|
|
Â
|
| Quote: |
| Don’t look now, but concussions have become the new global warming: a debate where “consensus” trumps evidence, and heroes and villains are determined by their stances on an issue where the science is bogus at worst and murky at best. Enter NFL linebacker Chris Borland, who announced his retirement from the game after only one year, citing concerns about his health. Borland decided playing the game was no longer “worth the risk.” He said he didn’t want to end up like former NFL players Dave Duerson, Ray Easterling, and Mike Webster, all of whom were diagnosed with CTE and had either committed suicide or suffered otherwise early deaths. Borland’s announcement was greeted by the anti-football sports media with the kind of frantic clapping one only hears in the seal enclosure at the aquarium during feeding time—a cacophony of crazy that borders on hero/idol worship. Don’t get me wrong: the NFL is a revolving door, and Borland has the right to let that door take him in or out. I also give him credit for being one of the relatively few twenty-four-year-olds capable of comprehending issues more complex than whether their T-shirt is ironic enough. But Chris Borland shouldn’t be a hero. He made a career choice. Millions do it every day, and none gets a parade. |
As opposed to the people who deny climate change because policies to slow down CC cost them money and keep them from being richer and more powerful. Or they're denying CC because someone is paying them to say that.
Quote:
thread on this subject I said that I believe in global warming and that man has a part in it although I don't know how much. I also asked those throwing around this 97% number where it came from, what it very specifically means and the methodology behind establishing this number. Got no response. Link to the survey? Am I a science denying caveman for asking this question?
No, only if you ignore it. Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
uintentionally proves how stupid you become when you rely on Fox news. Just look at how convinced he is that he's right when he makes that statement. That's a truly scary combination of ignorance and arrogance.
But all of those fancy graphs and "facts" trying to prove him wrong are a waste of time - he and his Fox news watching friends just KNOW they are right and all evidence to the contrary is just part of a liberal conspiracy to profit from a fake "crisis."
And this is why my grandkids will get to live to see humanity implode when we hit something like a 6 - 8 celsius degree increase in global temperature - because we got a bunch of fucking morons like MM going around electing US Senators who disprove global warming by bringing a snowball onto the floor of the Senate.
God help us all.
Thank goodness we have MSNBC for the unbiased truth on everything.
Who made that statement on this, or any other, thread?
Rolling Stone - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12206345 Big Al said:
Quote:
thread on this subject I said that I believe in global warming and that man has a part in it although I don't know how much. I also asked those throwing around this 97% number where it came from, what it very specifically means and the methodology behind establishing this number. Got no response. Link to the survey? Am I a science denying caveman for asking this question?
No, only if you ignore it. Link - ( New Window )
I am not disagreeing with what the link said. It just does not answer the question I asked.
It does if you know how to read a footnote.
Quote:
In comment 12206351 Chris in Philly said:
Quote:
In comment 12206345 Big Al said:
Quote:
thread on this subject I said that I believe in global warming and that man has a part in it although I don't know how much. I also asked those throwing around this 97% number where it came from, what it very specifically means and the methodology behind establishing this number. Got no response. Link to the survey? Am I a science denying caveman for asking this question?
No, only if you ignore it. Link - ( New Window )
I am not disagreeing with what the link said. It just does not answer the question I asked.
It does if you know how to read a footnote.
Quote:
In comment 12206760 Big Al said:
Quote:
In comment 12206351 Chris in Philly said:
Quote:
In comment 12206345 Big Al said:
Quote:
thread on this subject I said that I believe in global warming and that man has a part in it although I don't know how much. I also asked those throwing around this 97% number where it came from, what it very specifically means and the methodology behind establishing this number. Got no response. Link to the survey? Am I a science denying caveman for asking this question?
No, only if you ignore it. Link - ( New Window )
I am not disagreeing with what the link said. It just does not answer the question I asked.
It does if you know how to read a footnote.
Which one? There are 14 footnotes and I do not see the number 97 in any of them.
Ok. I guess you don't know how to read a footnote. (Hint: I am not going and doing a literature search for you.)
He also used it as some ridiculous theory as to why GW was changed to Climate Change. He is wrong about that, and the 20 year talking point he threw out there
Quote:
In comment 12206841 Chris in Philly said:
Quote:
In comment 12206760 Big Al said:
Quote:
In comment 12206351 Chris in Philly said:
Quote:
In comment 12206345 Big Al said:
Quote:
thread on this subject I said that I believe in global warming and that man has a part in it although I don't know how much. I also asked those throwing around this 97% number where it came from, what it very specifically means and the methodology behind establishing this number. Got no response. Link to the survey? Am I a science denying caveman for asking this question?
