Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel

Full story: Newsday 71,188
Safety pins and screws are still lodged in 15-year-old Ami Ortiz's body three months after he opened a booby-trapped gift basket sent to his family. Full Story
former res

Cheshire, CT

#52695 May 17, 2013
Voluntarist wrote:
<quoted text>
I was referring to applicability
You wrote:

"Same goes for you who believes that the constitution and laws are applicable to you."

I believe nothing.

I pay for the reasons I stated.

Nothing to do with belief.

Thank you.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#52696 May 17, 2013
Voluntarist wrote:
<quoted text>
Necessity is the mother of invention
Has the starvation-induced invention theory worked well
for the many in Africa?

It's ok to be honest but not to pretend you care when you make no sense.

Perhaps I misunderstood you. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and a chance to explain...

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#52697 May 17, 2013
Voluntarist wrote:
<quoted text>
Not true I care about poor people but the government doesn't teach a man how to fish
Factually incorrect

http://www.ct.gov/deep/cwp/view.asp...

Connecticut Aquatic Resources Education (CARE)
Schedule of Classes
Voluntarist

United States

#52698 May 17, 2013
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
You wrote:
"Same goes for you who believes that the constitution and laws are applicable to you."
I believe nothing.
I pay for the reasons I stated.
Nothing to do with belief.
Thank you.
Ok so you are now on the fence, whether the constitution and laws apply to you, I believe that we made progress.
Voluntarist

United States

#52699 May 17, 2013
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
Factually incorrect
http://www.ct.gov/deep/cwp/view.asp...
Connecticut Aquatic Resources Education (CARE)
Schedule of Classes
Factually incorrect, see snap benefits, they aren't teaching anyone anything at the snap program .

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#52700 May 17, 2013
New Study: Climate Scientists Overwhelmingly Agree Global Warming Is Real and Our Fault

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013...

A new study has just come out that looked at nearly 12,000 professional scientific journal papers about global warming, and found that—of the papers expressing a stance on global warming—97 percent endorse both the reality of global warming and the fact that humans are causing it.

Ninety-seven percent. That’s what we call a “consensus”, folks.

The study was clever. They found the papers by searching on the terms “global warming” and “global climate change”. Once they compiled the list of papers, they looked at the abstracts (a short summary of the results scientists put at the top of their papers) to see if the paper itself talked about the causes of global warming. About 4000 of the papers did so. That may seem like a smallish fraction, but most papers analyze measurements and climate effects, not the cause of global warming (like most astronomical papers on, say, galaxies don’t discuss how galaxies form, but focus on their structure, content, and so on—also, because there is such a strong consensus on warming, scientists don't generally feel the need to state the obvious in their abstracts).

Examining those 4000 papers, the study authors determined that 97.1 percent of them endorsed the consensus that humans are causing global warming. And here’s where they did the clever bit: They contacted 8500 authors of the papers in question and asked them to self-rate those papers. They got responses from 1200 authors (a nice fraction), and, using the same criteria as the study, it turns out 97.2 percent of the authors endorse the consensus.

That’s a remarkable agreement! And it’s no surprise. There have been several studies showing almost exactly the same thing. This new one is interesting due to the methodology, and the fact that it’s so robust.

So, the bottom line: The vast majority of scientists who conduct climatological research and publish their results in professional journals say humans are the cause of global warming. There is essentially no controversy among actual climate scientists about this.

Of course, if you read the Wall Street Journal or the contrarian blogs, you might think the controversy among scientists is bigger. But you’ll find that the vast majority of people writing those articles, or who are quoted in them, are not climatologists. You’ll also find many, including politicians so vocally denying global warming, are heavily funded by fossil fuel interests, or lead institutes funded that way.

Because deniers tend to go to the OpEd pages and TV, rather than science journals, the public perception is skewed in their favor; people think this is a bigger controversy than it is. The only controversy here is a manufactured one; made up by people who are basing it on ideology, not facts, evidence, and science. That’s not just my opinion; that statement itself is backed up by facts, evidence, and science.

Global warming is real. Climate change is happening. Carbon dioxide in the air is increasing, and is at a higher level than it has been for the past three million years. That carbon dioxide is increasingly heating us up: we are warming at a rate faster than in the past 11,000 years, and most likely far longer than that.

