Fossil Fuel Survialist Guide for the Sane

dennis8483 wrote:97% of all climate scientists agree that Anthropogenic Climate Change is occurring.

I'm assuming that you're referring to the study "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature".

Abstract excerpt:
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed
scientific literature, examining 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate
change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed
AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing
a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

It looks like only 33% of climate scientists agree on Anthropogenic Climate Change to me, but I'm no scientist. I guess the other 67% that haven't come to definite conclusion don't count.

Sunny Boy wrote:And, you won't see many of the "glo-bull warming believers" willing to sit in the dark, be cold all winter, or give up their cars.

They never can come up with workable solutions other than to say, 'the government should solve it." Too lost in their little worlds to even answer a simple question of, when did a government ever really solve anything ?

Paul

As soon as you realize that all of this crap has nothing to do with the Climate in reality then you can figure out their actual intentions and motivations. It's pretty obvious when you look at their, "solutions."

Here is yet another NASA scientist who has left the crazy club.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/04 ... s-Nonsense

He's not the only one leaving the church of glo-bull warming.

http://notrickszone.com/2014/03/27/spiegel-report ... escalates/

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/it ... sts-defect

Tough to stay a believer when mother earth keeps showing that your wrong.

Paul

The glo-bull warming alarmists were using the lack of sea ice as killing off the polar bears by drowning, as examples of man made warming (while the polar bear populations were actually increasing).

Opps ! Now, it looks like it isn't warm enough. Too much ice may be a problem for the polar bears.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-holli ... ring-ice-0

Another "inconvenient truth" .

Paul

Another big part of the Global Warming Crowd's hysteria is about Ocean Acidification. Here an in depth article about that subject. The data they present concerning Man's destruction of the Oceans is presumptive at best, plainly incorrect and again fraudulent at worst.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/27/ocean-acidi ... expansion/

I've got 100 different projects that need done at home (just bought this spring), and havent had time and probably wont have time to read every article posted. So, Ill just say my piece and be done with it. I want you to ask yourselves, how many of these links are independently verified, peer reviewed, replicated information. Several have financial and political backers (most mainstream media does). Several are blogs/opinions and several are mainstream media. That is not a scientific publication.

Someone posted about the % of scientists that agree/disagree with climate change. First, abstracts were reviewed, not entire publications. Second, in most scientific publications, opinion isnt warranted. A scientists job is to collect data, interpret data, share data. And third, even if 66% of scientists did not express opinion, it doesnt mean they disagree with anthropogenic climate influence. And really? A link to "700" scientists that disagree with climate change, yet only 3 dozen or so listed have qualifications that would make them credible. So that would put it at about 1% of scientists? Doesnt sound statistically significant to me. You don't ask a pharmaceutical researcher to build rocket ships. Comparing apples and oranges.

I'm not here to call anyone stupid, I'm sure there is a wealth of knowledge here that I don't have. Think about history. It was claimed that humans cant affect the Earth. So the use of chloroflourocarbons had no affect on the ozone layer? Deforestation has no affect either? Draining of a majority of the US wetlands had no affect? Any time in history there was an controversial discovery, no matter what evidence is presented, there is backlash. When a heliocentric view of our solar system was presented, there was backlash. When black holes were discovered, there was backlash. When the idea of continental drift/plate tectonics was discovered, there was backlash. As the theories that make up the idea of evolution are discovered, there is still backlash. Ask yourself, are you part of the backlash? Or are you going to promote research and technology that ultimately lead to progress and sustainability?

If scientists are wrong (and there is a small chance they are), it will be corrected in time, but only through the collection of new evidence. In the mean time, I don't beleive in anthropogenic climate change, but I do accept the evidence presented so far. I will continue to use fossil fuels because there isnt a better, affordable option.... yet.

dennis8483 wrote:I've got 100 different projects that need done at home (just bought this spring), and havent had time and probably wont have time to read every article posted. So, Ill just say my piece and be done with it. I want you to ask yourselves, how many of these links are independently verified, peer reviewed, replicated information. Several have financial and political backers (most mainstream media does). Several are blogs/opinions and several are mainstream media. That is not a scientific publication.

Someone posted about the % of scientists that agree/disagree with climate change. First, abstracts were reviewed, not entire publications. Second, in most scientific publications, opinion isnt warranted. A scientists job is to collect data, interpret data, share data. And third, even if 66% of scientists did not express opinion, it doesnt mean they disagree with anthropogenic climate influence. And really? A link to "700" scientists that disagree with climate change, yet only 3 dozen or so listed have qualifications that would make them credible. So that would put it at about 1% of scientists? Doesnt sound statistically significant to me. You don't ask a pharmaceutical researcher to build rocket ships. Comparing apples and oranges.