No, only if you ignore it. Link - ( New Window )
I am not disagreeing with what the link said. It just does not answer the question I asked.
It does if you know how to read a footnote.
Which one? There are 14 footnotes and I do not see the number 97 in any of them.
Ok. I guess you don't know how to read a footnote. (Hint: I am not going and doing a literature search for you.)
Link - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
So it is 97% of 33% (the number of reviews with AGW).
"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."
Capiche?
Quote:
In comment 12206867 Big Al said:
Quote:
In comment 12206841 Chris in Philly said:
Quote:
In comment 12206760 Big Al said:
Quote:
In comment 12206351 Chris in Philly said:
Quote:
In comment 12206345 Big Al said:
Quote:
thread on this subject I said that I believe in global warming and that man has a part in it although I don't know how much. I also asked those throwing around this 97% number where it came from, what it very specifically means and the methodology behind establishing this number. Got no response. Link to the survey? Am I a science denying caveman for asking this question?
No, only if you ignore it. Link - ( New Window )
I am not disagreeing with what the link said. It just does not answer the question I asked.
It does if you know how to read a footnote.
Which one? There are 14 footnotes and I do not see the number 97 in any of them.
Ok. I guess you don't know how to read a footnote. (Hint: I am not going and doing a literature search for you.)
No problem. You owe me nothing in doing any literature search for me. However anyone citing this number lacks credibility to me without providing the backup. Hopefully the next person who cites the 97 % number can actually provide the statistical evidence.
The backup is there in the footnotes. Jesus. Footnote number 1, which corresponds to the relevant passage, lists 3 journal articles, including one in PNAS, one of the most rigorous scientific journals in the world. Look up the papers.
This is how footnotes work. But since you have decided to be purposely obstinate, I'll do a little work for you. Here is the most relevant passage from PNAS, which is the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. Perhaps you have heard of the National Academy of Science.
I know, more liberal clap trap. Who cares about a group of Stanford and U. Toronto researchers who get published in one of the top 3 scientific journals in the world.
Capiche?
Yes - I see. We throw out all papers that don't have an opinion on AGW even though they have an opinion on Global Warming.
So of the 11944 papers on global warming analyzed, we only accept the ones that mention AGW which is only 33.6% of the original amount. Of that 33.6%, 97.1 % say global warming is caused by humans.
So it is 97% of 33% of the studies.
"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 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."
Quote:
You start with all the papers that talk about the climate. You subtract out the ones that don't express a view on human-based global warming one way or another, because they are about different topics. If I'm looking for opinions on whether wood burns, I take out studies of wood carving. So, it's 97% of 100%.
Capiche?
Yes - I see. We throw out all papers that don't have an opinion on AGW even though they have an opinion on Global Warming.
So of the 11944 papers on global warming analyzed, we only accept the ones that mention AGW which is only 33.6% of the original amount. Of that 33.6%, 97.1 % say global warming is caused by humans.
So it is 97% of 33% of the studies.
"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 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."
It's a fucking shame. I have political leanings but if "my side" is off about an issue, I have the balls to deviate. Towing party lines is damned lazy.
Seriously. How can you reason with someone who won't admit the sun rises in the East and sets in the West? MM man KNOWS there's no such thing as global warming because Sean Hannity told him so and that's the end of the story.
We had a US Senator attempt to disprove global warming by bringing a snowball onto the floor of the Senate. You can't reason with batshit crazy. Stop wasting your time with these guys.
Quote:
In comment 12205954 x meadowlander said:
Quote:
...which appeared to be abnormally high, took until 05' to be surpassed, but recent years have beaten it.
We're baking dude.
Here - see, in 08', deniers called that a 'pause'. (2014 isn't on this graph, and was the hottest on record)
So that is one degree up and one degree down right (1- to 1), that's the whole graph?
I'm not teaching a course on the subject.
You know what they call it when people degree with 97% of subject matter experts on virtually ANY other topic?
A CONSPIRACY THEORY.
