Pinworm
Well-Known Member
I fucking hate weezer, that's come you're gonna feel it!
Satellite data proves Earth has not been warming the past 18 years - it's stable
- Thread starter sheskunk
- Start date
heckler73
Well-Known Member
Yes, I saw the three or so studies Cook et al. cited (that qualifies as many, correct?).
Yet 86% of climate scientists could not be bothered to answer the following two questions from a website with drop-down, menu selection. Using similar reasoning, it appears 86% of climate scientists believe polls like this are not scientific enough to warrant their attention.
Category: The first drop down indicates what category of research your paper covers. If your paper
addresses more than one category, select the category that is the major focus:
1 Impacts: effects and impacts of climate change on the environment, ecosystems or humanity
2 Methods: focus on measurements and modeling methods, or basic climate science not included
in the other categories.
3 Mitigation: research into lowering CO2 emissions or atmospheric CO2 levels
4 Not Climate Related: This includes social science research about people's views on climate
5 Opinion: Not peer-reviewed
6 Paleoclimate: examining climate during pre-industrial times
Endorsement: The second drop down indicates the level of endorsement for the proposition that
human activity (i.e., anthropogenic greenhouse gases) is causing global warming (e.g., the increase
in temperature). Note: we are not asking about your personal opinion but whether each specific
paper endorses or rejects (whether explicitly or implicitly) that humans cause global warming:
1 Explicit Endorsement with Quantification: paper explicitly states that humans are causing
most of global warming.
2 Explicit Endorsement without Quantification: paper explicitly states humans are causing
global warming or refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a given fact.
3 Implicit Endorsement: paper implies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research
assumes greenhouse gases cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause.
4 Neutral: paper doesn't address or mention issue of what's causing global warming.
5 Implicit Rejection: paper implies humans have had a minimal impact on global warming
without saying so explicitly. E.g., proposing a natural mechanism is the main cause of global
warming.
6 Explicit Rejection without Quantification: paper explicitly minimizes or rejects that humans
are causing global warming.
7 Explicit Rejection with Quantification: paper explicitly states that humans are causing less
than half of global warming.
I wonder how many C5s and E7s they got?
Pinworm
Well-Known Member
Yes, I saw the three or so studies Cook et al. cited (that qualifies as many, correct?).
Yet 86% of climate scientists could not be bothered to answer the following two questions from a website with drop-down, menu selection. Using similar reasoning, it appears 86% of climate scientists believe polls like this are not scientific enough to warrant their attention.
Category: The first drop down indicates what category of research your paper covers. If your paper
addresses more than one category, select the category that is the major focus:
1 Impacts: effects and impacts of climate change on the environment, ecosystems or humanity
2 Methods: focus on measurements and modeling methods, or basic climate science not included
in the other categories.
3 Mitigation: research into lowering CO2 emissions or atmospheric CO2 levels
4 Not Climate Related: This includes social science research about people's views on climate
5 Opinion: Not peer-reviewed
6 Paleoclimate: examining climate during pre-industrial times
Endorsement: The second drop down indicates the level of endorsement for the proposition that
human activity (i.e., anthropogenic greenhouse gases) is causing global warming (e.g., the increase
in temperature). Note: we are not asking about your personal opinion but whether each specific
paper endorses or rejects (whether explicitly or implicitly) that humans cause global warming:
1 Explicit Endorsement with Quantification: paper explicitly states that humans are causing
most of global warming.
2 Explicit Endorsement without Quantification: paper explicitly states humans are causing
global warming or refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a given fact.
3 Implicit Endorsement: paper implies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research
assumes greenhouse gases cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause.
4 Neutral: paper doesn't address or mention issue of what's causing global warming.
5 Implicit Rejection: paper implies humans have had a minimal impact on global warming
without saying so explicitly. E.g., proposing a natural mechanism is the main cause of global
warming.
6 Explicit Rejection without Quantification: paper explicitly minimizes or rejects that humans
are causing global warming.
7 Explicit Rejection with Quantification: paper explicitly states that humans are causing less
than half of global warming.
I wonder how many C5s and E7s they got?
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
I'm happy to count myself among the 45% of college graduates who worry about global warming "only a little/not at all". Hmm, post graduates are at 45% as well, go figure.
It seems the only demographic that comes close to 50% who worry "a great deal" about global warming is Democrats. That's weird, right? Only 16% of Pubs, only 29% of Independents and just 56% of Dems are buying your dire predictions.
I mean, for someone to not be concerned a "great deal" about something so obvious, so destructive and scientifically proven, would require serious doubts about the validity of the conclusions. It's either that or they just haven't been informed.
Maybe the proponents of the MMGW THEORY should be out there endlessly trumpeting their position, spending big dollars to inform the public, marching out celebrities, politicians and even the President to get these folks "on board". Oh wait...
