Real survey of scientists about Global Warming

[smokeyjoe]

I'd like to see another poll - of all climatologists in this poll who agree with man-made GW, how many of them are for using Carbon Credits to combat the problem.

Alternative "clean", "green" and perhaps more cost-effective energy = good, Less pollutants = good, Carbon Credits = Bad. That's my opinion.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: taltamir
Anyways, rather then focusing upon my imagined ignorance of the field, how about my actual suggestion?

Because your suggestion is based in ignorant imagination.

Originally posted by: taltamir
not according to 97% of people who actually study the field... .

If you think those people are suggesting we can control the global temperature and weather, you misunderstood them.

 

[smokeyjoe]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: smack Down
Can we get a poll of chiropractors to see how many of them think Chiropractic is real? Then we can poll biologist and doctor and say that as you get more knowledge of Chiropractic the more likely you are to believe it.

A climatologist will by definition believe in global warming the study is pointless.

heh, interesting question about chiropractic. The question is less is it real, it should be "what does it do"... chiropractic adjustment can certainly feel good, like a massage, and help alliviate backpain and neckpain...
But:
1. most chiropractors fail to mention the health risks.
2. most chiropractors adjust healthy people that don't need it just to make more money.
3. most chiropractors claim it can "cure" things it cannot treat (like the flu).
4. most chiropractors push useless health supplements and other waste.
5. most chiropractors are not real doctors, and dispense bad and misleading advice to sick people. They should be relegated to the same station of a masseuse.
6. chiropractice does not follow the scientific method. it is an art, and the skill varies by the practitioner.

1. climatologists are very "alarmist" about the health risks
2. GW is utilized to make money off of carbon credits
3. "carbon offsets" make dubious claims as well
4. see number 3
5. see IPCC report and "alarmist" climatologists
6. see number 5

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: smack Down
Can we get a poll of chiropractors to see how many of them think Chiropractic is real? Then we can poll biologist and doctor and say that as you get more knowledge of Chiropractic the more likely you are to believe it.

A climatologist will by definition believe in global warming the study is pointless.

Way to be completely wrong.

Climatology is not the study of global warming, it is the study of earth's climate. It existed long before global warming was ever an issue. So no, a climatologist will not by definition accept global warming.

Didn't you get the memo, they renamed global warming to be climate change.

Uhmmm, apparently you didn't either as that's the term you used? Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that you were wrong about climatologists and their relation to global warming.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: smack Down
Can we get a poll of chiropractors to see how many of them think Chiropractic is real? Then we can poll biologist and doctor and say that as you get more knowledge of Chiropractic the more likely you are to believe it.

A climatologist will by definition believe in global warming the study is pointless.

Way to be completely wrong.

Climatology is not the study of global warming, it is the study of earth's climate. It existed long before global warming was ever an issue. So no, a climatologist will not by definition accept global warming.

Didn't you get the memo, they renamed global warming to be climate change.

Uhmmm, apparently you didn't either as that's the term you used? Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that you were wrong about climatologists and their relation to global warming.

No I'm not climatologists study climate change if it wasn't warming they where whining about it would be cooling or wetting, or drying or any other junk science. By definition they are looking for change.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: taltamir
Anyways, rather then focusing upon my imagined ignorance of the field, how about my actual suggestion?

Because your suggestion is based in ignorant imagination.

Originally posted by: taltamir
not according to 97% of people who actually study the field... .

If you think those people are suggesting we can control the global temperature and weather, you misunderstood them.

except my lack of knowledge is purely your imagination and has yet to be demonstrated. Yes I know the name of the field, yes I know it exist. I also know that it lacks accuracy and funding and that the closest we came to a working system required massive distributed computing programs... And that those are not taken by any organization to help determine policy, policy is based on the feelings of politicians rather than on concrete science.

 

[smokeyjoe]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: taltamir
Anyways, rather then focusing upon my imagined ignorance of the field, how about my actual suggestion?

Because your suggestion is based in ignorant imagination.

Originally posted by: taltamir
not according to 97% of people who actually study the field... .

If you think those people are suggesting we can control the global temperature and weather, you misunderstood them.

except my lack of knowledge is purely your imagination and has yet to be demonstrated. Yes I know the name of the field, yes I know it exist. I also know that it lacks accuracy and funding and that the closest we came to a working system required massive distributed computing programs... And that those are not taken by any organization to help determine policy, policy is based on the feelings of politicians rather than on concrete science.

I think if could just find a repeating string of numbers in Pi, we could predict and control the weather.. like Storm.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: smack Down
Can we get a poll of chiropractors to see how many of them think Chiropractic is real? Then we can poll biologist and doctor and say that as you get more knowledge of Chiropractic the more likely you are to believe it.

