the research into the causes, or solutions if there are any. There are what you may call "advanced meteorologists" that have moved into the Physics aspects of all the contributing factors of "weather" but they're not your everyday "weather man" on TV.
BTW, the meteorologists are pretty darn good at 24 hour weather predictions these days. They don't miss many calls here.[;)]0 -
Just thought you guys might like to know:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Energy_and_Environment
"The journal Energy and Environment is a social science journal published by Multi-Science. The journal's editor is Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, a reader in geography at the University of Hull in England and climate skeptic.
Energy and Environment is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals. Its peer review process has been widely criticised for allowing the publication of substandard papers [1][2].
[:)]0 -
...Man made global warming is a crock. What a surprise it's a liberal thing too...THAT ought to tell you something. PT Barnum said it best...[;)] 0 -
I don't know why so many of you are so in love with fossil fuels. Do you get some satisfaction out of filling up your truck at the gas pump, knowing that some of the money you pay for that gasoline is going to terrorist-supporting regimes in the Middle East (like the Saudis)? That's right, let's just keep on drinking the oil, sending umpteen billions of dollars to the Middle East and filling up the coffers of those who hate us. And since Venezuela is our fourth-largest oil supplier, we're helping to fund that regime as well.
And quite frankly, I can't think of anything SMARTER than having our entire national economy completely and totally dependent on the price of one commodity. When the price of oil goes up, so does the price of everything else. If the price of oil goes up enough, say hello to recession. Our dependence on fossil fuels is going to destroy us, but it won't be through climate change. You morons need to wake up and pledge loyalty to America instead of to Exxon/Mobil's profit margins and the politicians they have bought to do their bidding.0 -
I think the quicker the earth depletes itself of fossil fuels the better off we are. There is no way the earth is endangered by fossil fuels because there isnt enough supply on earth to burn long enough to cause enough warming to create a problem.
BTW - what happened to the ozone layer hole that was going to kill us all by 1994 ? remember that "crisis" ?0 -
As for what happened to that hole that was detected in the 80's, well, it got bigger until the nations of the world got together and did something about it - namely the Montreal Protocol.
Due to the Montreal Protocol (the treaty that was supposed to bankrupt American business by making us less competitive in the blobal market, remember that?) CFC usage was reduced and the ozone hole's growth has halted. There is even some encouraging data to suggest that the ozone layer is recovering.
In short, the problem did not just go away on its own. A problem was detected, something was done about it, and it got better before it turned really ugly.
Maybe we should do the same thing with global warming, eh, BarkingDog?
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/26may_ozone.htm0 -
I really don't want my grandchildren or even their grandchildren to have to live underground to avoid getting cooked or irradiated. We just had a month of 100+ degree weather. That is a 5 degree average above the hottest month on record which was last year which was 2 degrees hotter than the previously hottest month which was 5 years ago etc etc...see a pattern? 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(]
Ding Ding Ding Ding!!!!We have a winner here!!0 -
Out of curiousity, I sent the author of the cited study an email asking about the accuracy of the story. Here is his reply....
Dear Mr. York - I have submitted a paper for peer-review, but I have not sought publicity for it. However, through those who were consulted during the drafting, a somewhat inaccurate account of it has leaked out.
Sincerely yours
Klaus-Martin Schulte0 -
My screen name came from a combination of the names of two men who I admire a lot. Sahagan was a Spanish medieval writer, and Carl Sagan was a much admired astronomer and scientist. From those two men I got Sahagan, and have used it for ten years or better.
Fact is, I was talking to Carl Sagan one time, and he had just finished a speech about weather here on earth and elsewhere. He made an observation that has stayed with me since....
You see, earth is unique among the solar system's planets, in that it has life (Mars may have life, or it may not. It certainly doesn't have the unbelievable diversity of life we find here on earth), while none of the other planets do. Venus is hot enough to melt lead, and Mars warm enough and with an atmospheric pressure such that that if you stood on the surface during the summer, your upper body might be pretty comfortable as to temperature, while the blood in your lower legs and feet would be boiling. The other planets don't even come close to supporting life, certainly any life we might be familiar with.
So what in fact, does earth have in common with the other planets? It's this, that the planet, its surface and climatic conditions is always, always, in flux. The earth's planetary climatic cycles are measured in periods of thousands of years, while our lifespans generally come to less than one hundred years. Record keeping has been done for such a short period of time, that, given the earth's unthinkably long climatic cycle, making global predictions based upon those records would be akin to predicting your future life based upon the observations of a single day.
Some days, everything is fine. You're healthy, happy and all is well with the world. On another day though, you may wake with a headache, you're disoriented, joints hurting, back throbbing with pain, your wife has left you again, and you wish you were dead.
So how will your future life be? Using the events and conditions of one day, no one can tell. Using even a hundred years of climatic records to predict the earth's future is a lose/lose situation. And if we are so arrogant as to suppose that we're going to short-circuit, or hasten upcoming planetary cycles of heat/drought and cold/ice ages, we've gone well past absurd and are fast approaching downright foolishness.
To then take these broad climatic forecasts, based upon totally insufficient data derived from a totally inadequate length of time, and use them to further a political agenda is disingenious at best, and dishonest at worst.
Sahagan0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
51 comments