Why are some so Anti GW?

Many people are rabidly fixated on being anti Globull Warming.

I personally believe Globull Warming is happening.
And I believe we are contributing to it.
I do not believe in Cap and charade.
Just Cap if we are going to do anything.

Can't you be against Cap and Charade and still believe Globull Warming exists?

I don't think people are rabidly against global warming----they are rabidly against the hysteria generated by those who will profit from it.

Perfectly stated!
 
Who says I'm anti-Global Warming? I'm tired of winters. I'm all for the planet warming up a bit more. Throughout history, when the planet has warmed, mankind has made remarkable advances and they were able to provide plenty of food for an otherwise struggling population. Warm weather is equal to boom times!

What I'm against is the junk science that tries to tie mankind's activities to this warming. And what I am very much against is the blatant efforts by a minority of people to gain and exercise power over the economy in the name of this false god, global warming.
 
Kinda funny - to defend a position that one is so invested in - peer-reviewed, rigorous scientific study becomes "junk science" while op-ed pieces become "real" science.
 
peer-reviewed?

Is that like the same kind of process we see when we watch the Oscars every year?

After all, those are peer-reviewed as well.

But then, lets ignore that nearly half of the so-called science community either don't believe it is man made or have serious misgivings on the data and are calling for a more cautious approach and tons more research.

But lets stick with that peer reviewed thing. After all, thats a winner, isn't it?
 
peer-reviewed?

Is that like the same kind of process we see when we watch the Oscars every year?

After all, those are peer-reviewed as well.

But then, lets ignore that nearly half of the so-called science community either don't believe it is man made or have serious misgivings on the data and are calling for a more cautious approach and tons more research.

But lets stick with that peer reviewed thing. After all, thats a winner, isn't it?

1) More than 90% of the scientific community accept the premise (but you can continue to make up numbers if that suits your political ideology better - I'll decline).

2) Of the remaining percentage who say they question the premise - none have done any work that they have submited for peer review. If you don't understand what that means and how the process fits into serious scientific study, then why would you even attempt to offer a comment on what constitutes "junk science?"
 
peer-reviewed?

Is that like the same kind of process we see when we watch the Oscars every year?

After all, those are peer-reviewed as well.

But then, lets ignore that nearly half of the so-called science community either don't believe it is man made or have serious misgivings on the data and are calling for a more cautious approach and tons more research.

But lets stick with that peer reviewed thing. After all, thats a winner, isn't it?

1) More than 90% of the scientific community accept the premise (but you can continue to make up numbers if iot suits your political ideology better - I'll decline).

2) Of the remaining percentage who say they question the premise - none have done any work that they have submited for peer review. If you don't understand what that means and how the process fits into serious scientific study, then why would you even attempt to offer a comment on what constitutes "junk science."

4. 95% of all statistics are pulled out of the anal orifice on the spot. But when one looks at just the information that they agree with, it is pretty much expected.

f. I understand what peer reviewed is. I also understand ALL of the politics that goes into 'peer reviewed'. One cannot get 'peer reviewed' unless first approved by a small percentage of those who determine what gets 'peer reviewed'.

6e. As I said before. The Oscars are peer reviewed too. Did you miss the implication of that particular statement?

17. There is no proof of man being the causation of global warming and;

4.2t. Having more arable land for food production is not a bad thing. Besides, the homeless in all the Blue cities may not freeze to death. Why are you against the homeless living cold free?
 
From what I have gathered we are at a low solar output cycle. That iw why the CO2 is not impacting the temp as it should. Once the solar cycle flops to higher output then you will likely see the CO2's impact on warming. But of course it will be denied and all blamed on the solar cycle.

People have trouble accepting that our world is finite and destroyable by humans.
Well, you know I am a religious person US Cit, and I believe that Humans try to destroy the earth....at least that is what my Bible says.... Which is that ''God will Destroy those who Destroy the earth'', eventually. :D No reason for this to be in Scripture if it were not true, no?

Also, we have been warming since the end of the ice age....just naturally...

I think, as you, that there is merit to claiming that human activity is aggravating the situation....how much, I am uncertain but we are a factor....

care
 
peer-reviewed?

Is that like the same kind of process we see when we watch the Oscars every year?

After all, those are peer-reviewed as well.

But then, lets ignore that nearly half of the so-called science community either don't believe it is man made or have serious misgivings on the data and are calling for a more cautious approach and tons more research.