A climatologist will by definition believe in global warming the study is pointless.

Way to be completely wrong.

Climatology is not the study of global warming, it is the study of earth's climate. It existed long before global warming was ever an issue. So no, a climatologist will not by definition accept global warming.

Didn't you get the memo, they renamed global warming to be climate change.

Uhmmm, apparently you didn't either as that's the term you used? Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that you were wrong about climatologists and their relation to global warming.

No I'm not climatologists study climate change if it wasn't warming they where whining about it would be cooling or wetting, or drying or any other junk science. By definition they are looking for change.

Are you serious? Do you honestly not understand the difference between studying a fundamentally variable system, and seeing an external forcing mechanism that is changing its basis? That these are two totally different kinds of change?

To be honest I don't even really know how to answer what you said. Effectively you just stated that climatology is nothing more than a bunch of chicken little people running around to justify their own existence. That is breathtakingly ignorant. If so, climatologists have been doing so for about a thousand years. Guess they've just been fooling everyone for a millennium or so.

 

[smokeyjoe]

So if 2 people fly roundtrip between London/Heathrow to NY/JFK, they travel 11080 miles and the trip costs 3.07 tons of CO2 carbon emissions.. but for 26.45 euros, they can offset this.. what a deal!!

http://www.jpmorganclimatecare.com/britishairways/

Just the fact that JPMorgan is in on this should be a red flag..

edited: had number wrong

edit: This is just too funny..

Why are you not a charity?
We want people to pay us for a service, and thereby make the link between their actions and the climate and take responsibility for them. [How nice of them]This is subtly different to people donating money to good works. When we started up we felt our service should not be simply seen as 'doing good'. There is also the concern that if cleaning up pollution was adopted as a charitable goal, then the scale of the problem would mean that charitable giving to other sectors could be severely curtailed.

http://www.jpmorganclimatecare.com/britishairways/faq/

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: smack Down
Can we get a poll of chiropractors to see how many of them think Chiropractic is real? Then we can poll biologist and doctor and say that as you get more knowledge of Chiropractic the more likely you are to believe it.

A climatologist will by definition believe in global warming the study is pointless.

Way to be completely wrong.

Climatology is not the study of global warming, it is the study of earth's climate. It existed long before global warming was ever an issue. So no, a climatologist will not by definition accept global warming.

Didn't you get the memo, they renamed global warming to be climate change.

Uhmmm, apparently you didn't either as that's the term you used? Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that you were wrong about climatologists and their relation to global warming.

No I'm not climatologists study climate change if it wasn't warming they where whining about it would be cooling or wetting, or drying or any other junk science. By definition they are looking for change.

Are you serious? Do you honestly not understand the difference between studying a fundamentally variable system, and seeing an external forcing mechanism that is changing its basis? That these are two totally different kinds of change?

To be honest I don't even really know how to answer what you said. Effectively you just stated that climatology is nothing more than a bunch of chicken little people running around to justify their own existence. That is breathtakingly ignorant. If so, climatologists have been doing so for about a thousand years. Guess they've just been fooling everyone for a millennium or so.

Let me guess you also believe your horoscope because astrologist have been making those up for millennium and they add a -ologist to their name so they must be correct.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Are you serious? Do you honestly not understand the difference between studying a fundamentally variable system, and seeing an external forcing mechanism that is changing its basis? That these are two totally different kinds of change?

To be honest I don't even really know how to answer what you said. Effectively you just stated that climatology is nothing more than a bunch of chicken little people running around to justify their own existence. That is breathtakingly ignorant. If so, climatologists have been doing so for about a thousand years. Guess they've just been fooling everyone for a millennium or so.

Let me guess you also believe your horoscope because astrologist have been making those up for millennium and they add a -ologist to their name so they must be correct.

No.

I'm sorry if you don't accept climatology, but then again some people believe we faked the moon landing. I'm guessing the percentages between the two are about the same. You need to wake up, man.

 

[smokeyjoe]

Wake up to the THREAT OF CLIMATE CHANGE!!

"Whether a friend or relation, [carbon] offsetting a whole year?s life for a new baby could not offer a more positive start to life."

Click "Gift", then "Christening".

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: NeoV
Article Here

Various types of Geoscience scientists surveyed.

Overall, 82% agreed that human activity has played a significant role in the increase of global mean temperatures (90% agreed with a rise in global mean temps).

Interesting that 97% of climatologists - people that actually study this stuff, agreed that humans are playing a role.

Only 64% of meteorologists, and 47% of Petroleum Geologists, agreed that humans are playing a role in this increase.

Good line from one of the survey's authors "The more you know about the field of climate science, the more likely you're to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it".