I'm not here to call anyone stupid, I'm sure there is a wealth of knowledge here that I don't have. Think about history. It was claimed that humans cant affect the Earth. So the use of chloroflourocarbons had no affect on the ozone layer? Deforestation has no affect either? Draining of a majority of the US wetlands had no affect? Any time in history there was an controversial discovery, no matter what evidence is presented, there is backlash. When a heliocentric view of our solar system was presented, there was backlash. When black holes were discovered, there was backlash. When the idea of continental drift/plate tectonics was discovered, there was backlash. As the theories that make up the idea of evolution are discovered, there is still backlash. Ask yourself, are you part of the backlash? Or are you going to promote research and technology that ultimately lead to progress and sustainability?

If scientists are wrong (and there is a small chance they are), it will be corrected in time, but only through the collection of new evidence. In the mean time, I don't beleive in anthropogenic climate change, but I do accept the evidence presented so far. I will continue to use fossil fuels because there isnt a better, affordable option.... yet.

Of course anyone who disbelieves in your Religion doesn't have any credibility in your mind. Because it isn't science. It isn't a scientific theory if it can not be falsified. In that case it is a belief, not a fact.
So here you place anyone who questions your belief In AGW with everyone else in history as wrong.
I put people who believe in Human caused Global Warming with people who once believed the Universe was composed of Ether. You are like the Church when it was discovered the Sun didn't revolve around the Earth. You can't have your Religion questioned.
Have a nice day.

'........... If scientists are wrong (and there is a small chance they are), it will be corrected in time, but only through the collection of new evidence. In the mean time, I don't beleive in anthropogenic climate change, but I do accept the evidence presented so far. I will continue to use fossil fuels because there isnt a better, affordable option.... yet. ."

Because many of us have been around to see so many world changing made-made problems not come true.

The over population scares of the 60's, the coming ice age scares of the 70's, the we're running out of oil scares of the late 70's, and the so many other scientifically backed predictions that never materialized, but somehow, massive amounts of our tax dollars always get thrown at those "problems".

And we're willing to accept evidence, but it has to be credible. So, who's evidence is credible ?

The scientists who were found to be using flawed "heat island" data and leaving out other data ?

Or, should we accept the evidence from the scientists from the UN, who's emails were hacked (by the Russians) showing they were worried that their data wasn't showing enough warming ?

Or, the politicians saying over and over that, "the science is settled" ? If so, why do some of the pro-warming scientists not allow their data to be released for peer review ?

Or, maybe Al Gore's "inconvenient" work, which a Brit judge banned from being taught in UK schools because of how flawed it is ? If glo-bull warming is true, why do the believers often resort to half-truths, distortions, and out-right lies to push their agenda ?

The science is not settled. In truth, the way many of the pro-warming scientists and supporters have handled it has only made the entire thing very UN -SETTLING!

Paul

wsherrick wrote:

dennis8483 wrote:I've got 100 different projects that need done at home (just bought this spring), and havent had time and probably wont have time to read every article posted. So, Ill just say my piece and be done with it. I want you to ask yourselves, how many of these links are independently verified, peer reviewed, replicated information. Several have financial and political backers (most mainstream media does). Several are blogs/opinions and several are mainstream media. That is not a scientific publication.

Someone posted about the % of scientists that agree/disagree with climate change. First, abstracts were reviewed, not entire publications. Second, in most scientific publications, opinion isnt warranted. A scientists job is to collect data, interpret data, share data. And third, even if 66% of scientists did not express opinion, it doesnt mean they disagree with anthropogenic climate influence. And really? A link to "700" scientists that disagree with climate change, yet only 3 dozen or so listed have qualifications that would make them credible. So that would put it at about 1% of scientists? Doesnt sound statistically significant to me. You don't ask a pharmaceutical researcher to build rocket ships. Comparing apples and oranges.

I'm not here to call anyone stupid, I'm sure there is a wealth of knowledge here that I don't have. Think about history. It was claimed that humans cant affect the Earth. So the use of chloroflourocarbons had no affect on the ozone layer? Deforestation has no affect either? Draining of a majority of the US wetlands had no affect? Any time in history there was an controversial discovery, no matter what evidence is presented, there is backlash. When a heliocentric view of our solar system was presented, there was backlash. When black holes were discovered, there was backlash. When the idea of continental drift/plate tectonics was discovered, there was backlash. As the theories that make up the idea of evolution are discovered, there is still backlash. Ask yourself, are you part of the backlash? Or are you going to promote research and technology that ultimately lead to progress and sustainability?

If scientists are wrong (and there is a small chance they are), it will be corrected in time, but only through the collection of new evidence. In the mean time, I don't beleive in anthropogenic climate change, but I do accept the evidence presented so far. I will continue to use fossil fuels because there isnt a better, affordable option.... yet.

