What Do We Think About Climate Change

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by wardd

aren't they the ones that use them nasty mines the pop up crotch high then explode?

No, that's the Bouncing Betty tribe.

[wardd]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

No, that's the Bouncing Betty tribe.

it is miserable walking in the weeds with them about

and we used to call them step and a half

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by wardd

are you going to take that bos?

he called you charming and funny

I think there was a noun too.

[wardd]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

I think there was a noun too.

i can't fault him when he tells the truth

[Boston]

Originally Posted by wardd

are you going to take that bos?

he called you charming and funny

Ward

When he kicks in with whitty then maybe I'll take notice

Deel is our own little oil and gas company shill wants records so mearly restating the obvious won't shut him up. Course no other form of embarrassment seems to have worked so I'm not so sure why this one will

Anyway G your going to have to step it up a bit cause obviously your deliberate attempts to confuse the readers aren't working when good people are handy to expose the errors and misrepresentations.

You might find a little honesty goes a long way and your expectations of dishonesty reflect far more on your own character or lack there of than on anyone elses

Now then
Isn't it about time for another round of find the flaw
I'm waiting
Not sure what the page count is but your something like 0 for 9000

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by Boston

Ward

When he kicks in with whitty then maybe I'll take notice

Deel is our own little oil and gas company shill wants records so mearly restating the obvious won't shut him up. Course no other form of embarrassment seems to have worked so I'm not so sure why this one will

Anyway G your going to have to step it up a bit cause obviously your deliberate attempts to confuse the readers aren't working when good people are handy to expose the errors and misrepresentations.

You might find a little honesty goes a long way and your expectations of dishonesty reflect far more on your own character or lack there of than on anyone elses

Now then
Isn't it about time for another round of find the flaw
I'm waiting
Not sure what the page count is but your something like 0 for 9000

Again, your numbers are wrong.

[Marco1]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

............ The Nobel Peace Prize notwithstanding, questions regarding bias and the corruptibility of the IPCC’s consensus-based assessment process are of substantial concern.

I completely agree with Oppenheimer’s assessment that at this point, a complete characterization of uncertainty is more important than consensus. While I understand the policy makers’ desire for a clear message from the scientists, at this point the consensus approach being used by the IPCC doesn’t seem to be up to challenge of an accurate portrayal of the complexities of the problem and the uncertainties.

While the public may not understand the complexity of the science and may not be culturally predisposed to accept the consensus, they can certainly understand the vociferous arguments over the science that are portrayed by the media. It is my hypothesis that better characterization of uncertainty and a more realistic portrayal of confidence levels would go a long way towards reducing the “noise” and animosity portrayed in the media that fuels the public distrust of climate science and acts to stymie the policy process.........etc
[/url]

Throughout human history, from the early witch doctors, through the religious founders and later religious organisations, passing through the kings and later the revolutionaries, and later more the inventors of new political orders and assorted social engineers, a large portion of humanity has always lounged for someone to make decisions for them.
"I believe in XYZ" is the expression of such need. Faith is in fact the act of believing what can not be seen nor proven, and is clearly not relegated only to the realm of religion.

With such historical baggage it is little surprise that a new belief has arisen complete with witch doctors, leaders and followers all falling into the places that most need them to be. Humanity is ready for a new belief and this fits the bill.

As usual and as always in history, the heads of the movement have huge interest, their army of witch doctors depend on their favours and will chant and dance at the tune they are told. The "facts" and the "science" are completely secondary to the main play and only background decoration, stage decor and used to prop the main story.

The main story goes as follows:
I ( the kings in this play ) have your (populace) interest at heart.
I know better what is good for you.
I will save the earth from the sinners.
Trust me, believe in me and you will be saved.
The scriptures ( science) are written in Latin but trust me they say you must repent from your bad ways in order to save the planet.
Eventually you will see the light and we will live happily ever after. Start paying your tributes, venerate your witch doctors, and believe, believe and repent. Whoever tells you otherwise is anathema and must be eliminated from the book. His penalty is oblivion.

This play has been staged throughout human history, mutatis mutandis it is the same every time. False, biased, full of backstage back stabbings, outright lies and distortions of reality yet with the same old target. Consolidation of power, taming the populace into thinking they are on the side of the winner, and getting them to pay to support the lifestyle and power needs of the few.

