Global Warming Solution?

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

Cook has been confirmed by Doran... your citations are out of date: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009EO030002/full

So, the ACTUAL scientists who state unequivocally that Cook misstated their positions and findings are wrong?

My citations, all but one of which occurred after Doran, are out of date? Makes perfect sense. The argument wasn't whether there was "a consensus". The argument was whether the 97% figure is nonsense designed to use as a bludgeon to crush dissent. Which it is.

What was the consensus in Galileo's day?

 

[JonnyVito]

@Been Jammin by the way this is a cool process to get rid of carbon dioxide in a safe matter. A lot better then storing it under ground.

Other ways that are more natural to combat this is stop the deforestation in third world countries and other countries like China and in South America. I personally think that deforestation has done more harm to the carbon out put then man kind was done with creating carbon. I also think our oceans need more attention then any other issue right now with environmental stuff.

 

[davidallen]

So, the ACTUAL scientists who state unequivocally that Cook misstated their positions and findings are wrong?

My citations, all but one of which occurred after Doran, are out of date? Makes perfect sense. The argument wasn't whether there was "a consensus". The argument was whether the 97% figure is nonsense designed to use as a bludgeon to crush dissent. Which it is.

What was the consensus in Galileo's day?

Shifting gears won't help.... the assertion that 97% of climate scientist agree is the question. You, nor your op-ed sources, have not refuted post Cook data.

Now if you want to shift gears to does consensus mean anything, I would agree in the moment it is useful, in the long view pretty much meaningless...

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

Shifting gears won't help.... the assertion that 97% of climate scientist agree is the question. You, nor your op-ed sources, have not refuted post Cook data.

Now if you want to shift gears to does consensus mean anything, I would agree in the moment it is useful, in the long view pretty much meaningless...

I didn't shift gears. You did above. I merely responded to you.

Please provide any survey of a group of relevant scientists indicating 97% consensus.

http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/fil...ence-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...ists-undercuts-climate-alarmism/#3e85e4b627f8

https://gmuchss.az1.qualtrics.com/CP/File.php?F=F_cRR9lW0HjZaiVV3

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...sts-are-global-warming-skeptics/#6548b8327336

http://www.ametsoc.org/boardpges/cw...02-AMS-Member-Survey-Preliminary-Findings.pdf

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...lobal-warming-climate-consensus/#6629380a535f

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1





http://climatechangedispatch.com/97-articles-refuting-the-97-percent-consensus.html/

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...ptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#10df4418171b

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

And in the 70s before that, the leftists predicted we were headed for another ice age.

Just last year, because Temps were cooler, the code word became "climate change" instead of global warming.

Now we can talk of global warming again because of unseasonably warmer temperatures.

During the 1970's oncologists had some tremendous failures in cancer treatments. You reject the latest oncology trends? Name me a scientific discipline that hasn't progressed and improved since the 1970's. This point just smacks of throwing out whatever argument you can to defeat an idea.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

During the 1970's oncologists had some tremendous failures in cancer treatments. You reject the latest oncology trends? Name me a scientific discipline that hasn't progressed and improved since the 1970's. This point just smacks of throwing out whatever argument you can to defeat an idea.

What's your response to those scientists publishing data in the 1960's/1970's/early80's showing the temperature cooling after 1940 and the rise in sea levels slowing in support of the aforementioned then prevailing theories, but now the same organizations (or their successors) publishing data with that information altered or white washed?

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

What's your response to those scientists publishing data in the 1960's/1970's/early80's showing the temperature cooling after 1940 and the rise in sea levels slowing in support of the aforementioned then prevailing theories, but now the same organizations (or their successors) publishing data with that information altered or white washed?

First, I haven't seen a list of misinformation from the skeptics. Have you ever compiled such a list or looked into that? Or would it be relevant to you in forming your opinion?

I've listened to the skeptics' arguments with interest and they generally precisely track the tobacco industry's arguments over decades. I was initially as open minded about carbon-induced climate change as the next guy, and many of the skeptic's arguments are borderline frivolous on the surface.

None of us would discard scientific consensus because that field of study had unethical conduct at some time. Cardiologists have been busted performing unnecessary heart procedures but we all still go to cardiologists if we have chest pains. The argument that "people were wrong in the 70's so don't listen to consensus today" is just anti-scientific and sounds like corporate p.r. we've all heard before.

One last thing --- I really want to hear a skepticism argument from someone that holds a political opinion that could potentially negatively impact their bottom line. If Harry's point about credibility is to be believed, then I want to see a skeptic pipe up that will accept some other government action that might cost them money. In other words, let's weed out the skeptics that seem to be reflexively against anything that potentially costs them money.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

The U.S. dietary recommendations on a heart healthy diet have literally been killing people and creating child obesity problems for decades and the AHA went along with it even though A LOT of cardiologists and researchers in cardiology knew FROM THE BEGINNING that it was 100% bullshit.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

The U.S. dietary recommendations on a heart healthy diet have literally been killing people and creating child obesity problems for decades and the AHA went along with it even though A LOT of cardiologists and researchers in cardiology knew FROM THE BEGINNING that it was 100% bullshit.

