#8418 May 1, 2013
#8419 May 1, 2013
650 Climate Skeptics?
Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe's Press Blog features tidbits like:
U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007. Senate Report Debunks "Consensus" (Report Released on December 20, 2007) U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (Minority)
U.S. Senate Minority Report Update: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims (December 11, 2008)
UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims (December 10, 2008)
The first question that comes to mind after reading these reports is: who are all these dissenters? Can we get a list? So I went through the entire blog and pulled out all the names of alleged dissenters and looked at their credentials. There are indeed over 650 names on the list. After weeding out duplicates and people whose expertise couldn't be clearly identified (they were described simply as "scientist" or identified just by name as signers of a document, for example) I ended up with just over 600 individuals. I broke them down into four categories:
Credentials Relevant to Climate Change
Total: 98 (16%)
Credentials Possibly Relevant to Climate Change
Total: 162 (27%)
Credentials Not Relevant to Climate Change
Total: 310 (51%)
No Scientific Credentials
Total: 40 (7%)
Bottom line: 58% of the "experts" quoted on Inhofe's blog have no credentials in climate research and only 16% have top-notch credentials.
Who's A Skeptic?
By the standards used by climate change denialists, almost any scientist could be a "skeptic." A substantial fraction of so called "skeptical" remarks quoted by Inhofe are things that everybody in climate research openly admits: the uncertainty of climate models, the likelihood that solar variability plays a role in climate change, the difficulty of separating human caused change from long term natural cycles, and so on. It is entirely possible that many of the scientists quoted as "skeptics" don't know they have been so quoted and would take vigorous exception to being characterized as skeptics. The remarks attributed to "skeptical" scientists range from responsible statements of known uncertainties all the way to irresponsible, even incompetent, statements by people who knowingly distort their credentials.
#8420 May 1, 2013
Like I posted before, you are a gullible fish called a Guppy.
" RealClimate.org is assumed by those who do not know any better to be an "objective" source on climate change. It features activist scientists with degrees in Geology, Geosciences, Mathematics, Oceanography and Physics who are all self proclaimed "climatologists". Yet skeptical scientists with equivalent credentials are not (probably because they have not proclaimed it). Essentially the site exists to promote global warming alarm-ism and attack anyone who does not agree with their declaration of doomsday (proven of course by their own computer climate models) and the need for government intervention against the life supporting, atmospheric trace gas,carbon dioxide. Standard operating procedure is to post "rebuttals" to everything they disagree with and then declare victory, making sure to censor comments challenging their position. It doesn't matter if they actual rebutted any of the science or facts just so long as they provide the existence of a criticism. This gives their fanboys "ammunition" to further promote alarmist propaganda across the Internet (and of course declare victory). Their resident propagandist William Connolley's job is to edit dissent and smear skeptical scientists on Wikipedia. In the world of global warming alarmist "science" pretending you win is apparently all that matters because in real debates they lose. The truth is that RealClimate.org is an environmentalist shill site directly connected to an eco-activist group, Environmental Media Services and Al Gore but they don't want you to know that."
#8421 May 1, 2013
Let's see what a true Libertard has to say...
Rand Paul would have supported drone use in hunt for marathon bomber
By Justin Sink - 04/23/13 10:56 AM ET
...Last month, Paul conducted a nearly 13-hour filibuster on the Senate floor after the Obama Administration said in a letter that it was theoretically possible for President Obama to authorize a lethal drone strike on an American citizen under "extraordinary circumstances." The administration subsequently clarified that they did not believe the president had the authority to "use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat."
Paul said that the question of an "imminent threat" was the pivotal one when considering drone policy.
“Here’s the distinction — I have never argued against any technology being used against having an imminent threat an act of crime going on," Paul said. "If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him, but it’s different if they want to come fly over your hot tub, or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activities."
#8422 May 1, 2013
I think at this stage we've pretty much put the nail in the coffin of the dissenters with absolute facts.
The problem is, they just don't care. They LIKE the way the lies sound, so they'll knowingly keep clinging to them and repeating them.
Weird, isn't it? Just more proof that we're not dealing with intelligent rational people.
#8423 May 1, 2013
Your source is The Heartland Institute...
