Global Warming is over.

[frankenbeemer]

welcome to the world of science, where things evolve based on new data.

If only that were true without the politics.

Here is more on Anderegg, the author of the 97% study:

The lead author of a research paper causing an uproar in the climate science world appears to be a student. Six months ago, a person with this same name (and an identical e-mail address) uploaded a blog post during the December 2009 Copenhagen climate summit.

Describing himself as "a student at Stanford University" William R. L. Anderegg was witness to an event that will long be remembered for the number of limousines imported into Denmark so that the earth-friendly delegates might spurn free public transit.

Certain that the occasion was historic, this naively young mind writes:

To say there is diversity here would be a bland verbal tribute to the stunning myriad of life. To say this is a conference of complex and difficult issues would be capturing only a molecule of water in a turbulent river. To say that this entire thing is overwhelmingly chaotic would pay tribute merely to a single snowflake in a whiteout blizzard...
As a student studying climate change, I knew that this was an astounding opportunity to attend this conference. As a young person, I knew this was an opportunity to shape the world that our generation will inherit.

Could you run that by me, again? The lead author of a paper which purports to assess the achievements and credibility of hundreds of collective years of scientific expertise, that lead author is a climate change student at Standford University?
The same Stanford University at which paper co-author Stephen Schneider happens to teach?

[rwh11385]

welcome to the world of science, where things evolve based on new data. that's why when scientists write things down, they say, "this is the best idea we've got so far." not, "this is absolutely the answer 100%."

science is not like religion where the answer is believed 100%, scientists understand that there is always a possibility, however minute, that they are wrong.

Well, would it be a shocker that these guys don't really understand science? The recent trend in gaining political power by appealing to stupidity is appalling.


Anyway: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...lobal-warming/

Another survey, Farbin, not just of those scientists who research climate: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

With survey participants asked to select a single category, the most common areas of expertise reported were geochemistry (15.5%), geophysics (12%), and oceanography (10.5%). General geology, hydrology/hydrogeology, and paleontology each accounted for 5–7% of the total respondents.

Approximately 5% of the respondents were climate scientists, and 8.5% of the respondents indicated that more than 50% of their peer-reviewed publications in the past 5 years have been on the subject of climate change

"Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" Approximately 82 percent of the surveyed scientists answered yes to this question. Of those climate change specialists surveyed, 97.4 percent answered yes to this question.

[Fusion]

Quick, rwb, post anything to hide the retarded shit you just posted, obviously due to your ignorant lack of actually reading what you cited

[rwh11385]

You're right, but none of that applies to AWG because certain misused data can be a trigger to spend taxpayer money on dumb shit.



There simply wasn't a credible scientific alternative to the theory that the earth is flat.

Well, who would support that?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004409844_mccain13m.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/almost-every-2012-republican-has-a-cap-and-trade-problem/238776/

Just a few short years ago, John McCain supported cap-and trade as a Republican presidential candidate, after he pushed for it in a bill he coauthored with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.).

Former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty supported cap-and-trade in 2007 but has since urged Congress to reject it.

Mitt Romney has incorporated President Obama's support for cap-and-trade into fundraising pitches, but in 2005 Romney supported an early emissions-capping system

Mike Huckabee told a Clean Air Cool Planet gathering in New Hampshire in 2007, "I also support cap-and-trade of carbon emissions, and I was disappointed when the Senate rejected it." In 2009, as cap-and-trade politics heated up, Huckabee explained that he supported "voluntary" cap-and-trade for businesses that "choose" to be a part of it, but that he had "a great fear of heavy-handed government mandates of cap-and-trade," although the rejected McCain-Lieberman climate bill had included mandatory caps.

Newt Gingrich, meanwhile, told Frontline in 2007 that "I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there's a package there that's very, very good. And frankly, it's something I would strongly support." And he cut a TV ad with then-speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2008 calling for action on climate change. Since then, he's campaigned against it.

I say it's pretty crazy how they all flopped, and with Fox New's help - so did all of the sheep.



It wasn't "science" that said the world was flat, it was religion. The same kind of science-attacking religion that exists today.

But that isn't as bad as the close-mindedness that comes from the RWNJs, either here or in CZ:

Quick, rwb, post anything to hide the retarded shit you just posted, obviously due to your ignorant lack of actually reading what you cited

[Fusion]

It wasn't "science" that said the world was flat, it was religion.

Good point. So is most of AGW.

[rwh11385]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/03/us-campaign-romney-idUSTRE7525GM20110603

Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney broke with Republican orthodoxy on Friday by saying he believes that humans are responsible, at least to some extent, for climate change.

"I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that," he told a crowd of about 200 at a town hall meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire.

"It's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors."

In addressing climate change and energy policy, Romney called on the United States to break its dependence on foreign oil, and expand alternative energies including solar, wind, nuclear and clean coal.

"I love solar and wind (power) but they don't drive cars. And we're not all going to drive Chevy Volts," he said referring to electric cars.

Whatcha gonna do now? (oh wait, Fusion, can you even vote here?) But funny he plays to the right-wing Volt hating...

