Did you even read the article I posted? I read yours but I'm not going to pretend I have a database of climate trends off the top of my head to draw a conclusion based upon the past 60 years in contrast with the billions of years earth has been here
I did once I turned off my popup blocker.. All I saw was numbers saying why 97% of scientists are wrong. Lots of reasons why we should just continue on burning fossil fuels. Might as well had been written by Exxon/Mobil, BP or the GOP. I'm not gonna argue climate change with you. I'll just keep on watching the weather while you keep on believing Big Oil. I'm a saltwater fisherman and believe me, I watch the weather closely and between buying into Big Oil and what I can see for myself, I'll believe my lying eyes every time.
Lol you didn't read it because that isn't what it said at all. And I don't have an opinion either way I'm just a skeptical person by nature so when I hear that a bunch of people came to a consensus on anything it makes me question whether they really did or not. Sure enough, the 97% thing is completely disingenuous
Whatever you say Beach. I think its Wake Island where the cemetary of the soldiers who fought there is now mostly washed away by rising water levels. Of course, that's just a coincidence just like the lack of snow in Alaska and Greenland's shrinking glaciers and pieces of Antartica's ice sheet the size of Rhode Island breaking off. Super storms becoming more common along the east coast.. Yeah..All just coincidence. Happens all the time. Damn Lib scientists misreading data again. Why don't they just believe Big Oil's scientists and shills instead of their own data results...
So, here's what we have today: Kentucky (46 delegates) - caucus from 10am to 4pm local time Louisiana (46 delegates) - primary from 6am to 8pm cst Kansas (40 delegates) - caucus until 2pm cst Maine (23 delegates) - caucus from 7am to 7pm est
Either NASA is a big fat liar or you are being clueless here. I'm betting on the latter. P.S. They even provide links to the study that gives that analysis down below, followed by the works of the scientists who performed the task. Not one, but three of them to be exact. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
We need to be clear about what we are talking about here. I am specifically referring to the 97% consensus which we hear repeated ad nauseum. That is in reference to a specific environmental research letter in which they reviewed other scientific literature and determined that 97% of the literature they read agreed upon something. My point, and the point of the article I posted, was that that specific letter and the reference to the 97% that we hear in the mainstream is misleading. My bigger point is that nobody ever actually does their own reading/research and would rather spout off that 97% appeal to authority when somebody asks them why they think a certain way. I think it is lazy and dishonest. We are becoming more and more a society that gets their education from Facebook and Twitter instead of actually going to the source. I am not saying NASA is a "big fat liar" anymore than you are calling the 4 scientists in the Forbes article liars who say their studies were misrepresented in the Cook study. As for me being clueless, sure, I don't mind admitting ignorance on a topic. I'd rather be ignorant than pretend I'm an expert because I heard Obama tell me that 97% of scientists agree and swallow it hook, line, and sinker. I think we need to be skeptical of NASA who may have an agenda and also skeptical of Forbes who may also have an agenda. I don't know why every living person has to be an expert on climate change
I didn't google NASA for it - I googled 97% and got the NASA link at the top of the page. I shit you not. [Better advice would be: learn to use google better, maybe? LOL] You don't have to be. You can actually look up all the data yourself - welp, collected by the dreaded *Gulp!* NASA. Or - better yet, you can travel around the world for the next few years and collect the data points yourself, as - face it. We all have to be very skeptical about any meteorological agency/department of the world too, right? And these fleet admirals stationed in the Pacific sea - you should be skeptical of THEM too, right? What do they know about the weather anyway? Or politicians? And no - don't even bother with the scientists. To give you the exact wording: Surveys of climate scientists have found strong agreement (97–98%) regarding AGW amongst publishing climate experts (Doran and Zimmerman 2009, Anderegg et al 2010). Repeated surveys of scientists found that scientific agreement about AGW steadily increased from 1996 to 2009 (Bray 2010). This is reflected in the increasingly definitive statements issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the attribution of recent GW (Houghton et al 1996, 2001, Solomon et al 2007). AGW meaning: Anthropogenic Global Warming. Yes. That means human induced global warming. And yes, It comes from that Cook study you were referring to, which can be found at: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...2677455E15E48F3879E.c3.iopscience.cld.iop.org 97% was the [lower] bound of the figure, mind you. And it references two more studies for it. And then some. [Meaning: This is not the only study that says this.] So you can be skeptical about that 97% figure all you want - but you would have to have a very good reason to doubt this analysis. Scientific papers are nothing like the tabloid article; they put their integrity into this. The fact that it was published means it passed the rigors of peer review - so questioning the result means you are putting in question 1. the integrity of the researcher and 2. the collective integrity and intelligence of the scientific community. Surely, there will be mistakes, but you can rest assured, these will be mostly honest mistakes. Once anyone is found guilty of fabricating faulty research result, he/she is done as a scientist. [Don't just take my words for it. Just google Stem cell research from Korea or Japan. You will find quite a few frauds whose otherwise stellar careers were cut short.]
Again you are kinda missing the point. 97% agree on what exactly? That AGW exists? Well that seems obvious. Do 97% agree that AGW has the same effect? Do 97% agree we should abandon fossil fuels? This is part of why it is misleading to throw that figure around like people like to do when it comes to a political discussion as an argument ender.
I read your article (the second page wouldn't load ). The only fact that I got was: "If you look at the literature, the specific meaning of the 97% claim is: 97 percent of climate scientists agree that there is a global warming trend and that human beings are the main cause–that is, that we are over 50% responsible." The rest was speculation and assumptions. One of the problems it that a wide majority of republicans won't even admit that much. The author then goes on to speculate stating that it's doubtful that 97% of scientists think we should give up all fossil fuels. Really? No shit. I had friends in the NRA and I was over at their house and read a mailer that they received. It said something like: the government is considering passing a law requiring a 3 day waiting period before you can buy a gun. This is the first step to them outlawing guns. If this legislation passes, it's only a matter of time before guns are outlawed. Call your representatives and tell them to vote no. I was amazed at the amount of paranoia and fear that was being produced by the NRA. I think it's the same thing with climate change. Special interests produce this paranoia and convince some people that if they admit climate change is real then fossil fuels will be immediately outlawed and we will be thrown into an economical crisis. I'm not a scientists but I'd assume that if I was concerned about melting ice caps I'd want my measurements to go back way further than 150 years. What if the earth does have a natural cycle of climate change and another ice age is inevitable? Would you rather have humans speed up the upcoming and inevitable end of humanity or slow it down? I'm a Jets fan that has some history as a Cubs fan. I NEED to put off the end of the world as long as possible.
I think it's another case of people being quick to point out the problem but not having any productive discussion about what exactly to do about it. Obviously some republicans are in complete denial because big oil donors want them to be but the real issue is how to balance environmental concerns with economic/job concerns
I have to say I really enjoyed the global warming this year. Other than servicing my snow blower for the season I never touched it. Yet. Plus, my heating bill is way down. I wish we could have had a little more last winter when we had the 2nd coldest February on record, but I understand we're not supposed to point at anecdotal things like that - unless it supports Al Gore type predictions, then we're good.