It seems the only demographic that comes close to 50% who worry "a great deal" about global warming is Democrats. That's weird, right? Only 16% of Pubs, only 29% of Independents and just 56% of Dems are buying your dire predictions.
I mean, for someone to not be concerned a "great deal" about something so obvious, so destructive and scientifically proven, would require serious doubts about the validity of the conclusions. It's either that or they just haven't been informed.
Maybe the proponents of the MMGW THEORY should be out there endlessly trumpeting their position, spending big dollars to inform the public, marching out celebrities, politicians and even the President to get these folks "on board". Oh wait...
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Coming from the Walmart cart boy, I'll take that as a compliment.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
Compelling no no wait that's the wrong word, don't worry it's right on the tip of my tongue now what was it?
Oh yeah,
Specious.
That's the right word
So heckler when should we expect your noble prize to arrive? You know for using "quantum chemistry" to look at a graph thru an upside down toilet tube while masturbating with your off hand and simultaneously disproving over a hundred years of scientific knowledge about co2 absorbative properties?
This being a pot forum it's surprising all the scientific bigwigs that you get to brush shoulders with.......
Doer
Well-Known Member
Pin, buddy? Do you know about Big Daddy Roth?
A bit dirivative that album cover. I'd call it a rip off.
Here is the real deal, in case you didn't know.
Original Grim Reaper
I built this model when I was 12....my formative years.
Pinworm
Well-Known Member
Doer my friend you never cease to amaze and make my day a learning experience. butPin, buddy? Do you know about Big Daddy Roth?
A bit dirivative that album cover. I'd call it a rip off.
Here is the real deal, in case you didn't know.
Original Grim Reaper
I built this model when I was 12....my formative years.
I figured out the problem yeah the problem is you
You didn't see us comin' now there's nothin' you can do
Times are gonna change, change or step aside
It's my point of view that took you by surprise
The sun's comin' up yeah the new dawn arrives
New generation standing stand with anger in their eyes
No love in the city 'cause there's no connection
Been stricken with disease a racial infection
I'm a battering ram comin' through to you
In every alleyway and every avenue
Actions could erase all the fear that we suffer
People segregated no one understands each other
He's a different color, but we're the same kid
I will treat him like my brother he will treat me like his
Well an eye for an eye yeah a tooth for a tooth
Brother against brother should be singin' with the group
The inner cities burnin' yeah it's screamin' black and blue
The power and the passion of a million youth
I'm a battering ram comin' through to you
In every alleyway and every avenue
I figured out the problem yeah the problem is you
You didn't see us comin' now there's nothin' you can do
He's a different color but we're the same kid
I will treat him like my brother, he will treat me like his
All the blood that spills of all the guts that fly
The media paints a picture that stands all arise
Pits dogs against cats now who is responsible
The power in the issue, the force is unstoppable
I'm a battering ram comin' through to you
In every alleyway and every avenue
I'm a battering ram comin' through to you
In every alleyway and every avenue
I'm a battering ram comin' through to you
In every alleyway and every avenue
Did I tell you I'm getting pretty good at bass, again?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Lying dumbass;
-66% of those aged over 65 believed that climate change is caused by human actions
-by contrast, 79% of 18-34 year olds take the view that human action is responsible for climate change
-63% of those with no post-school qualifications were unconvinced about the role of humans in producing climate change
-University graduates were much more likely to take the opposite view, with 86% agreeing that human activity was responsible - See more at:
http://www.ecopedia.com/environment/demographics-climate-change-who-believes-it-is-real/#sthash.FLLdLebm.dpuf
Not that it would matter anyway because none of you denytards accept anything unless it denies ACC too, which is why you detest science so much. It's objective, and it's objectively telling you you're all a bunch of fringe morons who can't read a pie chart. As Sanders noted, in every other facet of reality you accept science, medicine, food health/safety, engineering, etc. but when it comes to climate change, the science goes out the window and it's all a HOAX!!!
If 97% of doctors told you you had cancer, you'd get chemo, and if you wouldn't you would deserve every moment of pain you received for being a dumbass.
Stop being dumbasses.
I think you have me confused with Kynes
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
That's normally how it goes, scientists telling you you're an idiot, you plugging your ears "lalalalalalala"..
Color me shocked!
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Gallup sides with the science, dumbassNow read my post again and bring on the apology, fuckstain.
Almost as bad as when Kynes attempted to use NASA to refute it
You people are goddamn pathetic
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Gallup sides with the science, dumbassNow read my post again and bring on the apology, fuckstain.
Almost as bad as when Kynes attempted to use NASA to refute it
You people are goddamn pathetic
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
Was that an apology? Was my post not 100% accurate in regards to the latest poll by Gallup. Did I lie?
No, I didn't.
Useful Idiot.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
You use opinion polls as scientific evidence??