Of course anyone who disbelieves in your Religion doesn't have any credibility in your mind. Because it isn't science. It isn't a scientific theory if it can not be falsified. In that case it is a belief, not a fact.
So here you place anyone who questions your belief In AGW with everyone else in history as wrong.
I put people who believe in Human caused Global Warming with people who once believed the Universe was composed of Ether. You are like the Church when it was discovered the Sun didn't revolve around the Earth. You can't have your Religion questioned.
Have a nice day.

Do you read your own posts? Or better yet, my posts? I mean, come on... The one thing that science does is self correct. If evidence is presented, replicated, and the experts in the field agree by majority, I would accept that evidence. Hearsay and opinion is evidence. Anecdotes are not data. I welcome questions in science. What there is no room for is those who see the data, read the interpretations, see it repeated, see predictions made based on data, see data showing that predictions are beginning to be more statistically significant, and then say... "Nah, I don't want to use logic today."
,
Convince the majority of climate scientists that anthropogenic climate change is not occurring in any way through the use of replicated verified data, and you my friend, will win the Nobel prize, the million dollar check, and will make the history books.

Thanks for nominating me for the Nobel Prize; I think I deserve it just as much or more than Obama does. And as far as the million dollar check is concerned, I accept all donations.

And as far as accepting evidence. There has been a bunch of it posted here which reveals the outright lies and fraud, manipulation of data and so on by the Environmental Left. The Radical Environmental Left which comprises almost the sum total of your so called, "Scientists." There is also the real data that disproves everything you state is fact. You haven't refuted any of it or provided any to bolster your claim.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is a sham, which is nothing but either a fake crises to milk checks for more grant money or a cover for a leftist driven socio/political agenda.
End of story.

The term anthropogenic seems to be a new term for a make believe science by make believe scientists. The use of the term is in itself a conclusion the utility of which is only to sound scientific since the scientific method precludes a conclusion prior to data. Add to that the falsification of data and not much is left to justify any claim to science.

dennis also claims in a previous post to not believe in anthropogenesis but then goes on to defend it.

Since obviously the world is in the form of a flat disc, any excess CO2 will just fall off the edges. If I had a government grant I could prove this scientifically.

franco b's point is very important - the conclusion of a man-made effect does not have a foundation outside the data. Whether or not you believe that it ever has had a foundation in the data, it unavoidably is on the table as part of the "self-correcting" process dennis8483 has referenced.

Mike

There are a number of possible self correcting features that I haven't heard mentioned by the media. And some things I call BS on.

If the earth warms and the ice melts, the surface area of the earth that can evaporate water will increase. How much more water vapor will that put into the atmosphere. And will it cause more clouds, which will cool the surface ?

If all plant life uses CO2, how much greener will the earth be with higher levels of CO2 ? And green plants not only cause shade lowering local ground temps, they absorb sunlight and produce more oxygen.

The one I call BS on is the panic about the ice caps are melting and the oceans are rising. Especially the news lately the ocean is rising around Florida. Just Florida, really ???

When I was a kid, they built new Navy bulk heading around a shore front small park near where I grew up on Long Island's south shore. I fished and crabbed off that bulk heading a lot. I went back to visit a couple years ago. I took a walk along that bulk heading and the tide marks are where they were in the early 1970's when that bulk heading was only a few years old. The bay is open to the sea at several large inlets. So where's the rising sea levels ? Oh yeah, just around Florida.

Paul

Franco, thanks for showing everyone what you know about science. Science and data doesnt require belief. Religion requires belief... the acceptance without evidence. Science requires acceptance of the data. It is still possible to be uncertain with conclusions drawn from that data.

On that note, so far, all any one of you has presented is an article on hacked emails, a few anecdotal stories, and cherry-picking. None of it was independently verified or replicated. Was it even taken in context?

Like I said from the beginning, Anthropogenic Climate Change may be incorrect. I accept the data and evidence. It has been shown to be statistically significant, and to be increasing in significance with more research over the course of decades. Predictions have been made by scientists. Those predictions have been tested and shown to be statistically significant. Not only have the "evidence" that you guys posted not replicated or verified, those who have presented that evidence have yet to make or test predictions based on that evidence. I hope climate change is wrong, but the research and technology developments alone would prove beneficial to future problems and sustainability. That's kinda how science has benefited human civilization since... science began. I wouldnt support forced changes because there isnt a better option. I do support research and technology, especially when the possibility of the what-ifs are extreme (good or bad). The same should be true for other areas of science, space, biology, medical, etc.

Suddenly it is climate change. What happened to global warming? Just like a change in a political party line and all the true believers fall in line. The head cheerleader's book has been banned in English schools because it it so full of errors and misstatements. Why continue to trust people who have been shown to be dishonest ? How is that science? It does seem to be true that the climate has changed this year. It will probably be the coldest winter in many years and the polar bears are again endangered because the ice is too damn thick.