Before any of you closet PHD's in climatology chime in - oops, that's right, NO ONE on AT P&N is one of those - these are people that know more about this stuff THAN ALL OF US PUT TOGETHER.

IF that isn't a consensus, I don't know what is.

This doesn't mean the issue isn't open for debate, but it does mean that ANY of the psudo-science that the anti-gw crowd likes to pull out of their arses, like "it's a solar issue, the temp on Mars is increasing as well" - these scientists are pretty much giving you the finger, they know this stuff and have actual data and research behind their opinions, not talking points BS and outright lies.

Put aside your hatred of all things Gore, and ask yourself - what's so bad about reducing pollution and lowering our dependence on foreign oil? There might be some painful steps to get there, like corn-based ethanol, but it's a step in the right direction, and although it's 30 years later than it should have been, I'm happy to see these things are finally front and center, and not election year jokes (Bush mocked Gore's proposal to give tax credits to owners of electric or hybrid cars in 1999 btw).

The study failed to mention, however, that 100% of those climatologists' paychecks are dependent on their answer.

Folks have to stop trying to use this as an argument as it applies to GW imo. It doesn't hold any water. Both sides of the issue have the people you are describing with equal dependencies. Since you are implying we can't trust the ones that are only looking out for their own best interests then I guess we can't trust either side of this issue then. I guess we have to use something different to gauge who is telling the truth and who is trying to cover their ass.

 

[taltamir]

eskimospy, being right for the wrong reason is not scientific... or a good idea in general. It is just luck...

The argument of climatologists not fooling the world is a fallacy, because that can be applied to any charlatan act that went on for a while, like horoscope making.

What you would need is a valid non fallacy argument that either proves or disprove the notion.

However, if you don't have the time or effort, its a matter of trust. Which is what the "scientific community" is for... is the field considered a joke by other scientists who have studied it in passing, or is it considered a real scientific branch. Obviously not as good as examining it yourself, but I think that is what you meant based on the other things you have said.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: smokeyjoe
Wake up to the THREAT OF CLIMATE CHANGE!!

"Whether a friend or relation, [carbon] offsetting a whole year?s life for a new baby could not offer a more positive start to life."

Click "Gift", then "Christening".

... just no.

 

[smokeyjoe]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: smokeyjoe
Wake up to the THREAT OF CLIMATE CHANGE!!

"Whether a friend or relation, [carbon] offsetting a whole year?s life for a new baby could not offer a more positive start to life."

Click "Gift", then "Christening".

... just no.

No? You don't like this method of fighting the threat of climate change? You are not a supporter of carbon credits?

This is the plan that will save the planet according to the UN and Gore.. so be ready if this becomes mandatory someday. Obama wants to implement a similar cap-and-trade system. What they've effectively done is created a trade market for these credits so they can make money from it. It's shaping up to be a billion dollar industry.

 

[taltamir]

it is all a matter of implementation. I am not opposed to the idea, or for the idea... I am for smart implementations and against stupid ones. (same with gun control or many other issues, forget the sound bites and tell me HOW you plan on implementing such a system).

 

[smokeyjoe]

Originally posted by: taltamir
it is all a matter of implementation. I am not opposed to the idea, or for the idea... I am for smart implementations and against stupid ones. (same with gun control or many other issues, forget the sound bites and tell me HOW you plan on implementing such a system).

You should be more concerned about if a particular system is viable or just plain crap. If the idea is crap, who cares if it is implemented with precision and insert another adjective that is complementary to the implementation of a log of turd.

 

[taltamir]

Let me give you an example... If someone says they are for "tightened airport security" and by that they mean "improved databases for tracking, reduce false positives via removal of known common names, and giving guns to pilots" than that is smart implementation. If someone said they are for "tightened airport security" and by that they mean more "did you pack your own bags" questions and more double negative questions (when I last came into the states I had to fill in a 40 question scantron... questions included "are you a terrorist" and "are you NOT a terrorist"... answer yes or no for every question, you can't just answer no to all since they are opposite and double negatives abound)... well that is STUPID implementation, does nothing for secuirty...

On the other hand someone can say they are for "relaxed airport security" by which they mean "forbid pilots from carrying their own guns on the plane even if they bought them themselves and want to be able to protect the plane in case of an emergency"... that is stupid... a person saying he is for "relaxed airport security" and means "eliminate the dumb questions they ask you" that is smart...

 

[BrownTown]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Especially when their jobs and funding are at stake.

Yep... global conspiracy by climatologists to keep the funding flowing.