Save the planet!

[Boston]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

Again, your numbers are wrong.

Ok
9877

At the time of my post assuming the oil and gas shills have been here from the start

Looks like I need to write a letter

Disclosure Outside of MIT.* As a general rule, individually identifiable information contained in a student’s education records may be disclosed to persons outside of MIT only with the student’s prior, written consent. MIT discloses education records without a student’s consent to other schools in which the student seeks enrollment or is enrolled. The student has the right, upon request, to a copy of the records disclosed to another school. Although parents normally are not entitled to review students’ education records without the students’ consent, appropriate MIT representatives may consult with parents and others in emergencies when health and safety issues so require. Disclosure may also be made without consent to government agencies or in accordance with legal process only to the extent required by law.

[hoytedow]

[Boston]

Ya this going to end up being done by letter

*
There isn’t a clear answer to this question.* Given the current state of technology, it is important to understand that email is not a secure means of transmitting information unless it is encrypted.* It’s more like sending a postcard than mailing a sealed letter.* On the other hand, email is convenient and its use is commonplace.* We suggest using email with an amount of caution that is proportionate to the sensitivity of its contents.* It’s always best if you can ascertain that the student whose information you wish to send understands and consents to the security risks entailed before you send the information by email.* It’s also strongly advisable to minimize the identifiability of the student as much as possible.* For example, if the recipient will already know about whom you are writing, there is no need to include the student’s identity. In some cases, the student’s initials or first name may be sufficient.* Try not to use sensitive words like “grades,”* “academic difficulty,” “financial hold,” “disciplinary action,” “CAP,” “COD,” etc., in your headers.* We strongly suggest that email not be used at all for sending batches of sensitive data such as lists of students’ grades or ID numbers.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Marco1

Throughout human history, from the early witch doctors, through the religious founders and later religious organisations, passing through the kings and later the revolutionaries, and later more the inventors of new political orders and assorted social engineers, a large portion of humanity has always lounged for someone to make decisions for them.
"I believe in XYZ" is the expression of such need. Faith is in fact the act of believing what can not be seen nor proven, and is clearly not relegated only to the realm of religion.

With such historical baggage it is little surprise that a new belief has arisen complete with witch doctors, leaders and followers all falling into the places that most need them to be. Humanity is ready for a new belief and this fits the bill.

As usual and as always in history, the heads of the movement have huge interest, their army of witch doctors depend on their favours and will chant and dance at the tune they are told. The "facts" and the "science" are completely secondary to the main play and only background decoration, stage decor and used to prop the main story.

The main story goes as follows:
I ( the kings in this play ) have your (populace) interest at heart.
I know better what is good for you.
I will save the earth from the sinners.
Trust me, believe in me and you will be saved.
The scriptures ( science) are written in Latin but trust me they say you must repent from your bad ways in order to save the planet.
Eventually you will see the light and we will live happily ever after. Start paying your tributes, venerate your witch doctors, and believe, believe and repent. Whoever tells you otherwise is anathema and must be eliminated from the book. His penalty is oblivion.

This play has been staged throughout human history, mutatis mutandis it is the same every time. False, biased, full of backstage back stabbings, outright lies and distortions of reality yet with the same old target. Consolidation of power, taming the populace into thinking they are on the side of the winner, and getting them to pay to support the lifestyle and power needs of the few.

Save the planet!

Ahh...you're rolling out the old "science is just another religion" argument again.

No. It isn't. Religion is faith: a presumed knowledge of what is in reality unknowable, and the substitution of belief for proof.

Science, on the other hand, is independent of faith. It is "...any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a correct prediction, or reliably-predictable type of outcome."

Trying to relegate scientific knowledge or procedure to the realm of superstition or religion is an implicit admission that you're unable to rationally refute it...and quite likely unable to even understand it.