Okay. So who you gonna call when you have chest pains?

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

Okay. So who you gonna call when you have chest pains?

You missed the point about like Texas Tech's place kicker attempting a game tying PAT.

 

[twiza]

I hate how some of these topics have turned so black & white with people. I'm convinced that humans are losing the ability to problem solve. I would say a lot of blame is actually on the media. I have friends that will tell me about a study they read. They introduce it has that is the new standard. NO....we need context....and we need it to be peer reviewed and haggled over. However, when science is wrong I don't look at is as a horrible thing and discredit science. Science is always trying to build on itself. It is always trying to solve problems. In terms of global warming, I have seen data points from conservatives & liberals that is only temperature readings from a certain sources and they start their analysis at a very convenient times. A politician is the last person I trust trying to solve a global warming issue. A carbon tax is exactly what you get in that scenario. I want to see how countries are going to work together to stop deforestation? What is causing the big blob of warm water in the pacific? How to extract carbon from the air? What are sustainable renewable sources of energy? Innovation is what has made our species great and especially our country great. Sometimes we miss on things sure, but we can't stop trying to do better. I want to see us attempt to do the right thing or the best option and I have doubts that it is a point of view from the far left or far right. Rant Complete

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

Only one side threatens to throw the other side in prison, compares them to war criminals, or destroys their career based upon their views on said subject.

 

[long-duc-dong]

This should put a dent in the heat.


http://www.fox5ny.com/news/220448846-story

 

[SquinkY5786]

What are sustainable renewable sources of energy? I

I still believe Solar will be a very large part of the future. At least residentially. Nuclear is a great option. Wind just causes issues.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

Anything realistic that is non petroleum or coal based MUST (for the foreseeable future) include nuclear to make any sort of appreciable difference.

 

[SquinkY5786]

Anything realistic that is non petroleum or coal based MUST (for the foreseeable future) include nuclear to make any sort of appreciable difference.

Yes. Very much so. Problem is the amount of red tape involved in bringing new reactors online. And even though they are very safe at this point I still would prefer not live near one.

 

[twiza]

I have a friend that works in the nuclear industry and he says the red tape is a huge pain. He mentioned that we could be like France and reuse fuel rods but it isn't allowed here.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

Construction of the one in Tennessee that just came on line earlier this year began over 40 years ago. It was halted in 1985. It will get easier going forward though, I believe.

 

[JonnyVito]

Fusion is the future boys and gals. I think in 5 years a break through is made in this area and all this talk is mute. Focus on the Oceans they will be gone in 10 years. Well not gone but dead.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

Fusion is the future boys and gals. I think in 5 years a break through is made in this area and all this talk is mute. Focus on the Oceans they will be gone in 10 years. Well not gone but dead.

Doubtful on both counts.

 

[JonnyVito]

Doubtful on both counts.

Dude there won't be any fish left in 10 years they way things are going I promise you that. Asia is raping the ocean in front of everyone and we are just taking it. I spend a lot of time in the ocean in different parts of the world and trust me it has went down hill in less then 10 years. We can disagree on the issue. You won't change my mind on it I have seen it first hand.

 

[N. Pappagiorgio]

Fusion is the future boys and gals. I think in 5 years a break through is made in this area and all this talk is mute. Focus on the Oceans they will be gone in 10 years. Well not gone but dead.

*moot

 

[AC_Exotic]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...ptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#5fbcd160171b

 

[GoPokes43]

The purported GW trend is just random noise:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/08/global-warming-fails-the-random-natural-variation-contest/

 

[Alpha Poke]

About the best solution I can think of is putting all livestock on the planet in diapers.

It's doable.

 

[AC_Exotic]

I read somewhere today that research is showing that solar panels are doing more to increase global warming that fossil fuels.

Heads are exploding.

 

[Alpha Poke]

 

[AC_Exotic]

 

[AC_Exotic]

 

[windriverrange]

The 70's called, they're still waiting on their mini ice-age.

 

[imprimis]

I read somewhere today that research is showing that solar panels are doing more to increase global warming that fossil fuels.

Heads are exploding.

Why not? Isn't ethanol a more costly product to produce than any savings in achieves?

 

[JimmyBob]

Good gawd, whoTF put this turd thread in our punchbowl?

 

[davidallen]

Ummm yeah... nothing to see here....

 

[AC_Exotic]

Ummm yeah... nothing to see here....

That's what Al Gore said.

 

[N. Pappagiorgio]

Ummm yeah... nothing to see here....

Could you draw in the line assuming all cars in the US were electric? And then one that assumes the US has no cars. That would be super helpful.

 

[davidallen]

That's what Al Gore said.

Insightful

 

[davidallen]

Could you draw in the line assuming all cars in the US were electric? And then one that assumes the US has no cars. That would be super helpful.

You need a meme to go with that... would be epic.

 

[N. Pappagiorgio]

You need a meme to go with that... would be epic.

Meme's are awesome. I'll look for one on AOL or myspace.

 

[davidallen]

Meme's are awesome. I'll look for one on AOL or myspace.

Check with @ThePokewithNoName - he has the best memes...