It's Science

Quote:study published Sunday in the journal Nature Climate Change finds that people who are not that worried about the effects of global warming tend to have a slightly higher level of scientific knowledge than those who are worried,

Posts that ridicule the 'Faux News' source link in 5... 4... 3...

I didn't read the journal report, but I don't consider this finding to be all that surprising. However, I don't think "global warming skeptics" and "people who are not that worried about the effects of global warming" (terms used interchangeably in the article) would necessarily be the exact same people. It is possible to believe that the Earth has indeed warmed x.x degrees in the past several decades, yet also aren't too worried about the future forecasts -- perhaps they see the temperature leveling off or dropping back down due to cycles, or that a degree or two won't bring on the catastrophies of action-movie proportions, or whatever.

(05-29-2012 09:08 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  Posts that ridicule the 'Faux News' source link in 5... 4... 3...

Yeah. The fools like Robert that are sure to go that route won't realize the study wasn't done by Fox, they're just reporting on the study. But when do facts matter right?

Quote:I didn't read the journal report, but I don't consider this finding to be all that surprising. However, I don't think "global warming skeptics" and "people who are not that worried about the effects of global warming" (terms used interchangeably in the article) would necessarily be the exact same people. It is possible to believe that the Earth has indeed warmed x.x degrees in the past several decades, yet also aren't too worried about the future forecasts -- perhaps they see the temperature leveling off or dropping back down due to cycles, or that a degree or two won't bring on the catastrophies of action-movie proportions, or whatever.

I agree. The study also implies that people who are only concerned about themselves don't care about global warming but those who are lovers of others do.

I don't put a lot of weight in the study, but given Maxi Pad's proclivity for posting random studies that fit his worldview, I figured I'd have some fun.

(05-29-2012 09:08 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  Posts that ridicule the 'Faux News' source link in 5... 4... 3...

I didn't read the journal report, but I don't consider this finding to be all that surprising. However, I don't think "global warming skeptics" and "people who are not that worried about the effects of global warming" (terms used interchangeably in the article) would necessarily be the exact same people. It is possible to believe that the Earth has indeed warmed x.x degrees in the past several decades, yet also aren't too worried about the future forecasts -- perhaps they see the temperature leveling off or dropping back down due to cycles, or that a degree or two won't bring on the catastrophies of action-movie proportions, or whatever.

I walked away with the impression "skeptics" was defined as "people not as worried about it" which would include those that think a rise of 1 degree over a century is well within the geological norm..

I'll make the same point I make when the other side cites some study as proving their point.

Don't attribute too much significance to any study. They are usually done by someone with a dog in the fight, and there are many ways--some more subtle than others--to tweak the methodology and assumptions to get a certain answer. And there are always reporters ready to describe the study in the media as if it stands for propositions that it does not.

I'm not a scientist, but I trust those that are, and according to a National Academy of Sciences survey of 1,372 of the most published climate researchers, 97-98% believe humans are causing global warming.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/0...l.pdf+html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_...ate_change

My God, will the right stop spending millions in this war on science to muddy the waters on a scientific consensus? Enough of this crap. It's one thing to pour millions into political campaigns to lower your taxes, but it's quite another to pour millions to elevate a scant minority of scientific dissidents like the oil companies and Kochs do so they can sow seeds of doubt among the public and rake in profits while mortgaging the future of our planet for us and future generations. I have an idea: how about we listen to the people who study this stuff for a living? Because if not we might as well cut the BS and start some old fashioned book burnings.

Also, even Scott Walker-lite John Kasich finally came out against global warming.
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire...e-for-coal

“Try to jam this stuff down people’s throats and you are going to fail. I do not want the public to lose confidence in the fact that we can have strong environmental regulations that ensure the public safety, and we are working with industry to make sure that it is not overboard, but it we are also not going to let it be under-board to the point where the public can feel a sense of security,” Kasich said at the conference.

Wow. I like that from the gov. Why put in Haliburton loopholes? Why is fracking exempt from the clean water act? It stuff like this that makes the public lose confidence. First time I have read something from Kasich that I can agree with.

(05-29-2012 11:13 AM)Max Power Wrote:  I'm not a scientist, but I trust those that are,

I am. And the AGW stuff is crap.

Satisfied?

Quote:My God, will the right stop spending millions in this war on science to muddy the waters on a scientific consensus? Enough of this crap.

Indeed. Scientific consensus has never been a metric to actual science. In fact, it's often cited as an embarrassment. So your rant is evidence of one who abhors the truth, and who casts out actual science in favor of control.

Quote:It's one thing to pour millions into political campaigns to lower your taxes, but it's quite another to pour millions to elevate a scant minority of scientific dissidents like the oil companies and Kochs do so they can sow seeds of doubt among the public and rake in profits while mortgaging the future of our planet for us and future generations. I have an idea: how about we listen to the people who study this stuff for a living? Because if not we might as well cut the BS and start some old fashioned book burnings.

Also, even Scott Walker-lite John Kasich finally came out against global warming.
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire...e-for-coal

People with low IQs don't get science, instead they like being told what to think. You shouldn't be involved in politics max.