The Heartland Institute, according to the Institute's web site, is a nonprofit "think tank" that questions the reality and import of climate change, second-hand smoke health hazards, and a host of other issues that might seem to require government regulation. A July 2011 Nature editorial points out the group's lack of credibility:
"Despite criticizing climate scientists for being overconfident about their data, models and theories, the Heartland Institute proclaims a conspicuous confidence in single studies and grand interpretations....makes many bold assertions that are often questionable or misleading.... Many climate sceptics seem to review scientific data and studies not as scientists but as attorneys, magnifying doubts and treating incomplete explanations as falsehoods rather than signs of progress towards the truth.... The Heartland Institute and its ilk are not trying to build a theory of anything. They have set the bar much lower, and are happy muddying the waters."
#8425 May 1, 2013
I'm BORED with all your BS. It is hopeless with you so keep on doing what you do best!
Since: Jan 10
#8426 May 1, 2013
Oh, the irony of this post from this poster, one who has had his/her a$$ handed to him/her so many times under so many names...
#8427 May 1, 2013
When you are fed BS by a libtard website, do you really expect anyone to believe you?
Work Group 1 (known as the FOD group) you got correct, including biased scientist from that sorry website you quoted. I mean they gotta blow their own horn.
Work group 2 (the SOD group) is portrayed by your sorry website as
assessed by social scientists, ecologists, etc. WRONG.
Group 2 is made up of experts(same as group one)and Governments.
"Working Group II assesses the scientific, technical, environmental, economic and social aspects of the vulnerability (sensitivity and adaptability) to climate change of, and the negative and positive consequences for, ecological systems, socio-economic sectors and human health, with an emphasis on regional sectoral and cross-sectoral issues. At the 29th Session of the IPCC (31 August - 4 September 2008 • Geneva, Switzerland), new Working Group II co-chairs were elected to oversee development of the Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability volume of the Fifth Assessment Report: Dr. Chris Field of the United States and Dr. Vicente Barros of Argentina.
The TSU plays a strong scientific leadership role, both in content for Expert Meetings, Special Reports, and the Fifth Assessment Report, as well as in management of the complex communications and implementation associated with IPCC activities. The TSU facilitates the work of the hundreds of volunteer authors and participants who contribute to these products, and ensures wide dissemination of the findings to a broad range of audiences – from the lay public and students to the scientific community and an array of stakeholders. The TSU is housed at the Carnegie Institution for Science in Stanford, California, USA."
""hundreds of volunteer authors and participants who contribute to these products,""
Anyone who considers them self a stakeholder can volunteer, must present credentials to the IPCC. I'm sure many of the libtards on topix with their ability to create a lot of BS would qualify, go for it.
Work Group 3 (the SPM group) will be a government review of the final draft of the Summary for Policymakers. Which is entirely different than what you posted from your sorry website.
government review = politician involvement, and we are right back where we started from, biased opinions about Climate conditions.
Man has a tendency to find news ways to live off taxpayers, always have, always will.
Maybe you need a job government job, maybe you have a government job already.
#8428 May 1, 2013
They just LOVE the Heartland Institute. It keeps telling them what they want to hear. They don't care that we've proven it's paid BS from the Big Energy companies.
The sane reaction to a company like ExxonMobil or Koch Industries intentionally flooding the American marketplace with lies is outrage and boycotts and demands for more transparency and regulations. That would be the sane reaction.
What we see instead is right-wing-whackos running over there begging for more false information. It's pathetic.
#8429 May 1, 2013
I've called you out for being an arrogant azshole a few times. Get over it, it's the truth, it's who you are. You've obviously embraced that in your life. However, you've never "handed my a$$ to me".
You're just a psychopathic thread stalker at this point. And an arrogant and azsholish one at that.
#8430 May 1, 2013
Let's examine this statement...
"Working Group II assesses the scientific, technical, environmental, economic and social aspects"
this sure sounds like this summary...
Working Group 2 (WG2), which deals with impacts of climate change on society and ecosystems, as assessed by social scientists, ecologists, etc.
Thank you for the opportunity to repost this link.
Since: Nov 12
#8432 May 1, 2013
Ur butt has been figuratively kicked in here so many times it must be painful for u to sit on it. Different names, different ISP, same results. Maybe ur too dumb to realize it.
#8433 May 1, 2013
The volumes of books of which we get three minutes to explain!
