Senate Global Climate Change

I'm sorry, was Al Gore not a leading advocate for the Theory of GW? Did he quit? Was there another doc afterwards or before that generated the same level of $$$ and interest? Fair target as far as I'm concerned.

 

Fair target, sure, but you seem fairly content to disregard vast amounts of research based solely on Al Gore's association with global warming in the public consciousness which, to me, says you're significantly more hung up on him than anything he was saying.

Also lol @ emphasizing theory like that old dog is going to hunt.

 

It is not as "settled" as those misleading charts indicate. Those charts take only scientific papers with an established position. In other words, of all those scientists who have taken a stand on the issue, roughly 97% say mankind is making the planet warmer and 3% say mankind is making the globe cooler.

However, what those charts conveniently omit is the fact that the solid majority (roughly 2/3rd) of papers on this matter say there is not enough evidence to draw conclusions either way. In other words, most scientists say they really just don't know because there really isn't enough evidence.

 

Why do these people come in waves?

 

It's still a theory, as in unproven, and by all means I don't think that's enough to change laws, tax codes, introduce unsound policy, and dedicate other resources to. I mean, I get that I'm not an expert in Global Warming, woe is me, all I can do remain skeptical when some of the items that were predicted are being rolled back (ice sheets, polar bears disappearing, severe and frequent bad weather, increased severity of said bad weather, temperature rise, oceans rising, and even the "branding" from Global Warming to Climate Change").

The use of ridicule in previous posts in this thread makes me think there are some who are a wee bit defensive. But, seriously, what do you make of no global temps rising, lack of hurricanes, and some of the other predictions that didn't pan out? Were the models off? Is there further research that should be done?

 

Jews are supposed to have tails according to urban legend so, again... maybe?

(but probably not)

 

These people? Comical, but not atypical..

 

Ray gun. I get it. Because Reagan's dead.

 

You have no idea what a 'theory' is. Anthropogenic Global Warming is backed by a large volume of literature and evidence.

"But, seriously, what do you make of no global temps rising, lack of hurricanes, and some of the other predictions that didn't pan out?"

This is literally not true. Temperatures are rising.

Your insistence on focusing on what Al Gore says rather than what the scientists say proves just how afraid you are to deal with the real meat of the issue.

 

I am familiar with the statistic you are referencing and it is, in fact, quite incorrect. The 66% figure is not "Undecided," it is "No stated position" - as in, the paper was presenting data or other information and did not comment on the matter. The percentage corresponding to actual "undecided" endorsements was closer to .3%. Speaking as someone who has worked in academic STEM it is highly fallacious to interpret a non-mention as an endorsement of uncertainty, and I would suggest you stop reading that into it.

 

I still think you mods should ban conservatives every time one says "socialist" but clearly in an incorrect context.

 

what are you talking about? do you have a source of any kind?

i ask purely in the interest of ridicule. i would assume that if there were that many climate skeptic scientists, some of the users in this thread with ample experience in academic environments studying diverse & relevant but not climate-centric fields, such as Ramza, (mathematics) Lord Vivec, (physics and engineering) Darth Guy (history) and myself (anthropology, public health, and biology), would have spent enough time around academia to have encountered one of them in person by now. i have not. guys?

even ignoring that we have all had ample access to academic databases and, again, in my case at least, we have not seen these credible, peer-reviewed climate skeptic papers you claim exist

 

I didn't take that many science courses and I didn't know any science professors. But seeing as how a good portion of the white male students I was forced to be with in history courses were lolbertarian idiots, I wouldn't have been shocked if there was rampant climate change denialism among them. Does that count?

 

He's referring to the paper the data comes from http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/ but is severely misinterpreting the meaning of "No Position" and completely ignoring the self evaluation portion wherein "No Position" collapses to about 35%.

For what it's worth the only climate change deniers I have met were all engineers in unrelated fields.

 

i meant PhDs or others subject to peer review, and i was kind of assuming you'd be the stretch case here but still... college environment right? i deffo went to some climate science talks even as an undergrad

 

Well, yeah, a couple of them. But they were just non-denialists talking. SHUTTING OUT DISSENT.

 

Man, I don't know how you could stand it, those ritzy topic talks always draw in so many people. "Climate change" and "Large Hadron Collider" were always code for "way too crowded." Luckily mathematics proper does not have that problem, for some reason.

 

i never went to the large hadron collider talks. which is probably why i still cant figure out it my hadron is too large for collision

anthro department weekly showcase was always sparse tho, same with teh bio department. grad students and profs and a few community members, usually

 

If I had a dime for every false utterance of socialist or "it's our Marxist president!", I would be a rich.

The main issue I see with climate change and how to mitigate its consequences is the lack of developing world participation. But that's hardly revelatory. Still, we need them to participate in a global regime or international framework to make climate change mitigation a success. But they will not. Can you blame them? They distrust the West and for some very good reasons. They will likely look at any constraints as the developed world's attempt to sabotage their national interests.

 

You're arguing semantics. There is nowhere near the scientific consensus those charts indicate. You can't even get 99% of scientists to agree the sky is blue, let alone a subject as controversial as this one. Furthermore, let us know confuse global-warming with man made global warming, as the above charts conveniently do.

Speaking as someone who works in the industry: Don't believe everything you read.

 

What industry would that be?

 

Neoconservative think tanks.

 

Yes, well, semantic arguments are very important, because otherwise people claim demonstrably false things, such as "most scientists say they really just don't know because there really isn't enough evidence," by exploiting terminological loopholes and blatant misunderstandings.

 

No such thing. Just Neoconservative tanks.

 

I work as an analyst/statistician. People give me a lot of numbers, and I get to figure out if there is a statistical correlation, I do predictive modeling, significance testing, etc. I work with confidence intervals, p-values, standardization, and all sorts of other fun stuff. And one thing all (reputable) science uses is a high burden of proof when trying to establish something, which I just don't see in many of these articles, but that's a whole 'nother matter.