(05-29-2012 11:38 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  “Try to jam this stuff down people’s throats and you are going to fail. I do not want the public to lose confidence in the fact that we can have strong environmental regulations that ensure the public safety, and we are working with industry to make sure that it is not overboard, but it we are also not going to let it be under-board to the point where the public can feel a sense of security,” Kasich said at the conference.

Wow. I like that from the gov. Why put in Haliburton loopholes? Why is fracking exempt from the clean water act? It stuff like this that makes the public lose confidence.

Because the EPA is trashing good science and enforcing regulations that are not scientifically sound. There are answers to your questions, you just don't like to hear them, Mach.

You've put your fingers in your ears for over a decade in re: AGW. Even as the cracks in the theory grew wider, and I pointed them out repeatedly. Same thing w/ EPA regulations. You'll ignore these flaws until they're so undeniable the issue has been forgotten. And you'll continue to embarrass yourself in doing so.

Torch,

Maybe you should share your insights with a professional journal. You are wasting your time hanging out here with the low IQ crowd. I'm sure once you go through the peer review process people will become enlightened and you could bend that 97%-98% metric. The truth is out there Torch! The world just needs that helpful push. Now go out there and get published. You can do it!

(05-29-2012 12:15 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Torch,

Maybe you should share your insights with a professional journal. You are wasting your time hanging out here with the low IQ crowd. I'm sure once you go through the peer review process people will become enlightened and you could bend that 97%-98% metric. The truth is out there Torch! The world just needs that helpful push. Now go out there and get published. You can do it!

How many articles have you published Mach?

Would you like to see my pub list?

WITHOUT A DOUBT!!!! PM them. I would love to read them. I'm serious about that. You are a unique individual.

(05-29-2012 12:05 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-29-2012 11:13 AM)Max Power Wrote:  I'm not a scientist, but I trust those that are,

I am. And the AGW stuff is crap.

Satisfied?

Quote:My God, will the right stop spending millions in this war on science to muddy the waters on a scientific consensus? Enough of this crap.

Indeed. Scientific consensus has never been a metric to actual science. In fact, it's often cited as an embarrassment. So your rant is evidence of one who abhors the truth, and who casts out actual science in favor of control.

Quote:It's one thing to pour millions into political campaigns to lower your taxes, but it's quite another to pour millions to elevate a scant minority of scientific dissidents like the oil companies and Kochs do so they can sow seeds of doubt among the public and rake in profits while mortgaging the future of our planet for us and future generations. I have an idea: how about we listen to the people who study this stuff for a living? Because if not we might as well cut the BS and start some old fashioned book burnings.

Also, even Scott Walker-lite John Kasich finally came out against global warming.
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire...e-for-coal

People with low IQs don't get science, instead they like being told what to think. You shouldn't be involved in politics max.

I'm satisfied that you're wrong if 97% of your colleagues disagree with you, or at the very least we shouldn't shape our policies around your minority opinion.

Just how is consensus embarassing pray tell? Because there is some lingering uncertainty? There was a consensus that tobacco kills, but for years the tobacco industry hired doctors who expressed doubt and even took actors, dressed them up in lab coats and had them question the science behind the theory, just to make a buck. I'd say THAT was pretty embarassing. And in retrospect, so probably will this. How often does scientific consensus reach 97-98% and turn out to be disproven? Especially in the last century and the computer age?

I like being told what to think by people who do get science.

And my IQ is 134, which qualifies me for Mensa (but just barely). Yours?

Quote:And my IQ is 134, which qualifies me for Mensa (but just barely). Yours?

Bet this represents your A game when trying to pick up a date. Lol!!

(05-29-2012 10:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'll make the same point I make when the other side cites some study as proving their point.

Don't attribute too much significance to any study. They are usually done by someone with a dog in the fight, and there are many ways--some more subtle than others--to tweak the methodology and assumptions to get a certain answer. And there are always reporters ready to describe the study in the media as if it stands for propositions that it does not.

Looking at the source, I think this is the best advice to take away from this thread.

(05-29-2012 01:55 PM)Max Power Wrote:  I'm satisfied that you're wrong if 97% of your colleagues disagree with you,

They don't. You just don't understand the statistics you cited.
Maybe they don't teach basic math in IQ school.

But it wouldn't matter. Phlogiston was a bad idea. Lister was right. History is replete with examples of the consensus being wrong.

It is amusing to watch you make a fool of yourself with your posts, but alas, you are a one-trick pony.

(05-29-2012 01:55 PM)Max Power Wrote:  And my IQ is 134, which qualifies me for Mensa (but just barely). Yours?

Congrats on the IQ. My son has an IQ of 127, but that doesn't make him smart, it gives him the oportunity to be smart. There are no guarantees.

(05-29-2012 02:06 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(05-29-2012 01:55 PM)Max Power Wrote:  And my IQ is 134, which qualifies me for Mensa (but just barely). Yours?

Congrats on the IQ. My son has an IQ of 127, but that doesn't make him smart, it gives him the oportunity to be smart. There are no guarantees.