But lets stick with that peer reviewed thing. After all, thats a winner, isn't it?
Peer-reviewed IS a winner, actually. If it weren't for that peer-reviewed science, there would be no falsification of so many of the models predicting doom.

It's the media and blogs that are pathetic, and those who parrot their non-scientific opinions. Algore taught us that we can play at science without being a scientist. Algore is an enemy of science because of that.
 
Last edited:
peer-reviewed?

Is that like the same kind of process we see when we watch the Oscars every year?

After all, those are peer-reviewed as well.

But then, lets ignore that nearly half of the so-called science community either don't believe it is man made or have serious misgivings on the data and are calling for a more cautious approach and tons more research.

But lets stick with that peer reviewed thing. After all, thats a winner, isn't it?

1) More than 90% of the scientific community accept the premise (but you can continue to make up numbers if that suits your political ideology better - I'll decline). ....
What premise?

You know that there was a consensus that the Earth was flat, too?

.... 2) Of the remaining percentage who say they question the premise - none have done any work that they have submited for peer review. If you don't understand what that means and how the process fits into serious scientific study, then why would you even attempt to offer a comment on what constitutes "junk science?"
What premise?
 
From Wikipedia. I chose this site as it seems to be universally acceptable to the left as the be all, end all source of truth..

Peer review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Below is an excerpt from Wikipedia's article on 'peer review'.



Allegations of bias and suppression

The interposition of editors and reviewers between authors and readers always raises the possibility that the intermediators may serve as gatekeepers[citation needed]. Some sociologists of science argue that peer review makes the ability to publish susceptible to control by elites and to personal jealousy.[10] The peer review process may suppress dissent against "mainstream" theories.[11][12][13] Reviewers tend to be especially critical of conclusions that contradict their own views, and lenient towards those that accord with them. At the same time, elite scientists are more likely than less established ones to be sought out as referees, particularly by high-prestige journals or publishers. As a result, it has been argued[by whom?], ideas that harmonize with the elite's are more likely to see print and to appear in premier journals than are iconoclastic or revolutionary ones, which accords with Thomas Kuhn's well-known observations regarding scientific revolutions.[14]
Others[who?] have pointed out that there is a very large number of scientific journals in which one can publish, making total control of information difficult[citation needed]. In addition, the decision-making process of peer review, in which each referee gives their opinion separately and without consultation with the other referees, is intended to mitigate some of these problems[citation needed]. Some have suggested that:
 
Well, I've got things to do. I'll check back later to see if this pans out at all.
 
From Wikipedia. I chose this site as it seems to be universally acceptable to the left as the be all, end all source of truth..

Peer review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Below is an excerpt from Wikipedia's article on 'peer review'.



Allegations of bias and suppression

The interposition of editors and reviewers between authors and readers always raises the possibility that the intermediators may serve as gatekeepers[citation needed]. Some sociologists of science argue that peer review makes the ability to publish susceptible to control by elites and to personal jealousy.[10] The peer review process may suppress dissent against "mainstream" theories.[11][12][13] Reviewers tend to be especially critical of conclusions that contradict their own views, and lenient towards those that accord with them. At the same time, elite scientists are more likely than less established ones to be sought out as referees, particularly by high-prestige journals or publishers. As a result, it has been argued[by whom?], ideas that harmonize with the elite's are more likely to see print and to appear in premier journals than are iconoclastic or revolutionary ones, which accords with Thomas Kuhn's well-known observations regarding scientific revolutions.[14]
Others[who?] have pointed out that there is a very large number of scientific journals in which one can publish, making total control of information difficult[citation needed]. In addition, the decision-making process of peer review, in which each referee gives their opinion separately and without consultation with the other referees, is intended to mitigate some of these problems[citation needed]. Some have suggested that:
And that linked article is a example of why peer review is the best idea.

Note all the 'dubious', 'citation needed', etc. tags by the reviewers?
 
From what I have gathered we are at a low solar output cycle. That iw why the CO2 is not impacting the temp as it should. Once the solar cycle flops to higher output then you will likely see the CO2's impact on warming. But of course it will be denied and all blamed on the solar cycle.