And it’s our fault. It’s well past time we do something about it, and we need to get past this false controversy. For more information, go to The Consensus Project, and see what we can do about it.
Voluntarist

United States

#52701 May 17, 2013
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
Has the starvation-induced invention theory worked well
for the many in Africa?
It's ok to be honest but not to pretend you care when you make no sense.
Perhaps I misunderstood you. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and a chance to explain...
Africa is a big place, be more specific.

When was the last time that you a) ran across someone that was starving and b) fed them
?

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#52702 May 17, 2013
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/02402...

ABSTRACT

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11&#8201;944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#52703 May 17, 2013
5. Conclusion

The public perception of a scientific consensus on AGW is a necessary element in public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011). However, there is a significant gap between public perception and reality, with 57% of the US public either disagreeing or unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due to human activity (Pew 2012).

Contributing to this 'consensus gap' are campaigns designed to confuse the public about the level of agreement among climate scientists. In 1991, Western Fuels Association conducted a $510&#8201;000 campaign whose primary goal was to 'reposition global warming as theory (not fact)'. A key strategy involved constructing the impression of active scientific debate using dissenting scientists as spokesmen (Oreskes 2010). The situation is exacerbated by media treatment of the climate issue, where the normative practice of providing opposing sides with equal attention has allowed a vocal minority to have their views amplified (Boykoff and Boykoff 2004). While there are indications that the situation has improved in the UK and USA prestige press (Boykoff 2007), the UK tabloid press showed no indication of improvement from 2000 to 2006 (Boykoff and Mansfield 2008).

The narrative presented by some dissenters is that the scientific consensus is '...on the point of collapse'(Oddie 2012) while '...the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year'(Allègre et al 2012). A systematic, comprehensive review of the literature provides quantitative evidence countering this assertion. The number of papers rejecting AGW is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#52704 May 17, 2013
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
Factually incorrect
http://www.ct.gov/deep/cwp/view.asp...
Connecticut Aquatic Resources Education (CARE)
Schedule of Classes
Funny!

I think ATF has a perfect record of being wrong.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#52705 May 17, 2013
Voluntarist wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok so you are now on the fence, whether the constitution and laws apply to you, I believe that we made progress.
You're overthinking this.

I told you why I pay taxes and why.

Do you evade your tax obligations?
former res

Cheshire, CT

#52706 May 17, 2013
Voluntarist wrote:
<quoted text>
Africa is a big place, be more specific.
When was the last time that you a) ran across someone that was starving and b) fed them
?
I vote for the pols who support the safety net programs.

And I willingly pay my taxes.

You said you care about poor folks.

What does this look like?
HughBe

Kingston, Jamaica

#52707 May 17, 2013
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
You're overthinking this.
I told you why I pay taxes and why.
Do you evade your tax obligations?
Why do you pay taxes, Former?

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#52710 May 17, 2013
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny!
I think ATF has a perfect record of being wrong.
Yeah, he pretty much hand fed that one to me
Voluntarist

United States

#52711 May 17, 2013
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
You're overthinking this.
I told you why I pay taxes and why.
Do you evade your tax obligations?
No I evade no obligations.
Voluntarist

United States

#52712 May 17, 2013
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
I vote for the pols who support the safety net programs.
And I willingly pay my taxes.
You said you care about poor folks.
What does this look like?
See there is the difference between you and I, I actually physically help people and you hand your money over to institutions thinking that you are doing good.
Voluntarist

