An example of how much we don't know regarding this Planet...

[ClosedCaption]

Because in 1977 Science wasn't very sciencey... Now they've got it right... It's definitely Global Warming this time... And anyway, whatever it is, it's Big Fat Bald White Oil's fault and America's dominance in the World must be knocked down a peg or two... Amirite?



peace...

Don't forget to mention the Time cover was based on no science and wasn't peer reviewed. Also don't fail to mention Global Warming and the science has been peer reviewed and scientist agree.

If you mentioned those two things you would shoot all types of holes in the OP.

OP doesn't understand sciencey stuff so he laughs to cover his ignorance

That's true. What's sad is the peer review of climate science is so poor (or maybe it's that the scientists peddling this crap are so bad?) that whenever they post a paper for the world to see it is invariably destroyed within a few days, sometimes mere hours.

Not a record to engender confidence.

Parts of it might be wrong but the whole thing has never been disproven.

For example: If you said birds feed their young every 2 hours and its actually every 5. I would say "Well you were off PROVING that your entire study is wrong"

 

[Steven_R]

The Milankovic Cycles have far less forcing than the GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere. And the effects of these GHGs last for centuries. It looks at present that we will put off the onset of the next ice age by many thousands of years.

Good. Longer growing seasons means more food, we won't have places like Boston and NYC and Stockholm under kilometers of glacial ice, and a permanent Northwest Passage means shipping from the Atlantic to the Pacific no longer means going around Africa, South America, or the Panama Canal.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Except that does prove your entire study is wrong, dullard.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Don't forget to mention the Time cover was based on no science and wasn't peer reviewed. Also don't fail to mention Global Warming and the science has been peer reviewed and scientist agree.
If you mentioned those two things you would shoot all types of holes in the OP.

OP doesn't understand sciencey stuff so he laughs to cover his ignorance

No, they do not. And certainly not in the way you're trying to portray. There is no consensus on global warming. Unless you really want to tout that .3% consensus around.

Speaking of ignorance......

 

[ClosedCaption]

Except it doesn't...

This is like saying Al Gore is wrong because he flies in a plane, just stupidity in hyper drive

 

[ClosedCaption]

Don't forget to mention the Time cover was based on no science and wasn't peer reviewed. Also don't fail to mention Global Warming and the science has been peer reviewed and scientist agree.
If you mentioned those two things you would shoot all types of holes in the OP.

OP doesn't understand sciencey stuff so he laughs to cover his ignorance

No, they do not. And certainly not in the way you're trying to portray. There is no consensus on global warming. Unless you really want to tout that .3% consensus around.

Speaking of ignorance......

Link?

Aint got one? Shocker!
Wont give one? Double shocker!
Opt to call names? Falls out chair!

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The link is already in the thread, Dullard.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Except it doesn't...

This is like saying Al Gore is wrong because he flies in a plane, just stupidity in hyper drive

Dullard, if you set out to prove that birds feed their young every two hours and it turns out it is every 5 hours, then your hypothesis is wrong. How you got to the assertion of two hours for feeding, is wrong. Your entire study? Wrong.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The link is already in the thread, Dullard.

Link?

Aint got one? Shocker!
Wont give one? Double shocker!
Opt to call names? Falls out chair!

You're so predictable or maybe...I'm just that damn good

 

[TakeAStepBack]

False. The correct consensus on AGW is .3%

cite?

Climate Consensus and ?Misinformation?: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change - Online First - Springer

Science & Education
August 2013 Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change
David R. Legates, Willie Soon, William M. Briggs, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley


Abstract
Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.

The link is already in the thread, Dullard.

Link?

Aint got one? Shocker!
Wont give one? Double shocker!
Opt to call names? Falls out chair!

You're so predictable or maybe...I'm just that damn good

If there is one thing that is always true about LOLberals, it is that they are extremely lazy. Both intellectually and physically.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Yes, you are that good, [MENTION=25032]ClosedCaption[/MENTION] , at making yourself look stupid. Congrats.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Ahh don't have a link but uses old "Go find the link" delaying tactic.