People have trouble accepting that our world is finite and destroyable by humans.
Well, you know I am a religious person US Cit, and I believe that Humans try to destroy the earth....at least that is what my Bible says.... Which is that ''God will Destroy those who Destroy the earth'', eventually. :D No reason for this to be in Scripture if it were not true, no?

Also, we have been warming since the end of the ice age....just naturally...

I think, as you, that there is merit to claiming that human activity is aggravating the situation....how much, I am uncertain but we are a factor....

care

That is pretty much where I am too.
Reducing pollution cannot hurt us and will in all likelyhood help some.

This thread is about the why some are so anti globull worming. And I have affirmed that it is mostly political with a side order of corporate flunkyism.
 
peer-reviewed?

Is that like the same kind of process we see when we watch the Oscars every year?

After all, those are peer-reviewed as well.

But then, lets ignore that nearly half of the so-called science community either don't believe it is man made or have serious misgivings on the data and are calling for a more cautious approach and tons more research.

But lets stick with that peer reviewed thing. After all, thats a winner, isn't it?
Peer-reviewed IS a winner, actually. If it weren't for that peer-reviewed science, there would be no falsification of so many of the models predicting doom.

It's the media and blogs that are pathetic, and those who parrot their non-scientific opinions. Algore taught us that we can play at science without being a scientist. Algore is an enemy of science because of that.

I agree 100%. By overstating the case, comparing apples to oranges, and inflating "worst case scenarios" Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" did as much damage to understanding the real issue as James Inhofe has - just from the opposite direction.

the premise I refer to is anthropogenic climate change. I'll say that I think it is clear that the degree to which human activity is linked, and the models have been exaggerated by politicians for political purposes.
 
Here's a good read on the so called undeniable existance on Man Made Global Warming


IPCC Crushes Scientific Objectivity, 91-0.
October 18th, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
Unquestionably, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed to build the scientific case for humanity being the primary cause of global warming. Such a goal is fundamentally unscientific, as it is hostile to alternative hypotheses for the causes of climate change.

The most glaring example of this bias has been the lack of interest on the IPCC’s part in figuring out to what extent climate change is simply the result of natural, internal cycles in the climate system. In Chapter 9 of the latest (4th) IPCC report, entitled “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”, you would think the issue of external versus internal forcing would be thoroughly addressed. But you would be wrong.

The IPCC is totally obsessed with external forcing, that is, energy imbalances imposed upon the climate system that are NOT the result of the natural, internal workings of the system. For instance, a search through Chapter 9 for the phrase “external forcing” yields a total of 91 uses of that term. A search for the phrase “internal forcing” yields…(wait for it)…zero uses. Can we really believe that the IPCC has ruled out natural sources of global warming when such a glaring blind spot exists?

Admittedly, we really do not understand internal sources of climate change. Weather AND climate involves chaotic processes, most of which we may never understand, let alone predict. While chaos in weather is exhibited on time scales of days to weeks, chaotic changes in the ocean circulation could have time scales as long as hundreds of years, and we know that cloud formation – providing the Earth’s natural sun shade – is strongly influenced by the ocean.

Thus, small changes in ocean circulation can lead to small changes in the Earth’s albedo (how much sunlight is reflected back to space), which in turn can lead to global warming or cooling. The IPCC’s view (which is never explicitly stated) that such changes in the climate system do not occur is little more than faith on their part.

The IPCC’s pundits like to claim that the published evidence for humanity causing warming greatly outweighs any published evidence against it. This appeal to majority opinion on their part is pretty selective, though. They had no trouble discarding hundreds of research papers supporting evidence for the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age when they so uncritically embraced the infamous “Hockey Stick” reconstructions of past temperature change.

Despite a wide variety of previous temperature proxies gathered from around the world (see figure below) that so clearly showed that centuries with global warming and cooling are the rule, not the exception, the Hockey Stick was mostly based upon some cherry-picked tree rings combined with the assumption that significant warming is a uniquely modern phenomenon.


As such, they rejected the prevailing “scientific consensus” in favor of a minority view that supported their desired outcome. I suspect that they do not even recognize their own hypocrisy.

As I have discussed before, the IPCC’s neglect of natural variability in the climate system ends up leading to circular reasoning on their part. They ignore the effect of natural cloud variations when trying to diagnose feedback, which then leads to overestimates of climate sensitivity. This, in turn, causes them to conclude that increasing carbon dioxide concentrations alone are sufficient to explain global warming, and so no natural forcings of climate change need be found.