United States

#52713 May 17, 2013
Frijoles wrote:
5. Conclusion
The public perception of a scientific consensus on AGW is a necessary element in public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011). However, there is a significant gap between public perception and reality, with 57% of the US public either disagreeing or unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due to human activity (Pew 2012).
Contributing to this 'consensus gap' are campaigns designed to confuse the public about the level of agreement among climate scientists. In 1991, Western Fuels Association conducted a $510&#8201;000 campaign whose primary goal was to 'reposition global warming as theory (not fact)'. A key strategy involved constructing the impression of active scientific debate using dissenting scientists as spokesmen (Oreskes 2010). The situation is exacerbated by media treatment of the climate issue, where the normative practice of providing opposing sides with equal attention has allowed a vocal minority to have their views amplified (Boykoff and Boykoff 2004). While there are indications that the situation has improved in the UK and USA prestige press (Boykoff 2007), the UK tabloid press showed no indication of improvement from 2000 to 2006 (Boykoff and Mansfield 2008).
The narrative presented by some dissenters is that the scientific consensus is '...on the point of collapse'(Oddie 2012) while '...the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year'(Allègre et al 2012). A systematic, comprehensive review of the literature provides quantitative evidence countering this assertion. The number of papers rejecting AGW is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.
I really have been struggling to summon up much enthusiasm for the
inanities of John Cook's paper, but Brandon Schollenberger has
written an extraordinary analysis of the data , which really has to be
seen to be believed. Readers are no doubt aware that the paper
involves rating abstracts of a whole bunch of research papers to see
where they stand on the global warming question.
The guidelines for rating [the] abstracts show only the highest
rating value blames the majority of global warming on humans.
No other rating says how much humans contribute to global
warming. The only time an abstract is rated as saying how much
humans contribute to global warming is if it mentions:
that human activity is a dominant influence or has caused
most of recent climate change (>50%).
If we use the system’s search feature for abstracts that meet this
requirement, we get 65 results. That is 65, out of the 12,000+
examined abstracts. Not only is that value incredibly small, it is
smaller than another value listed in the paper:
Reject AGW 0.7%(78)
Remembering AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming, or
global warming caused by humans, take a minute to let that sink
in. This study done by John Cook and others, praised by the
President of the United States, found more scientific publications
whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are
primarily to blame for it.
I'm speechless.
Read the whole thing.

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/5/17/coo...
Voluntarist

United States

#52714 May 17, 2013
Marcel Crok at Lucia's (Cook just lumped in the maybe, implied, etc
to make the 4000)
----------
Ok here are the numbers following Brandon’s search method:
Category 1: 65
Category 2: 934
Category 3: 2933
Category 4 (neutral): 7930 [the reported number, not Brandon's
method]
Category 5: 53
Category 6: 15
Category 7: 10
What Cook et al did is adding the numbers of category 1-3. In this
way you get the almost 4000 abstracts supposed to “endorse” AGW.
However of these 3932 abstracts (Brandon’s method) 2933 (75%) fall
in category 3. Now here http://www.skepticalscience.co .....guidelines
is the description of ratings in category 3:
3. Implicit Endorsement of AGW
3.1 Mitigation papers that examine GHG emission reduction or carbon
sequestration, linking it to climate change
3.2 Climate modelling papers that talks about emission scenarios
and subsequent warming or other climate impacts from increased CO2
in the abstract implicitly endorse that GHGs cause warming
3.3 Paleoclimate papers that link CO2 to climate change
3.4 Papers about climate policy (specifically mitigation of GHG
emissions) unless they restrict their focus to non-GHG issues like CFC
emissions in which case neutral
3.5 Modelling of increased CO2 effect on regional temperature – not
explicitly saying global warming but implying warming from CO2
3.6 Endorsement of IPCC findings is usually an implicit endorsement.
(updated this so it is more than just reference to IPCC but actual
endorsement of IPCC)
So the fair and meaningless result of their whole exercise is that 75%
of the abstracts that say something about AGW at all “link CO2 to
climate change” or “imply warming from CO2&#8243;.
Even the other >24% of category 2 is pretty meaningless:
2. Explicit Endorsement of AGW without quantification
2.1 Mention of anthropogenic global warming or anthropogenic
climate change as a given fact.
2.2 Mention of increased CO2 leading to higher temperatures without
including anthropogenic or reference to human influence/activity
relegates to implicit endorsement.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#52715 May 17, 2013
Voluntarist wrote:
<quoted text>
I really have been struggling to summon up much enthusiasm for the
inanities of John Cook's paper, but Brandon Schollenberger has
written an extraordinary analysis of the data , which really has to be
seen to be believed. Readers are no doubt aware that the paper
involves rating abstracts of a whole bunch of research papers to see
where they stand on the global warming question.
The guidelines for rating [the] abstracts show only the highest
rating value blames the majority of global warming on humans.
No other rating says how much humans contribute to global
warming. The only time an abstract is rated as saying how much
humans contribute to global warming is if it mentions:
that human activity is a dominant influence or has caused
most of recent climate change (>50%).
If we use the system’s search feature for abstracts that meet this
requirement, we get 65 results. That is 65, out of the 12,000+
examined abstracts. Not only is that value incredibly small, it is
smaller than another value listed in the paper:
Reject AGW 0.7%(78)
Remembering AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming, or
global warming caused by humans, take a minute to let that sink
in. This study done by John Cook and others, praised by the
President of the United States, found more scientific publications
whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are
primarily to blame for it.
I'm speechless.
Read the whole thing.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/5/17/coo...
Not impressed. For one thing there are no methods - just a narrative.