I'm asking you smart guy. Do YOU have a link to prove the bullshit you typed? Can YOU prove it?


Ran out of time? Whaaa!
Wont give link? Ya don't say...

 

[Redfish]

Ahh don't have a link but uses old "Go find the link" delaying tactic.

I'm asking you smart guy. Do YOU have a link to prove the bullshit you typed? Can YOU prove it?


Ran out of time? Whaaa!
Wont give link? Ya don't say...

WTF is wrong with you? he gave you the link twice.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

ClosedCognition has his consensus meme destroyed. So he acts like the information was never given. Like I said, LOLberals are predictably lazy. On the other hand, climate science is anything but predictable in its current form.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Ahh don't have a link but uses old "Go find the link" delaying tactic.

I'm asking you smart guy. Do YOU have a link to prove the bullshit you typed? Can YOU prove it?


Ran out of time? Whaaa!
Wont give link? Ya don't say...

WTF is wrong with you? he gave you the link twice.

Actually he didn't, but you know that already. Notice how he didn't say he gave it to me but told me to go find it? No?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You're even lazier than a typical LOLberal, ClosedCognition. Have a peek at post #50 again, Dullard. Read it slowly and extra "careful" (you know, for a lazy LOLberal anyway).

 

[Mustang]

Because in 1977 Science wasn't very sciencey... Now they've got it right... It's definitely Global Warming this time... And anyway, whatever it is, it's Big Fat Bald White Oil's fault and America's dominance in the World must be knocked down a peg or two... Amirite?



peace...

I often hope that conservatives will actually take the time to educate themselves on the issues instead of bouncing like a pinball from one set of reactionary yet unsubstantiated charges to another set of partisan accusations which later turn out to be untrue like is so often the case. But it appears to be a hope that is a complete waste of time on my part.

At this point, I wish someone would offer an explanation. Are conservatives just plain stupid? Or do they simply not care about what's true as long as they can stir the pot?

If it's stupidity, there's a cure for that. It's the aforementioned education. But a person has to be willing to learn. He or she has to be open to differentiating fact from fancy because, simply put, believing something and knowing something are not the SAME thing. You see, it is possible to believe things that are not true and not know things that are true. That's a pretty close definition of ignorance. And while ignorance is not something to be ashamed of because we're all ignorant about some things, willful ignorance is shameful if a person refuses to learn from their mistakes.

With that in mind, I'm gong to do you a favor which you could have done yourself if you would have just taken a little time to check the facts. You see, global coooling (or the so-called coming ice age) was never a widely held belief within the scientific community any more than the belief in Sasquatch is.

Below is a link that will explain it for you, mal.

Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere culminating in a period of extensive glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature, i.e., a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions. The current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the 20th century.[1]

Global cooling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, is there a point to all this? Yes, there is. And here it is: If I see you post this drivel again (which is exactly what it is), then I will know you're either an ignoramus, a fool, or just someone who's not serious and should be ignored.

That goes for the rest of the lemmings who jumped on this thread to do an imitation of Al Pacino in a scene from "Scent of a Woman."

 

[Google]

It's global warming now. Around 2005 the term climate change began to take over the vernacular of the political environmental left.

 

[Google]

The only thing the political environmental left was been right about since its conception in the 60's is being wrong about issue after issue.

 

[ClosedCaption]

cite?

Climate Consensus and ?Misinformation?: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change - Online First - Springer

Science & Education
August 2013 Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change
David R. Legates, Willie Soon, William M. Briggs, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley


Abstract
Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.

The link is already in the thread, Dullard.

Link?

Aint got one? Shocker!
Wont give one? Double shocker!
Opt to call names? Falls out chair!

You're so predictable or maybe...I'm just that damn good

If there is one thing that is always true about LOLberals, it is that they are extremely lazy. Both intellectually and physically.

Got it, now wheres the part that proves GW to be false? All it says is

Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.

This person isn't even addressing how the information is wrong. I think he's saying that .3% endorse the information but he forgets to say HOW he came up with that and WHY the 97% figure is wrong.

He just says "inspection" then moves into some other point