But all they have done is reasoned themselves in a circle. By ignoring natural variability, they can end up claiming that natural variability does not exist. Admittedly, their position is internally consistent. But then, so is all circular reasoning.

Our re-submitted paper to the Journal of Geophysical Research entitled “On the Diagnosis of Radiative Feedback in the Presence of Unknown Radiative Forcing” will hopefully lead to a little more diversity being permitted in the global warming debate.

I don’t think the IPCC scientists are as opposed to this as are their self-appointed spokespersons, like Al Gore and numerous environmental writers in the media who get to over-simplify the climate issue without ever being corrected by the IPCC. Natural climate change continues to be the 800 lb gorilla in the room, and I suspect that some within the IPCC are slowly becoming aware of its existence.


IPCC Crushes Scientific Objectivity, 91-0. « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Now Old Rocks will attack the messenger and not the message when he gets a whiff of this thread.
 
peer-reviewed?

Is that like the same kind of process we see when we watch the Oscars every year?

After all, those are peer-reviewed as well.

But then, lets ignore that nearly half of the so-called science community either don't believe it is man made or have serious misgivings on the data and are calling for a more cautious approach and tons more research.

But lets stick with that peer reviewed thing. After all, thats a winner, isn't it?
Peer-reviewed IS a winner, actually. If it weren't for that peer-reviewed science, there would be no falsification of so many of the models predicting doom.

It's the media and blogs that are pathetic, and those who parrot their non-scientific opinions. Algore taught us that we can play at science without being a scientist. Algore is an enemy of science because of that.

I agree 100%. By overstating the case, comparing apples to oranges, and inflating "worst case scenarios" Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" did as much damage to understanding the real issue as James Inhofe has - just from the opposite direction.

the premise I refer to is anthropogenic climate change. I'll say that I think it is clear that the degree to which human activity is linked, and the models have been exaggerated by politicians for political purposes.
Agreed overstated by politicians on both sides and parroted by their followers and pundits as well.

It does not exist vs we are all doomed.

imho the truth is somewhere in between.
 
Meister - If he wants to have his work taken seriously, Mr. Spencer should submit his work and his findings to a peer-reviewed scientific journal for rigorous scientific review instead of offering it only on his own website.

The fact that you use an op-ed piece - never submitted for scientific study - in an attempt to rebutt real science is just one more example of how so many deniers piss away their credibility. You don't call the premise into question, you actually stregethen it by showing that only pseudo science can be offered as rebuttal.
 
Peer-reviewed IS a winner, actually. If it weren't for that peer-reviewed science, there would be no falsification of so many of the models predicting doom.

It's the media and blogs that are pathetic, and those who parrot their non-scientific opinions. Algore taught us that we can play at science without being a scientist. Algore is an enemy of science because of that.

I agree 100%. By overstating the case, comparing apples to oranges, and inflating "worst case scenarios" Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" did as much damage to understanding the real issue as James Inhofe has - just from the opposite direction.

the premise I refer to is anthropogenic climate change. I'll say that I think it is clear that the degree to which human activity is linked, and the models have been exaggerated by politicians for political purposes.
Agreed overstated by politicians on both sides and parroted by their followers and pundits as well.

It does not exist vs we are all doomed.

imho the truth is somewhere in between.

I agree and it is clear (to me at the very least) that real science supports this position.
 
peer-reviewed?

Is that like the same kind of process we see when we watch the Oscars every year?

After all, those are peer-reviewed as well.

But then, lets ignore that nearly half of the so-called science community either don't believe it is man made or have serious misgivings on the data and are calling for a more cautious approach and tons more research.

But lets stick with that peer reviewed thing. After all, thats a winner, isn't it?
Peer-reviewed IS a winner, actually. If it weren't for that peer-reviewed science, there would be no falsification of so many of the models predicting doom.

It's the media and blogs that are pathetic, and those who parrot their non-scientific opinions. Algore taught us that we can play at science without being a scientist. Algore is an enemy of science because of that.

I agree 100%. By overstating the case, comparing apples to oranges, and inflating "worst case scenarios" Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" did as much damage to understanding the real issue as James Inhofe has - just from the opposite direction.

the premise I refer to is anthropogenic climate change. I'll say that I think it is clear that the degree to which human activity is linked, and the models have been exaggerated by politicians for political purposes.
:thup:
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top