[Guillermo]

They gave the Nobel prize to Al Gore, instead to Irena Sendler.
Shame on them!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irena_Sendler

[Guillermo]

Boston,
Once and for all post here your school credentials or whatever you have (if you have credentials at all) and stop trying to slip away with idiotic posts, please.
The more you try to dodge the issue the more evident becomes your liar and coward attitude.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

They gave the Nobel prize to Al Gore, instead to Irena Sendler.
Shame on them!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irena_Sendler

For starters, they didn't just give Gore the Prize in 2007: it was awarded jointly to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and to Gore, "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change."

And granted, Sendler was a hero. But it's the Nobel 'Peace' Prize, not the Nobel 'Hero' Prize.

According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded to the person who “ ...shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

Judging by that, I don't see that Sendler qualified for the Peace Prize any more than Gore did. Did she work for fraternity between nations? What did she do towards the abolition of standing armies? How many peace congresses did she promote? Her heroism had no impact on peaceful relations between nations. On the other hand, one could at least make a case that Gore and the IPCC are encouraging fraternity between nations, by encouraging them to cooperate and work together against global warming.

What's your point? Are you trying to tell us that the Nobel Peace Prize committee is also part of the conspiracy to promote global warming?

[Guillermo]

Some more precise numbers on consensus from two works, although the number of responses are very low compared with the number of climate scientists invited to answer the polls.


CliSci2008: A Survey of the Perspectives of Climate Scientists Concerning Climate Science and Climate Change
Authors:
D. Bray
H. von Storch
(Institute of Coastal Research)

http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pd...0_9.CLISCI.pdf

Abstract
This report presents the findings of a surveys of climate scientists' perceptions of the global warming issue. The survey was conducted in 2008. The surveys investigate the means by which scientific conclusions are reached and the climate scientists interpretations of what these conclusions might mean.


The survey employed a non-probability convenience sample. Convenience sampling provides an inexpensive approximation of truth. Quite simply, the sample is selected because it is convenient. The respondents were ‘preselected’ in as much as they were included as they met specific criteria, i.e. had authored papers concerning climate change and published them in significant climate science journals, were currently employed in climate research institutes or have previously been used to present publishable results concerning climate change consensus among scientists


The combined invitation list numbered a potential 2677 respondents; defunct email addresses reduced the valid mail out to 2059. The response rate for ISI authors list was approximately 27%, for Oreskes’ list, approximately 10%, and from the Institute list, approximately 19%, for a combined response rate of 18% (375 responses).


Also on the same matter:

Is there agreement amongst climate scientists on the IPCC AR4 WG1?

Fergus W.M. Brown, CPE, UCLAN, Preston, UK
Roger A. Pielke Sr. CIRES, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO
James D. Annan, FRCGC/JAMSTEC, Yokohama, Japan,

http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpr...9/09/brown.pdf

We have undertaken a poll of scientists' opinions in which authors
of climate papers in the journals: Geophysical Research Letters (2007), Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (2007), Climate of the Past (2007), the Journal of Atmospheric Science (2007) and the Journal of Climate (2007), and authors of presentations (oral and poster) in the 2007 AGU and 2007 EGU General Assemblies, as provided in online schedules for these events, were invited to expres their opinion.

In our poll, there were 140 responses out of the 1807 who were contacted by the first author.

The results are quite informative. No scientists were willing to admit to the statement that global warming is a fabrication and that human activity is not having any significant effect on climate [0%]. In total, 18% responded that the IPCC AR4 WG1 Report probably overstates the role of CO2, or exaggerates the risks implied by focusing on CO2-dominated Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), to a greater or lesser degree. A further 17% expressed the opinion that the Report probably underestimates or seriously underestimates the consequences of anthropogenic CO2-induced AGW and that the associated risks are more severe than is implied in the report. The remaining 65% expressed some degree of concurrence with the report's science basis, of which the largest group [47% of all respondents] selected option 5.

From the initial response, we conclude that:
1. The largest group of respondents (45-50%) concur with the IPCC perspective as given in the 2007 Report.
2. A significant minority (15-20%), however, conclude that the IPCC understated the seriousness of the threat from human additions of CO2.
3. A significant minority (15-20%), in contrast, conclude that the IPCC overstated the role of human additions of CO2 relative to other climate forcings.
4. Almost all respondents (at least 97%) conclude that the human addition of CO2 into the atmosphere is an important component of the climate system and has contributed to some extent in recent observed global average warming.