#8434 May 1, 2013
Well, since this opinion is coming from a known name-jacker and simpleton, I guess I'll have to give it all the consideration it deserves.
Anybody seen a trash can around here?
#8435 May 1, 2013
What is your explanation for obvious global warming? Could it be plants in China and the far east putting tons of toxic waste in our air with little or no pollution controls? Now if you are invested in the stock market your favorite picks may be the ones who need to pay more for pollution control which of cource would slightly effect your companies bottom line. There is a definate warming going on and why are republicans so defensive and in denial? What is causing it?
#8436 May 1, 2013
Once again we independents need to thank the president for not involving this country into another war in Syria. There are those among us who want us to drop everything and go after some leader in a country half way around the world and attempt to bring it to our standard(whatever in hell that is). Now 11 years ago we did the same thing and the country is in worst shape now than before we got deceived into it. How about that fool of a john mccain? Got his azz in a sling for several years over in Vietnam dropping flesh burning napalm on the elderly and pregnant mothers and this fool can't wait to get my country involved into another costly insne war. This guy has got some kind of a chip on his shoulder folks!
#8437 May 1, 2013
#8438 May 1, 2013
Yea, self-insured - sure - that's it.
That's a joke, I hope.
Imagine anyone claiming they are keeping a few extra millions available in petty cash to pay the catastrophic costs when they or their kids get cancer, diabetes, or are injured in a car crash and are paralyzed or suffer brain damage.
Please - don't pretend the average Right Winger is self-insured and so requiring them to purchase medical insurance is unnecessary.
Right Wingers spend their entire lives slurping at the government trough, they're the first to form Trusts to move their Daddy's money into, so that Medicaid will pay Daddy's "Assisted Living" costs. Creating and funding those Trusts to avoid paying for their own nursing home care, avoiding paying creditors is damn near an industry in itself.
After having financially raped the system for years, they scream like little girls whenever they are asked to contribute to pay for the costs they create.
Yep- Right Wing Wackos - their motto is: "I deserve all my money, and most of yours".
#8440 May 1, 2013
The view from Right Wing Planet is obviously skewed. That happens when your planet is so far to the right the middle is far, far, far away.
1- Fascism - the merger of the Government with Oligarchy ( the regulated selecting the regulators). Investments Banksters selected as regulators to regulate Investment Banksters - then returning to be Investment Bankers regulates by other Investment Banksters.
2- A completely disproven argument.
Corporate taxes and taxes on the Ă¼berrich have been cut 83 times since Eisenhower, Corporate profits and productivity are higher than ever before in modern history,(Apple has 145 Billion in cash in offshore banks). If cutting taxes on the rich and corporations increased wages and lowered unemployment, we'd all be making a million a year and unemployment would be at 0%.
3 - Facts obviously don't matter for much on Right Wing Planet.
The U.S. ranks 55th in percentage of GDP spent on education. That educational powerhouse the Sudan spends 27.8% GDP - we spend 5.5%.
4 - Yep - Ray-Gun, Bush, and Obama are all war criminals as far as any rational thinking person believes.
5- It's really overflowing in Right Wing World on this one.
Right Wingers constantly whine that the ACLU and other "Libtards":
- try to stop the Right Wingers forcing religion into public schools,
- fight against the UnPatriot Act that shredded the Constitution;
- fight for Constitutional rights for those the government decides to secretly kidnap, torture and imprison because one drug lord got paid $50,000 to accuse one if his enemies of being a "terrorist";
- fight against the "police state" that imprisons more if its citizens than any other industrialized country.
Yep, Right Wingers love Fascism - it protects the rich and powerful and ignores that pesky Constitution.
|The Billy Crowder Case (Mar '12)||Jan 31||Disgusted||109|
|Dairy accident||Jan 30||Justwannaknow||1|
|ISIS Holy Men Approve Eating Infidels||Jan 21||Vote For Trump||5|
|Listen; Trump, Trump, Trump||Jan 21||Vote For Trump||2|
|McDonalds in Ludowici (Apr '06)||Dec '15||pondscogin||17|
|Car dealers||Dec '15||Marcus||2|
|Local shop owner ripping off a disabled veteran!!!||Dec '15||Mrmr||2|
Find what you want!
Search Jesup Forum Now
Copyright © 2016 Topix LLC
Enter your email to get updates on this discussion.