They aren't making boatloads of money doing this research. And it is actually in their interest to disprove current models and come up with a better model since in the process they'll make a huge name for themselves.

how come when someone makes money on coal or oil they are a terrible person, but if they make money on wind and solar they are a saint? Why is everything coal and oil companies do a conspiracy, and everything solar and wind companies do is a miracle from heaven?

Also of note is the fact that the same companies often make both. For example GE makes parts for wind, nuclear, coal, natural gas, and probably even solar. The company I work for will build you any damn type of plant you want, we don't care if its nuclear, IGCC, coal, natural gas, solar, geothermal etc, so long as you PAY us its all good .

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Are you serious? Do you honestly not understand the difference between studying a fundamentally variable system, and seeing an external forcing mechanism that is changing its basis? That these are two totally different kinds of change?

To be honest I don't even really know how to answer what you said. Effectively you just stated that climatology is nothing more than a bunch of chicken little people running around to justify their own existence. That is breathtakingly ignorant. If so, climatologists have been doing so for about a thousand years. Guess they've just been fooling everyone for a millennium or so.

Let me guess you also believe your horoscope because astrologist have been making those up for millennium and they add a -ologist to their name so they must be correct.

No.

I'm sorry if you don't accept climatology, but then again some people believe we faked the moon landing. I'm guessing the percentages between the two are about the same. You need to wake up, man.

Dumb. He never said he doesn't accept climatology. Are you really this lacking in reading comprehension to realize that contending a part of a science doesn't mean the person doesn't accept the whole school of said science?

 

[smokeyjoe]

Originally posted by: taltamir
Let me give you an example... If someone says they are for "tightened airport security" and by that they mean "improved databases for tracking, reduce false positives via removal of known common names, and giving guns to pilots" than that is smart implementation. If someone said they are for "tightened airport security" and by that they mean more "did you pack your own bags" questions and more double negative questions (when I last came into the states I had to fill in a 40 question scantron... questions included "are you a terrorist" and "are you NOT a terrorist"... answer yes or no for every question, you can't just answer no to all since they are opposite and double negatives abound)... well that is STUPID implementation, does nothing for secuirty...

On the other hand someone can say they are for "relaxed airport security" by which they mean "forbid pilots from carrying their own guns on the plane even if they bought them themselves and want to be able to protect the plane in case of an emergency"... that is stupid... a person saying he is for "relaxed airport security" and means "eliminate the dumb questions they ask you" that is smart...

All I can say is hope you take a close look at this plan of carbon credits and decide from there. I, for one, think it is a misguided, deceptive piece of crap. It is like asking someone if they are a terrorist, to borrow from your example.. maybe not the most congruous analogy, but you know what I mean

 

[taltamir]

All I can say is hope you take a close look at this plan of carbon credits and decide from there. I, for one, think it is a misguided, deceptive piece of crap. It is like asking someone if they are a terrorist, to borrow from your example.. maybe not the most congruous analogy, but you know what I mean

When did I ever talk about the carbon credits plan?
If I was to take my analogy here... it would be an issue of "I am for stricter environmental protections" or "I am for relaxed environmental protections". And carbon credits could possibly be supported by both sides. The only difference is the emotional process they go through to reach such a conclusion. (yes, emotional process, not logical). Anyways I can think of good and bad ways to implement a "credit" system... But I cannot possibly imagine the government implementing such a thing in a good way.

 

[TheDoc9]

I've known a few scientists, these girls are all different than most regular people. They really do have to produce results or lose their funding. Their job and life in general, even the way they talk is all about ego and needing to be right and prove that --- they were right with whatever they're doing. Some are worse than others, but generally they have no clue about anything and they're trying to prove something.

Bottom line is, I wouldn't trust any 'fact' someone like that told me, nor would I accept any of their recommendations about anything. And when it comes to weather, they can't even predict accuracy to two days, If you believe they can predict some kind of global catastrophe just meet a few of them in person. It might change your mind.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TheDoc9
I've known a few scientists, these girls are all different than most regular people. They really do have to produce results or lose their funding. Their job and life in general, even the way they talk is all about ego and needing to be right and prove that --- they were right with whatever they're doing. Some are worse than others, but generally they have no clue about anything and they're trying to prove something.

Bottom line is, I wouldn't trust any 'fact' someone like that told me, nor would I accept any of their recommendations about anything. And when it comes to weather, they can't even predict accuracy to two days, If you believe they can predict some kind of global catastrophe just meet a few of them in person. It might change your mind.

Yeah man, all of science is crap! This computer we're typing on is a figment of our collective imagination.

Your ending analogy is not good either. Predicting long term trends is very different than predicting short term ones. How many hits is Alex Rodriguez going to get on opening day? I have no idea, and would never try to predict that. It's a pretty safe prediction that he's going to hit somewhere around .300 for the year though.