And secondly, noone is going to convince me that ONLY 65/12000 papers make the claim for AGW.

That is preposterous.

Reality check here.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#52716 May 17, 2013
Voluntarist wrote:
Marcel Crok at Lucia's (Cook just lumped in the maybe, implied, etc
to make the 4000)
----------
Ok here are the numbers following Brandon’s search method:
Category 1: 65
Category 2: 934
Category 3: 2933
Category 4 (neutral): 7930 [the reported number, not Brandon's
method]
Category 5: 53
Category 6: 15
Category 7: 10
What Cook et al did is adding the numbers of category 1-3. In this
way you get the almost 4000 abstracts supposed to “endorse” AGW.
However of these 3932 abstracts (Brandon’s method) 2933 (75%) fall
in category 3. Now here http://www.skepticalscience.co .....guidelines
is the description of ratings in category 3:
3. Implicit Endorsement of AGW
3.1 Mitigation papers that examine GHG emission reduction or carbon
sequestration, linking it to climate change
3.2 Climate modelling papers that talks about emission scenarios
and subsequent warming or other climate impacts from increased CO2
in the abstract implicitly endorse that GHGs cause warming
3.3 Paleoclimate papers that link CO2 to climate change
3.4 Papers about climate policy (specifically mitigation of GHG
emissions) unless they restrict their focus to non-GHG issues like CFC
emissions in which case neutral
3.5 Modelling of increased CO2 effect on regional temperature – not
explicitly saying global warming but implying warming from CO2
3.6 Endorsement of IPCC findings is usually an implicit endorsement.
(updated this so it is more than just reference to IPCC but actual
endorsement of IPCC)
So the fair and meaningless result of their whole exercise is that 75%
of the abstracts that say something about AGW at all “link CO2 to
climate change” or “imply warming from CO2&#8243;.
Even the other >24% of category 2 is pretty meaningless:
2. Explicit Endorsement of AGW without quantification
2.1 Mention of anthropogenic global warming or anthropogenic
climate change as a given fact.
2.2 Mention of increased CO2 leading to higher temperatures without
including anthropogenic or reference to human influence/activity
relegates to implicit endorsement.
At the very end, there is no way you are ever going to come up with 11935/12000 scientific papers that dodge the issue

You can spin as much as it titillates you...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Pinos Altos Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Do you have VERIZON and you didn't have service... Dec 13 yankeedudell 2
Experience Victorian Christmas tonight at Silve... (Dec '09) Dec 9 billie 4
Dr. Twana Sparks (Dec '09) Dec 9 MSGT Don 49
* the Silver City Daily Press * Dec 9 billie 1
Getting into the spirit of Christmas, a look at... Dec 9 billie 1
Grant Co.---rotten corner of NM (Sep '11) Dec 7 Insect Trust 44
Their view: No clear gain in dispute over Falkl... (Mar '10) Nov '14 Realist 615
Pinos Altos Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Pinos Altos People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Pinos Altos News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Pinos Altos

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 3:06 pm PST

Bleacher Report 3:06PM
Peyton: I Plan on Being Back in 2015
NBC Sports 3:10 PM
Rookie Thomas becomes 4th Cardinals QB of season - NBC Sports
NBC Sports 9:56 PM
Peyton Manning fully participates in practice
Bleacher Report12:18 AM
How Ronnie Hillman Can Spark Broncos Offense Heading into Playoffs
Bleacher Report 2:15 AM
Should New England Patriots Rest Key Starters in Week 17?