Looks Like The Cat's Out Of The Bag....

Discussion in 'Environment' started by PoliticalChic, Jul 21, 2018.

  1. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    76,734
    Thanks Received:
    22,449
    Trophy Points:
    2,260
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +48,081


    "All those "scientific" institutions BOARD of DIRECTORS made those statements, NOT the full members of the listed organizations, who didn't get to vote on it at all,..."

    BINGO!


    O'Sullivan's First Law (a.k.a. O'Sullivan's Law), paraphrased by George Will as stating that any institution that is not libertarian and classically liberal will, over time, become collectivist and statist. O'Sullivan's First Law: All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing. I cite as supporting evidence the ACLU, the Ford Foundation, and the Episcopal Church. The reason is, of course, that people who staff such bodies tend to be the sort who don't like private profit, business, making money, the current organization of society, and, by extension, the Western world. At which point Michels's Iron Law of Oligarchy takes over — and the rest follows. http://old.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback-jos062603.asp


    This law, of course, reflects the leadership, not the members.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Funny Funny x 2
  2. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    12,074
    Thanks Received:
    1,202
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,667
    The fact is that if you pick any given scientific "consensus" and go against it, given time, the odds are heavily in your favor that in time, your position will prove to be right while the consensus joins the dust pile of history.

    Consensus is a political state, not a scientific state and sadly suggests that curiosity is dead.

    The fact remains that for all the talk of consensus on this thread, my request for a single piece of observed, measured data which supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability remains unanswered..and has been unanswered for more than 2 decades now.

    If there is no actual evidence in support of the AGW hypothesis, what might prompt scientific consensus other than a very large pool of money? Ay answers to that one out there among the believers?
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. Sunsettommy
    Online

    Sunsettommy VIP Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2018
    Messages:
    2,031
    Thanks Received:
    325
    Trophy Points:
    80
    Ratings:
    +1,886
    Wow you don't even realize that SSDD referred to published data that came from SCIENTISTS research in his post 74, my you are THAT ignorant!
     
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
  4. Sunsettommy
    Online

    Sunsettommy VIP Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2018
    Messages:
    2,031
    Thanks Received:
    325
    Trophy Points:
    80
    Ratings:
    +1,886
    We had Hurricanes when there was global cooling for a few decades, Camille came along in 1969 with estimated 200 MPH winds.

    U.S. Mainland Hurricane Strikes By Decade: 1851-2016

    The list shows that warming or cooling trends did little to Hurricane landfalling frequency.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2018
  5. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    31,525
    Thanks Received:
    3,621
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +12,145
    And every climate k00k in here jumped on the bandwagon after Katrina screaming gloom and doom with the Cat 5 hurricanes! And....what....we didnt see a hurricane come anywhere near the US for 12 years. Fucking suckers:2up:
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  6. polarbear
    Offline

    polarbear I eat morons

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Messages:
    2,235
    Thanks Received:
    375
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    Canada
    Ratings:
    +1,177
    Yes, yes...Here, have some breadcrumbs.
    And with those breadcrumbs we caught the crow for you to eat...enjoy !
     
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1
  7. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    58,752
    Thanks Received:
    7,122
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +18,618
    Silly ass, all your lies will not change the fact that the people in this world with scientific training totally think you are full of shit. Since you cannot see anything is any other light other than political, you think everyone else is like that. Most are not. And many, especially scientists, are grounded in reality, a reality that you totally deny. And that reality cares not a bit about your denial, it just continues to be real.

    So, by all means, continue to post your cut and paste flap yap, and expose for the whole world to see, the depths of your delusion. The officers of the various Scientific Societies are voted on by the members. If the members do not like the direction of the policy statements of the organization, they can vote in new people that will change that direction. And you claim that all the officers of the Scientific Societies are in on a grand conspiracy, a world wide one, because these are the Scientific Societies of the whole world with it's various nations and cultures, then you little tin hat is on far too tight.
     
  8. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    76,734
    Thanks Received:
    22,449
    Trophy Points:
    2,260
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +48,081




    "...all your lies will not change the fact that the people in this world with scientific training...."




    Let's check:

    1. “… where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

    The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

    The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

    Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”. That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!





    77 out of 10,257 becomes 98%.

    Yup…figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.





    2. Oh….BTW….

    “Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.” Ibid.




    You remain another one of the mindless drones that leftist 'education' system cranks out like cogs and sprockets. Unique, just like every other reliable Democrat voter.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  9. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    58,752
    Thanks Received:
    7,122
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +18,618
    Like Political Chit, you are a liar. And you know it. The absorption spectra of the GHGs, water vapor, CO2, CH4, NOx, ect. are the physical evidence that we are changing the climate. We have increased the amount of these gases in the atmosphere, we have the records of the emissions, and there source. As with evolution, you people are going to deny the science no matter what the evidence or consequences. In the meantime, the sane portion of the world moves on.
     
  10. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    58,752
    Thanks Received:
    7,122
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +18,618
    And Political Chit continues to be an idiot and a liar. And afraid to reference that '31,000' scientists source. OISM is a fruitcake organization in the metropolis of Cave Junction, Oregon. They support many rightwingnut causes, and are considered to be the fringe of the fringe. A rebuttal to their nonsense;

    How the OISM Petition Project casts doubt on the scientific consensus on climate change

    There are several claims that large numbers of scientists do not agree with the theory of climate change, the best known of which is a petition organised by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (the OISM petition). This petition now appears to be signed by over 32,000 people with a BSc or higher qualification. The signatories agree with these statements:

    • The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
    • There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.
    No evidence has ever been offered to support the first statement, and the second statement is in flat contradiction with the scientists who study climate change. There are also valid issues regarding the methodology:

    • The organisers have never revealed how many people they canvassed (so the response rate is unknown) nor have they revealed the sampling methodology, an ironic omission considering how much fuss is made about scientists being candid and making public their methods and data.
    • The petition is, in terms of climate change science, rather out of date.
    In the professional field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change and additional anthropogenic CO2 may cause great disruption to the climate.

    32,000 Sounds Like A Lot
    In fact, OISM signatories represent a tiny fraction (~0.3%) of all US science graduates (petition cards were only sent to individuals within the U.S)

    According to figures from the US Department of Education Digest of Education Statistics: 2008, 10.6 million science graduates have gained qualifications consistent with the OISM polling criteria since the 1970-71 school year. 32,000 out of 10 million is not a very compelling figure, but a tiny minority - approximately 0.3 per cent.

    There are many issues casting doubt on the validity of this petition. On investigation, attempts to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change often appear to have ideological roots, vested business interests or political sponsors. The claims made for the OISM petition do not withstand objective scrutiny, and the assertions made in the petition are not supported by evidence, data or scientific research.

    Several studies conducted independently (Oreskes 2004, Oreskes 2007, Doran and Zimmerman (2009), Anderegg et al. (2010), Cook et. al., 2013) have shown that 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing the climate to change, and that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing global changes to the climate. These views form the scientific consensus on climate change.
     

Share This Page