Good point. I love this Mark Twain quote and I think it sorta fits in here -

"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them."

(05-29-2012 11:13 AM)Max Power Wrote:  I'm not a scientist, but I trust those that are, and according to a National Academy of Sciences survey of 1,372 of the most published climate researchers, 97-98% believe humans are causing global warming.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/0...l.pdf+html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_...ate_change

If you read the articles you link, I don't see where either of them claim that humans are causing global warming. Instead, they blame greenhouse gasses... And mention two of perhaps thousands of causes of rises in greenhouse gasses... You are being scientifically and factually incorrect to say that 97% of scientists blame man. That simply isn't true... Or at least isn't supported by the data you link or any other I've seen... So you are lying, and we are now merely arguing over how much and why.

I don't think anyone denies that the climate of the earth changes. I don't think that anyone denies that humans play a part in climate... The question is whether it (mans influence) is significant... And even if so, reversible. If the earth is going to warm or cool by 2 degrees over the next century, and only a fool would deny that the earth naturally warms and cools... How much of that move is caused (or to be fair, prevented) by mans actions? I mean, if we hasten the warming, we invariably also inhibit the cooling, right? To what degree? 1.5 instead of 1.4? 2.0 instead of 1.0?? What usbthe scientific consensus on that? Second, what would we have to do to reverse it? I've yet to see a consensus on that either... Finally, is there evidence to suggest that if the US were magically to be able to go 100% "something other than fossil fuels"... That a) it would make a dent in the problem. B) that the resulting drop in price of oil and engines that use oil wouldn't fuel
A global industrialization negating entirely our actions

Your side can't seem to truthfully articulate the problem, the cause, the objections, the solution or the repercussions, and yet you wonder why people doubt you??

Seriously??

(05-29-2012 02:06 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-29-2012 01:55 PM)Max Power Wrote:  I'm satisfied that you're wrong if 97% of your colleagues disagree with you,

They don't. You just don't understand the statistics you cited.
Maybe they don't teach basic math in IQ school.

But it wouldn't matter. Phlogiston was a bad idea. Lister was right. History is replete with examples of the consensus being wrong.

It is amusing to watch you make a fool of yourself with your posts, but alas, you are a one-trick pony.

So you agree humans are causing global warming?

Phlogiston was pre Enlightenment and basically a wild guess by people who had few reliable observational tools at their disposal and no understanding of the basic elements of our world. Today we have computer modeling and a fuller understanding of the atom and how to manipulate even the smallest building blocks. It isn't perfect but to ignore a consensus because the consensus has been wrong before (and how often? 2% maybe?) is asinine. That's hardly reason not to adopt and recognize what are our best guesses at the time.

Quote:Congrats on the IQ. My son has an IQ of 127, but that doesn't make him smart, it gives him the oportunity to be smart. There are no guarantees.

I'm not looking for congrats. Just a little annoyed Torch keeps calling me that, so I'm throwing down. I would agree that intelligence doesn't necessarily make you smart. There are some crazy, paranoid very intelligent people who let their gifts go to waste. I don't expect anyone to give my opinion any more credence if I have a higher IQ, because I sure as hell am not going to give any such credence to some of the jokers on here if they're higher than me.

Quote:If you read the articles you link, I don't see where either of them claim that humans are causing global warming. Instead, they blame greenhouse gasses... And mention two of perhaps thousands of causes of rises in greenhouse gasses... You are being scientifically and factually incorrect to say that 97% of scientists blame man. That simply isn't true... Or at least isn't supported by the data you link or any other I've seen... So you are lying, and we are now merely arguing over how much and why.

I don't think anyone denies that the climate of the earth changes. I don't think that anyone denies that humans play a part in climate... The question is whether it (mans influence) is significant... And even if so, reversible. If the earth is going to warm or cool by 2 degrees over the next century, and only a fool would deny that the earth naturally warms and cools... How much of that move is caused (or to be fair, prevented) by mans actions? I mean, if we hasten the warming, we invariably also inhibit the cooling, right? To what degree? 1.5 instead of 1.4? 2.0 instead of 1.0?? What usbthe scientific consensus on that? Second, what would we have to do to reverse it? I've yet to see a consensus on that either... Finally, is there evidence to suggest that if the US were magically to be able to go 100% "something other than fossil fuels"... That a) it would make a dent in the problem. B) that the resulting drop in price of oil and engines that use oil wouldn't fuel
A global industrialization negating entirely our actions

Your side can't seem to truthfully articulate the problem, the cause, the objections, the solution or the repercussions, and yet you wonder why people doubt you??

Seriously??

From the first link, the NAS study found 97-98% of the most published scientists agreed with the following:

Quote:The primary tenets of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report that it is “very likely” that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for “most” of the “unequivocal” warming of the Earth’s average global temperature in the second half of the 20th century (3).

You know what anthropogenic means right? Manmade. So yes they are blaming man for "most" of it.

I'm all for starting the debate on what and how much we should do, and being mindful of not going overboard with regulations so that we strangle our economy. But we can only get to this stage by acknowledging that man is having an impact, and too many are invested in painting a debate and division in the scientific community where there isn't one.