Please understand exactly what the implications are in the case where you 'deniers' are in fact, incorrect. If the 97% and I am incorrect, it may arguably cause some economic strain. In the case where you're wrong? Incalculable human suffering. For the life of me, I can't understand how people wouldn't even support the Climatologists out of a sheer safety standpoint, but playing politics ALWAYS seems to trump every issue.
Huh? I'm not a denier. I believe that climate change happens. I also believe that both scientists and non-scientists claim a lot of stuff that's false about the world. You can accept both at the same time.
Who the fuck do you think wrote the papers? Amateurs?
No, it's the experts in the field.
It's EXACTLY what you asked for.
Quote:
In comment 12205997 Moondawg said:
Quote:
In comment 12205954 x meadowlander said:
Quote:
...which appeared to be abnormally high, took until 05' to be surpassed, but recent years have beaten it.
We're baking dude.
Here - see, in 08', deniers called that a 'pause'. (2014 isn't on this graph, and was the hottest on record)
So that is one degree up and one degree down right (1- to 1), that's the whole graph?
I'm not teaching a course on the subject.
You know what they call it when people degree with 97% of subject matter experts on virtually ANY other topic?
A CONSPIRACY THEORY.
Please understand exactly what the implications are in the case where you 'deniers' are in fact, incorrect. If the 97% and I am incorrect, it may arguably cause some economic strain. In the case where you're wrong? Incalculable human suffering. For the life of me, I can't understand how people wouldn't even support the Climatologists out of a sheer safety standpoint, but playing politics ALWAYS seems to trump every issue.
Huh? I'm not a denier. I believe that climate change happens. I also believe that both scientists and non-scientists claim a lot of stuff that's false about the world. You can accept both at the same time.
Sorry, banged that out too quick. I also believe that laypersons like me have to trust consensus in science. We have little else to go on.
Quote:
think it's misleading. pretty sure it means worst drought in 500 years.
Ok probably that is what it means. Droughts are not uncommon. Georgia just had a one severe one a few years back. FL had one for a couple years. Lake Okeechobee almost "dried up". Remember the dust bowl era of the 30's through almost the entire mid-west?
Throughout history weather patterns have changed causing fertile areas to die. Man had nothing to do with those. That is where skepticism comes from. We take a few decades of data, pronounce the end of the world and move on. Again, in the 60's scientists were saying that we were 1 deg C from the return of the Ice Age.
Very hard to take things seriously when data is skewed, on either side of the agenda.
Man had nothing to do with the dust bowl? You're kidding, right?
I have merely stated that the analysis says 97% of 33% of the papers on global warming/climate change. I quoted the analysis twice for you. I haven't tried to disprove anything but your mathematics.
If that is silly, great I'm silly.
And please do not ever mention me with Ted Cruz in a statement again. I wouldn't vote for him with your ballot. He's as distasteful as Harry Reid and not nearly a slick.
Quote:
This backs up the statement that 97% of published papers that express an opinion. support the man made global warming opinion. However, it does not support the often stated comment thar 97 % of experts in the field support this opinion. although my guess is most do in a large majority.
Who the fuck do you think wrote the papers? Amateurs?
No, it's the experts in the field.
It's EXACTLY what you asked for.
Al, being deliberately obtuse is beneath you.
Hey Montana. Again, personally I accept climate change. But it's not accurate to say that it's "common sense" or "obvious". It is a theory removed from direct experience of people for the most part, and due to scientific findings that are removed from most people's experience.
This doesn't undermine it at all. But there are some people who aren't idiots who don't like the way it is easily politicized by non-climate-scientists and want to push back at the way it's become part of a kind of secular piety advanced by people with no real knowledge of science and worse, by idiot politicians who will claim anything is a result of climate change. II feel like that personally (and hope I'm a non-idiot), while still accepting that as a non-expert, I have little recourse other than going along with the consensus and the experts broadly accept climate change. (By "broadly" I mean that we don't have to accept every single thing said all the time, like "hey, this is due to climate change" as such things don't always represent consensus.)
IMHO, for most people, denial or acceptance have to do with their chosen cultural and political loyalties more than any serious understanding of science. And if their loyalties changed, so would their take on the "science" (for a reverse of the response to climate change, we can look at the thread on BBI where people on the far left (and not all or most of them) have an emotional problem with GMO's despite science, not because of it).
Just some thoughts. Not on a side or for a side. I'm also tired and probably providing thoughts both banal and unhelpful.