... although he forgets the love for wind power and the important voters who now are disappointed in his flop on wind.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...ef=mostpopular #awkward
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/0...es-iowa-risks/

The Romney campaign finally came out firmly against tax credits for wind power. That might sound like a pretty marginal issue nationwide, but in a state such as Iowa—home to more wind-sector jobs than any other state—it’s a pretty big deal.

AGW isn't a religion, it's science. Sorry you don't understand science. But you seemingly belong to a cult.

[Kershaw]

fusion can vote, he just has to write in his vote.

[Fusion]

Wrong again. But keep posting, maybe GM will accept your postcount as trade-in for a Volt.

their bullshittery is again debunked or proven to be tweeked for (any) political reason

And never have I leaned toward or proclaimed voting for Romney.

[rwh11385]

Wrong again. But keep posting, maybe GM will accept your postcount as trade-in for a Volt.



And never have I leaned toward or proclaimed voting for Romney.

Wrong about what? Are you claiming you understand science, or disagreeing with something else? From all accounts, you seem to know leas than the kids on Mr. Wizard.


The post was about GOP leaders that were on the AGW page, then bailed for politics of the religious and antiscience crowd, instead of for actual proof or discovery. Why be on the ignorant side of life? Sorry my thoughts on science are not controlled by nutjob extremists with little education on such subjects.

[Fusion]

And who gave you the r3v scientist of the year award? After quoting shitty twisted word news sources and numb gooogle scraping "research", someone should take that award back.
But instead of acknowledging you stepped in horseshit, you try to attack personally, guessing someone's origin, voting preferences and employment.

You do it in every thread and every opponent when your legs start trembling. You're failing at your little google crawling, claiming it your knowledge.

[nando]

Ah, yes, than I must be right. Apart from it being "google research", USA Today lied:





You're right, but none of that applies to AWG because certain misused data can be a trigger to spend taxpayer money on dumb shit.



There simply wasn't a credible scientific alternative to the theory that the earth is flat.

And noone actually agreed with the IPCC, they just twisted it all around and used others' research (which should'nt be opionionated) to create a false opinion, probably without prior consent to do so.

as pointed out before, it was religion, not science, that said the earth was flat. religion also believed that the universe revolved around the earth, even though it was christian/catholic scientists that figured out that it didn't. oh, they were even jailed for that "crime".

climate change denial is the flat earth theory of our time. it's only second to the "science" of creationism (not the same as the religious belief).

[rwh11385]

And who gave you the r3v scientist of the year award? After quoting shitty twisted word news sources and numb gooogle scraping "research", someone should take that award back.
But instead of acknowledging you stepped in horseshit, you try to attack personally, guessing someone's origin, voting preferences and employment.

You do it in every thread and every opponent when your legs start trembling. You're failing at your little google crawling, claiming it your knowledge.

No one, but I'm also logical enough to understand the difference between scientists and politicians. And have never outruled the alternative hypothesis. It's possible that it's a natural cycle, and have actually supported that in the past. I'm no climate-expert... but neither is anyone in this thread. I've simply questioned why people who are fired up by conservatism being so sure it is bullshit when they have absolutely no idea besides what Fox News tell them to think. This thread is proof that people aren't interested in the truth or science or reality as much as they are simply attacking anything that is against their belief. (Sound familiar? Galileo maybe?)

Do you have any sources to the contrary? Is there anything that demonstrates most scientists don't support AGW? Or do you simply call it all lies based on your bias? Or the opinion of uneducated populace?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/sc...pagewanted=all

While scientific literacy has doubled over the past two decades, only 20 to 25 percent of Americans are "scientifically savvy and alert," he said in an interview. Most of the rest "don't have a clue." At a time when science permeates debates on everything from global warming to stem cell research, he said, people's inability to understand basic scientific concepts undermines their ability to take part in the democratic process.

[...]

American adults in general do not understand what molecules are (other than that they are really small). Fewer than a third can identify DNA as a key to heredity. Only about 10 percent know what radiation is. One adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth, an idea science had abandoned by the 17th century

I don't understand why you think it's a negative to post sources to back up claims or beliefs, instead of just stating unsupported opinion. But I guess that separates the thinkers from the sheep.

[mrsleeve]

^^

have we considered that AGW science might be the flat earth dead end theory of our time???

[gwb72tii]

welcome to the world of science, where things evolve based on new data. that's why when scientists write things down, they say, "this is the best idea we've got so far." not, "this is absolutely the answer 100%."

science is not like religion where the answer is believed 100%, scientists understand that there is always a possibility, however minute, that they are wrong.

ha ha
are you saying their theories are nothing more than hypotheses that are supported by current data but may not be in the future when there is more clear data?

and no scientist believes for a second that contradictions are only a "minute" chance. give me a break. they don't know until proven wrong.

[gwb72tii]

Wrong again. But keep posting, maybe GM will accept your postcount as trade-in for a Volt.



And never have I leaned toward or proclaimed voting for Romney.

now that's funny
seems like rwh has an opinion on everything