So stupid. Just so very stupid.
Now that you've provided a concise, succinct description of yourself, what's next on the agenda...the Iran nuclear treaty?
Quote:
Its common fucking sense backed by a vast majority of science. The only thing that seems to be tough is that those who keep denying the obvious, have a habit of ignoring the facts regarding this issue
Hey Montana. Again, personally I accept climate change. But it's not accurate to say that it's "common sense" or "obvious". It is a theory removed from direct experience of people for the most part, and due to scientific findings that are removed from most people's experience.
This doesn't undermine it at all. But there are some people who aren't idiots who don't like the way it is easily politicized by non-climate-scientists and want to push back at the way it's become part of a kind of secular piety advanced by people with no real knowledge of science and worse, by idiot politicians who will claim anything is a result of climate change. II feel like that personally (and hope I'm a non-idiot), while still accepting that as a non-expert, I have little recourse other than going along with the consensus and the experts broadly accept climate change. (By "broadly" I mean that we don't have to accept every single thing said all the time, like "hey, this is due to climate change" as such things don't always represent consensus.)
IMHO, for most people, denial or acceptance have to do with their chosen cultural and political loyalties more than any serious understanding of science. And if their loyalties changed, so would their take on the "science" (for a reverse of the response to climate change, we can look at the thread on BBI where people on the far left (and not all or most of them) have an emotional problem with GMO's despite science, not because of it).
Just some thoughts. Not on a side or for a side. I'm also tired and probably providing thoughts both banal and unhelpful.
Fair enough Dawg..I can say your take on it is pretty much right
That science stuff ruined your day didn't it?
How does that work?
No. If you disagree with 97% of subject-matter experts, you are a conspiracy theorist.
Quote:
MM did NOT say there no increase. He said no significant increase. There's a big difference.
He also used it as some ridiculous theory as to why GW was changed to Climate Change. He is wrong about that, and the 20 year talking point he threw out there
When you start paying attention to the commentators and the pundits and especially the environmentalists, almost all of them say climate change, not global warming. Keep an eye out and get back to me.
Definitions:
Global warming: the increase in Earth’s average surface temperature due to rising levels of greenhouse gases.
Climate change: a long-term change in the Earth’s climate, or of a region on Earth.
Within scientific journals, this is still how the two terms are used...But temperature change itself isn't the most severe effect of changing climate. Changes to precipitation patterns and sea level are likely to have much greater human impact than the higher temperatures alone. For this reason, scientific research on climate change encompasses far more than surface temperature change. So "global climate change" is the more scientifically accurate term. Like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we've chosen to emphasize global climate change on this website, and not global warming.
So, MM, what exactly is your point, in this context?
Link - ( New Window )
I look at the progress we, as a country, have made in this area since the 60's. Cleaning up the Hudson, acid rain, L.A. smog days, and on and on. Since 2005, co2 emissions are on a downward trend. Link below.
i don't care if it's 97% of 35% or 12% on 100%. it doesn't matter. Fact is we are taking better care of this rock we call home. As technology evolves, we will get better. We'll get there, just won't be tomorrow.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12206287 Peter in Atl said:
Quote:
MM did NOT say there no increase. He said no significant increase. There's a big difference.
He also used it as some ridiculous theory as to why GW was changed to Climate Change. He is wrong about that, and the 20 year talking point he threw out there
When you start paying attention to the commentators and the pundits and especially the environmentalists, almost all of them say climate change, not global warming. Keep an eye out and get back to me.
I do keep my eye out, the difference between us though is that i watch more then one TV channel
I don't think we're doing a better job of protectiing the planet than in the bad old industrial US days. Air pollution in industrial China an example of how things have gotten worse.
So many people. How long is that sustainable? How long is that sustainable if populations continue to grow?
I don't think we're doing a better job of protectiing the planet than in the bad old industrial US days. Air pollution in industrial China an example of how things have gotten worse.
So many people. How long is that sustainable? How long is that sustainable if populations continue to grow?
I did say what ever the population is now.
I'm talking the United States. We have no control over what other countries do or don't do.
We, America, have come along way. That's a positive.
I understand how "climate change" is a more accurate moniker, but the "global warming" name did call to one's attention the intractable nature of the problem.
At worst case it's a runaway freight train with potentially disasterous consequences both short and long term. And it's hard to envision a solution with aspiring populations growing world wide.